Floor Statements

Everything Mary L. Landrieu said on the floor, from the Congressional Record

Statements

1193

House Floor

Senate Floor

1193

Extensions

Showing 15 of 1193 statements

Senate Floor·April 1, 2004·p. S3544-S3557
Personal Responsibility And Individual Development For Everyone Act--
Madam President, I rise with my colleague from Tennessee, to recognize the introduction of legislation in the House of Representatives today by Congressmen Don Young of Alaska and George Miller of California. The Get Outdoors Act is…
Madam President, I rise with my colleague from Tennessee, to recognize the introduction of legislation in the House of Representatives today by Congressmen Don Young of Alaska and George Miller of California. The Get Outdoors Act is similar to an effort that many of us in the House and Senate were involved in during the 106th Congress.
I am particularly pleased to be joined by Senator Alexander to announce our intention to introduce similar legislation in the Senate in the coming weeks.
The principles and concepts within this legislation from the 106th Congress were then and continue today to be one of the most significant conservation efforts ever considered by Congress. Our goal is to provide a steady, reliable stream of revenue to fund some of the most urgent conservation needs in the country.
The Get Outdoors Act, or GO Act, as the House bill will be referred to, is almost identical to the legislation considered by the House and Senate in the 106th Congress. That legislation had overwhelming bipartisan support. It was a landmark, multi-year commitment to conservation programs benefitting all 50 States.
The legislation we will be introducing uses a conservation royalty earned from the production of oil and gas off the Outer Continental Shelf for the protection and enhancement of our natural and cultural heritage, threatened coastal areas and wildlife habitat. It also reinvests in our local communities and provides for our children and grandchildren through enhanced outdoor recreational activities.
By enacting this legislation, we can ensure that we are making the most significant commitment of resources to conservation ever and ensure a positive legacy of protecting and enhancing cultural, natural, and recreational resources for Americans today and in the future.
As many of our colleagues will remember, during the 106th Congress the House of Representatives passed almost identical legislation by a vote of 315 to 102 and the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources reported a similar version that had the support of both the Chairman and Ranking Member.
In addition, in September of 2000, a bipartisan group of 63 Senators sent a letter to the majority and minority leaders indicating their support to bring the bill to the floor. The effort was supported by Governors, Mayors and a coalition of over 5,000 organizations from throughout the country.
Unfortunately, despite that tremendous and unprecedented network of people who came together in support of the legislation, our efforts were cut short before a Bill could be signed into law. Instead a commitment was made by those who opposed the legislation to guarantee funding for these programs each year through the appropriation process.
However, as we have painfully witnessed since then, that commitment has not been honored. What has happened is exactly what those of us who initiated the effort always anticipated. Each of these significant programs has been shortchanged and a number of them have left out altogether or forced to compete with each other for scarce resources. So, today, the House has taken a great step to introduce similar legislation. The principle of the bill Senator Alexander and I will soon introduce provides a reliable, significant and steady stream of revenue for the urgent conservation and outdoor recreation needs of our rapidly growing cities.
If we were to look at a map of the country and put lights where most of the population is, we would see a bright ring around the country because two-thirds of our population reside within 50 miles of our coasts. As a Senator from a coastal State, I understand the pressures that confront many of our coastal communities.
Today, with the price of oil near a 13-year high we should channel some of those revenues and re-invest them in our natural resources.
Some of the programs in the legislation we plan to introduce will include: impact assistance, coastal conservation and fishery enhancement for all coastal States and eligible local governments and to mitigate the various impacts of producing States that serve as the ``platform'' for the crucial development of Federal offshore energy resources from the Outer Continental Shelf. It does not reward drilling, but it does acknowledge the impacts to and the contributions of States that are providing the energy to run the country; flexible and stable funding for the State and Federal sides of the Land and Water Conservation Fund while protecting the rights of private property owners and with a particular emphasis on alleviating the maintenance backlog confronting our national parks; wildlife conservation, education and restoration through the successful program of Pittman- Robertson; urban parks and recreation recovery to rehabilitate and develop recreation programs, sites and facilities enabling cities and towns to focus on enhancing the quality of life for populations within our more densely inhabited areas by providing more green-spaces, more playgrounds and ball fields for our youth and the parents and community leaders that support them; historic preservation programs, including full funding of grants to the States, maintaining the National Register of Historic Places and administering the numerous historic preservation programs that are crucial to remember our proud past and fully funding the Payment In Lieu of Taxes program, or PILT, in order to compensate local governments, predominantly out west, for
losses to their tax bases because the Federal Government owns so much land in a number of those States.
While we confront the challenges of a war, budget deficits and a struggling economy, I believe it would be wise and we would show good stewardship to take this opportunity to set aside a small portion of the oil and gas royalties to our States and localities for initiatives such as outdoor spaces or recreation facilities where our children can play. The essence of this legislation, the American Outdoors Act, is to take the proceeds from a non-renewable resource for the purpose of reinvesting a portion of these revenues in the conservation and enhancement of our renewable resources.
We wanted to come to the floor today to share these ideas with our colleagues, to encourage their input and ask them to be a part of this unique conservation effort.
I would also like to add how much I appreciate the leadership of Senator Alexander. I think we will make a great team and thank him for his cosponsorship as we attempt to move this legislation through the process.
Madam President, I commend my colleague, the Senator from Tennessee, for his leadership--as I said, for not just this year and the years he has been in the Senate but for his years of service in Tennessee, and as Chairman of this important Commission that outlined some of the principles we are talking about and searching for solutions to today; and for his eloquence in reminding us that even more than good stewardship is required.
One particularly fresh idea that he has brought to this effort is the conservation royalty.
I think we can begin to see that the companies are not only paying a royalty to the Government, but they are paying a royalty to future generations through conservation. I think it is royalty they would gladly pay. We are not asking them to pay more than they are today. But a portion of what they pay today.
I thank the Senator for his leadership, and I look forward to getting, as we said, ideas from our colleagues, taking it to the Energy Committee and developing broad bipartisan support. Even in these days of tight budgets, we can think about setting aside a portion of these revenues which are not insignificant. As you know, last year we generated $6 billion off the coast primarily of Louisiana, Texas, Mississippi, and Alabama, while still honoring the moratorium that is in place along the western coasts the eastern coasts and Florida. Even honoring the moratorium in place, we still were able to generate billions of dollars. Hopefully through this legislation we can dedicate that conservation royalty, a portion, to the worthy causes.
I thank the Senator.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.
Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
S.Res. 327 S. 1731 S. 1737 S. 2274
Read full remarks Show lessCongressional Record
Senate Floor·April 1, 2004·p. S3568-S3588
Statements On Introduced Bills And Joint Resolutions
Mr. President, I rise to introduce and send to the desk the 21st Century Citizen Soldier Benefits Act which I introduce on behalf of myself. I thought I would take a moment this afternoon to outline the framework and the context of this…
Mr. President, I rise to introduce and send to the desk the 21st Century Citizen Soldier Benefits Act which I introduce on behalf of myself.
I thought I would take a moment this afternoon to outline the framework and the context of this bill because it has to do with our Armed Forces. It has to do with a very important component of our Armed Forces, which is our Guard and Reserve units, part of our total force, a very important part of that total force as I hope to outline.
This is an attempt to put before the Senate and the Congress a comprehensive bill--one that I find and I know people in Louisiana across party lines and in very energetic and enthusiastic ways support because the need is so great--to support our men and women in uniform, particularly our Guard and Reserve components.
If the war on terror is teaching us anything--and we are learning some tough lessons each and every day as we move forward through this war--we all know we cannot defend this Nation adequately without the strength provided by our National Guard and Reserves.
Since 9/11 when this country was attacked, the first time in this large measure since the attack on Pearl Harbor many years ago, over 355,000 guardsmen and reservists have been mobilized.
To give a grasp of that number, our Navy today, arguably the most powerful in the world, has 375,000 sailors. So in 2\1/2\ years, we have called up almost enough guardsmen and reservists to man every ship in the United States Navy. That is a lot of manpower and a lot of womanpower, and they deserve our very best effort. They are not just backfilling for Active Forces. They are serving on the front lines, as we have seen today how brutal those front lines can be. They are being wounded and killed just like our Active Forces. In fact, 97 of the 600 deaths in Iraq have been Guard and Reserve deaths.
Today 176,000 citizen soldiers wear the uniform full time, and that number, as I will show, is growing exponentially. By May 1, 40 percent of the
troops in Iraq will be members of the National Guard and Reserve. These are men and women who have full-time jobs, who are coaches, small business owners, policemen, firemen, State workers, and waiters and waitresses in our restaurants. They hold many jobs, but they are then called up. They take off their daily dress clothes and put on the uniform and go to the front lines to protect us.
In Louisiana, and I know this is true in Texas, thousands of men and women have been called up.
We have 3,051 reservists on active duty right now. Over 6,000 Louisiana reservists have been activated since 9/11. For many, their activation periods have unfortunately lasted, because of the demand on our troops, sometimes in excess of 18 months to 24 months. The 528th Engineering Battalion from Monroe, LA, recently deployed to Afghanistan, 500 Louisianans on their way serving already. Marine Reserve Company B of Bossier City, 150 Marines have just been put on alert for mobilization. Company B has already been mobilized before.
Last month, the Department of Defense put another 18,000 National Guardsmen on alert status, including 3,800 members from Louisiana's 256th Separate Infantry Brigade. I will be visiting their leaders on Monday, in Lafayette, LA, and be visiting with their families to talk about the separation that is going to occur and how we are doing as a nation, as a State, and as a community, to help them through this difficult time as they help, protect, and give us their very best in this war effort.
The National Guard and Reserve, as I said, make up now 45 percent of our forces. We simply cannot fight without them. Yet as I am going to explain, the benefits, their pensions, their compensation, their GI benefits, their retirement benefits, and even their burial benefits do not match with their level of service and do not match with the contribution they are, in fact, making.
I understand why because when the framework for the Guard and Reserves was initially put together, they were thought of as sort of a backup, as a filler.
They do other things as well other than, of course, fighting wars. They help our States mobilize at times of national and natural disasters. So I am clear, as are many of us, about why initially, as the Guard and Reserve was created and the framework developed, those rules and regulations were put into place back in the 1940s, in the 1960s, and in the 1970s.
In 2004, the times are different. The demands are great and they are meeting this challenge. As a Congress we need to meet them more than halfway.
Nearly 35,000 have been mobilized more than once. Imagine returning from Afghanistan, reuniting with your family, getting your business restarted, getting back into the desk you left before you went to serve, only to be told to get ready because you are leaving in another few months, get ready to ship out again.
We have a retention and recruiting crisis looming on the horizon. I would like to show the number of troops, reservists, who have been called up from 1953 through 1989, through the Berlin crisis of 1961, through the Cuban missile crisis, and the Vietnam war, we called up a total of 199,877, about 200,000, through all of this, three times in 40 years. Since 1990, in the last 14 years, we have called up 634,984--the Persian Gulf war, the intervention in Haiti, Bosnian peacekeeping, Operation Southern Watch, the Kosovo conflict, now our ongoing war on terrorism, which has many fronts, primarily in Afghanistan and in Iraq. That is unprecedented in terms of our recent history.
The question to us should be: Are we doing what we should as we are increasing our military budget substantially? I, for one, have supported each and every increase and almost argued in many instances for more money going to our military. What portion of that increase is going to the Guard and Reserve to make sure their pensions are intact, that when they retire their compensation is fair, that their families are cared for at least at a decent and adequate level while they serve us so magnificently and so beautifully? So we can see we are calling more and more on our Guard and Reserve.
I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record an excellent article that appeared in the Washington Post in January of this year by Mr. Vernon Loeb, a very excellent staff writer.
According to this reporter:
The head of the Army Reserve said yesterday that the
205,000-soldier force must guard against a potential crisis
in its ability to retain troops, saying serious problems are
being ``masked'' temporarily because reservists are barred
from leaving the military while their units are mobilized in
Iraq.
He goes on to say:
Lieutenant General Helmly told his subordinates that he was
``really tired of going to see our reserve soldiers [and
finding] they're short such simple things as goggles. It's
about damn time you listen to your lawyers less and your
conscience more. They will probably get me in trouble. But I
told them, I want this stuff fixed.''
Not only are these men and women being called up in unprecedented numbers, not only are they being prevented from leaving, which is masking a potential readiness crisis, but they are also not being provided with some of the basic tools, equipment, and body armor that they need to protect themselves; therefore, contributing to a state of unease.
Not that these guardsmen and reservists are not patriotic, not that they would not walk across hot coals, and in many instances they do every day to protect us, but we should at least be able to take these modest steps to make sure we are strengthening them and honoring their service to us.
The operations in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Kosovo are ongoing, with no end in sight. We do not know if emergent threats around the world will become real and embroil us in yet other military operations, partially because our Active Forces are stretched so thin we need to call up our Guard and Reserve, and yet because of this we could face a retention crisis.
As I said, the deployments are lengthy, the benefits and legal protections are not sufficient in many instances, and the equipment is lacking. So let us hope we can take steps through this legislation and others to fix this situation.
I hope the bill I offer today and sponsor today--and I look forward to many cosponsors joining on this bill--will improve the Guard and Reserve benefits, and legal protections. As I said, we are calling it the 21st Century Citizen Soldier Benefit Act.
We have had two major changes or improvements to the Guard and Reserve framework, one in 1940 and one in 1994. It is time, 10 years later, this year, 2004, with the unprecedented nature of their service, to step up this framework of support for our Guard and Reserve. It is time for Congress, in my opinion, to take a comprehensive look at the benefits and protections afforded to the members of the Guard and Reserve.
We have not done so since 1994. It is time that we do this. My bill does it in several ways.
First, we call for equal benefits for equal service in the area of burial benefits, for activated Guard and Reserve should be the same as Active Duty. Guardsmen and Reservists cannot be buried in national cemeteries unless they are killed in action. Think about that. A man or a woman serves not just for 6 months, but maybe 2 years, comes home, is called back to go again, dodges the bullets, gets past the landmines, perhaps is seriously injured but escapes unscathed and comes home after serving valiantly, and then is denied burial benefits because they were not ``killed in action.'' I think because of what they have done, it is time for us to give them the right opportunities for burial in our national cemeteries if they are serving the time that our Active Duty serve, with all the dignity that they would deserve in such a situation.
The bill does not authorize every member of the Guard and Reserve to these burial rights, but it is inconceivable why someone who fought overseas for our Nation cannot be buried with his or her comrades simply because one soldier was in the Reserve and one soldier was active--fighting side by side, same foxhole, same patrol, same landmine but yet not the same burial ground.
No. 2, we hope in this bill that guardsmen and reservists activated for 2 years should have active duty GI bill benefits--the GI bill, which is probably one of the best pieces of legislation this Congress has ever passed, it is referred to hundreds of time in speeches on and off the floor, and is one of the bills Americans generally know about, quote, and can say what it does. It has enabled millions of American troops to enroll in college when they returned from World War II. The GI bill created a bedrock of middle-class Americans. It was one of the cornerstones that helped us build the middle class, and it ushered in 50 years of unprecedented economic growth. Why? Because when people get good training and good education, their earning potential goes up and the contribution they can make to their community rises in a significant way.
Today, members of the Active-Duty Forces receive more in GI benefits than the Guard and Reserve personnel, and if the Guard and Reserve personnel weren't contributing in equal ways to our active duty, I would not be here arguing for them, but they are contributing in equal ways, putting their lives in danger. Our bill will allow them to participate more equally in the GI benefits.
The third part of this bill would seek to create parity between Reserve components and Active Duty in terms of their retirement age. Right now, Active Duty can leave the military once they serve 20 years. We think that is a great benefit. It is one of the attractions to the military service. Many of our military men and women serve honorably for 20 years and then retire to go off and have yet a second and third career, as lifespans continue to increase. We are proud of that. We believe and know they contribute in many ways even past their service.
But Guard and Reserve today cannot collect retirement until 60 years of age. This bill would reduce it to 55 years and end what is an unjust situation and help them. Hopefully it will address part of this retention issue by making these benefits more generous.
The fourth and I think one of the most important issues this bill seeks to address is ending the pay gap faced by guardsmen and reservists. Mr. President, I don't know if in Texas you have had a lot of people complain to you about this, but I sure have had people in Louisiana come up and say to me, Senator, I can't possibly understand how we would ask someone to put on their uniform, go to Iraq, and take a 40-percent, 30-percent, or 20-percent cut in pay, to put their life on the line while we enjoy all the benefits staying home here in a safe place here on the homefront. It is not that we have not had challenges right here on the homefront, but not to the same degree and intensity as we are finding on the front lines of the battlefield.
Yet the fact is, because there is no tax credit in our law right now and because it is not mandatory for employers--or the Federal Government, I might add, which is something Senator Durbin and I have worked very hard on together--to maintain their salaries at the level before they leave, some of these guardsmen and reservists are actually taking a 30-percent or 40-percent cut in pay to serve us and to keep us safe. That means while they are making the sacrifice on the battlefield, which many of these men and women are willing to make, we are asking their spouses and their children to give up the car, sell the house, give up their college fund, and it is simply not fair in a country that has the resources we have. In this Congress we want to give tax credits to everybody in the world for everything under the sun. I don't know how we can't find the few hundreds of millions of dollars that it would take to give this tax credit to allow people to serve in the Guard and Reserve and just maintain their salary level while they serve so it doesn't put their families in jeopardy.
I am going to go visit our troops in Lafayette on Monday. I know the community comes together. I know the women, many of them, join together for bake sales and help out and pay each other's car payments. Sometimes the community pulls together to pay the mortgage on the house. I think that is wonderful and it is the good old American spirit. But I don't know if it is necessary, not when we are giving out tax credits to companies that are taking jobs overseas, not when we are giving out tax credits to people who make millions and are not putting on the uniform. The least we can do is help our businesses to write off what they would have as a voluntary compensation package to maintain this salary level for the men and women serving overseas to minimize the sacrifice made by their families here at home. It would also require the Federal Government to step up to the plate
and, as one of the largest employers in the Nation, to make sure those salaries are compensated.
Let me share stories, one or two, from these families. There was an April 22, 2003 article from USA Today that I will ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record.
It starts:
Drastic pay cuts. Bankruptcy. Foreclosed homes. They aren't
exactly the kind of challenges that members of America's
military reserves signed up for when they volunteered to
serve their country. But for many, the biggest threat to the
home front isn't Saddam Hussein or Osama bin Laden. It's the
bill collector.
And that is a shame. I think the two enemies mentioned before the bill collector are people we need to actually be focusing our attention on, bringing them to justice in one case and finding them in the other. I don't think our troops need to be worried about bill collectors back home, but that is the position we have them in because we have not acted, will not act, refuse to act in the face of giving everybody else tax credits, but we can't seem to find room in the budget for these 634,000 of our bravest.
I want to say for the record, in Louisiana, Janet Wright's husband Russell is in the Marine Reserves. He made $60,000 a year. Russell was activated. He will only make $30,000. Mrs. Wright says she started putting water in her children's cereal and hopes her daughter can be quickly potty trained to save on diapers. Mrs. Wright has to count every penny.
This family is from Hammond, LA. I just don't think this is right. I think we can do something about it, and this bill attempts to do that. A 50-percent tax credit to those employers to continue to pay their salaries to fill this pay gap is part of this bill.
One other point of the bill, and then a short conclusion. We put a cap on interest rates. Many of us have loans out for a variety of different purposes--automobiles, perhaps some business loans that have been made for our businesses, obviously mortgages. We put in an interest rate cap so when you are deployed, you don't have to pay more than a 6-percent rate. When rates were 20 percent and 25 percent, that made a lot of sense and it was a great benefit. But as rates are relatively low today, this bill would make a modest change to either have it at 6 percent or prime plus 1. Again, it is not a huge amount of money, but it could potentially save a family a few hundred dollars a year. It is the least we can do as part of trying to help them make ends meet while their primary breadwinner in most cases is the one deployed.
As Congress works to best give our military the tools they need to succeed in the 21st century, we must reinforce and increase the benefits and protections for our Reserves. We have asked so much of them, and they have met every challenge with excellence. As we saw unfolding on our television screens yesterday and today, we couldn't ask them to do more. The least we can do is to look at the package of benefits,
upgrade it where we can, make sacrifices in other areas of our budget, and fund them first. They are the ones who are protecting us at this time. When we can provide greater legal protections to ease the stress on the homefront, we must, when and where we can. Failure to act will just exacerbate retention challenges. It will undermine our efforts to succeed in our war on terror.
I introduce this bill today. I hope we can have a speedy hearing.
I ask my colleagues to join me in sponsoring this bill so we can have a great bipartisan effort. There are many other things we can so the Guard and Reserve really know we appreciate them, because we just do not take pictures with them but we actually put them in our budget.
I yield the floor.
S. 2269 S. 2270 S. 2271 S. 2272
Read full remarks Show lessCongressional Record
Senate Floor·April 1, 2004·p. S3572-S3579
Introductory Statement on S. 2273
Mr. President, I rise to introduce and send to the desk the 21st Century Citizen Soldier Benefits Act which I introduce on behalf of myself. I thought I would take a moment this afternoon to outline the framework and the context of this…
Mr. President, I rise to introduce and send to the desk the 21st Century Citizen Soldier Benefits Act which I introduce on behalf of myself.
I thought I would take a moment this afternoon to outline the framework and the context of this bill because it has to do with our Armed Forces. It has to do with a very important component of our Armed Forces, which is our Guard and Reserve units, part of our total force, a very important part of that total force as I hope to outline.
This is an attempt to put before the Senate and the Congress a comprehensive bill--one that I find and I know people in Louisiana across party lines and in very energetic and enthusiastic ways support because the need is so great--to support our men and women in uniform, particularly our Guard and Reserve components.
If the war on terror is teaching us anything--and we are learning some tough lessons each and every day as we move forward through this war--we all know we cannot defend this Nation adequately without the strength provided by our National Guard and Reserves.
Since 9/11 when this country was attacked, the first time in this large measure since the attack on Pearl Harbor many years ago, over 355,000 guardsmen and reservists have been mobilized.
To give a grasp of that number, our Navy today, arguably the most powerful in the world, has 375,000 sailors. So in 2\1/2\ years, we have called up almost enough guardsmen and reservists to man every ship in the United States Navy. That is a lot of manpower and a lot of womanpower, and they deserve our very best effort. They are not just backfilling for Active Forces. They are serving on the front lines, as we have seen today how brutal those front lines can be. They are being wounded and killed just like our Active Forces. In fact, 97 of the 600 deaths in Iraq have been Guard and Reserve deaths.
Today 176,000 citizen soldiers wear the uniform full time, and that number, as I will show, is growing exponentially. By May 1, 40 percent of the
troops in Iraq will be members of the National Guard and Reserve. These are men and women who have full-time jobs, who are coaches, small business owners, policemen, firemen, State workers, and waiters and waitresses in our restaurants. They hold many jobs, but they are then called up. They take off their daily dress clothes and put on the uniform and go to the front lines to protect us.
In Louisiana, and I know this is true in Texas, thousands of men and women have been called up.
We have 3,051 reservists on active duty right now. Over 6,000 Louisiana reservists have been activated since 9/11. For many, their activation periods have unfortunately lasted, because of the demand on our troops, sometimes in excess of 18 months to 24 months. The 528th Engineering Battalion from Monroe, LA, recently deployed to Afghanistan, 500 Louisianans on their way serving already. Marine Reserve Company B of Bossier City, 150 Marines have just been put on alert for mobilization. Company B has already been mobilized before.
Last month, the Department of Defense put another 18,000 National Guardsmen on alert status, including 3,800 members from Louisiana's 256th Separate Infantry Brigade. I will be visiting their leaders on Monday, in Lafayette, LA, and be visiting with their families to talk about the separation that is going to occur and how we are doing as a nation, as a State, and as a community, to help them through this difficult time as they help, protect, and give us their very best in this war effort.
The National Guard and Reserve, as I said, make up now 45 percent of our forces. We simply cannot fight without them. Yet as I am going to explain, the benefits, their pensions, their compensation, their GI benefits, their retirement benefits, and even their burial benefits do not match with their level of service and do not match with the contribution they are, in fact, making.
I understand why because when the framework for the Guard and Reserves was initially put together, they were thought of as sort of a backup, as a filler.
They do other things as well other than, of course, fighting wars. They help our States mobilize at times of national and natural disasters. So I am clear, as are many of us, about why initially, as the Guard and Reserve was created and the framework developed, those rules and regulations were put into place back in the 1940s, in the 1960s, and in the 1970s.
In 2004, the times are different. The demands are great and they are meeting this challenge. As a Congress we need to meet them more than halfway.
Nearly 35,000 have been mobilized more than once. Imagine returning from Afghanistan, reuniting with your family, getting your business restarted, getting back into the desk you left before you went to serve, only to be told to get ready because you are leaving in another few months, get ready to ship out again.
We have a retention and recruiting crisis looming on the horizon. I would like to show the number of troops, reservists, who have been called up from 1953 through 1989, through the Berlin crisis of 1961, through the Cuban missile crisis, and the Vietnam war, we called up a total of 199,877, about 200,000, through all of this, three times in 40 years. Since 1990, in the last 14 years, we have called up 634,984--the Persian Gulf war, the intervention in Haiti, Bosnian peacekeeping, Operation Southern Watch, the Kosovo conflict, now our ongoing war on terrorism, which has many fronts, primarily in Afghanistan and in Iraq. That is unprecedented in terms of our recent history.
The question to us should be: Are we doing what we should as we are increasing our military budget substantially? I, for one, have supported each and every increase and almost argued in many instances for more money going to our military. What portion of that increase is going to the Guard and Reserve to make sure their pensions are intact, that when they retire their compensation is fair, that their families are cared for at least at a decent and adequate level while they serve us so magnificently and so beautifully? So we can see we are calling more and more on our Guard and Reserve.
I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record an excellent article that appeared in the Washington Post in January of this year by Mr. Vernon Loeb, a very excellent staff writer.
According to this reporter:
The head of the Army Reserve said yesterday that the
205,000-soldier force must guard against a potential crisis
in its ability to retain troops, saying serious problems are
being ``masked'' temporarily because reservists are barred
from leaving the military while their units are mobilized in
Iraq.
He goes on to say:
Lieutenant General Helmly told his subordinates that he was
``really tired of going to see our reserve soldiers [and
finding] they're short such simple things as goggles. It's
about damn time you listen to your lawyers less and your
conscience more. They will probably get me in trouble. But I
told them, I want this stuff fixed.''
Not only are these men and women being called up in unprecedented numbers, not only are they being prevented from leaving, which is masking a potential readiness crisis, but they are also not being provided with some of the basic tools, equipment, and body armor that they need to protect themselves; therefore, contributing to a state of unease.
Not that these guardsmen and reservists are not patriotic, not that they would not walk across hot coals, and in many instances they do every day to protect us, but we should at least be able to take these modest steps to make sure we are strengthening them and honoring their service to us.
The operations in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Kosovo are ongoing, with no end in sight. We do not know if emergent threats around the world will become real and embroil us in yet other military operations, partially because our Active Forces are stretched so thin we need to call up our Guard and Reserve, and yet because of this we could face a retention crisis.
As I said, the deployments are lengthy, the benefits and legal protections are not sufficient in many instances, and the equipment is lacking. So let us hope we can take steps through this legislation and others to fix this situation.
I hope the bill I offer today and sponsor today--and I look forward to many cosponsors joining on this bill--will improve the Guard and Reserve benefits, and legal protections. As I said, we are calling it the 21st Century Citizen Soldier Benefit Act.
We have had two major changes or improvements to the Guard and Reserve framework, one in 1940 and one in 1994. It is time, 10 years later, this year, 2004, with the unprecedented nature of their service, to step up this framework of support for our Guard and Reserve. It is time for Congress, in my opinion, to take a comprehensive look at the benefits and protections afforded to the members of the Guard and Reserve.
We have not done so since 1994. It is time that we do this. My bill does it in several ways.
First, we call for equal benefits for equal service in the area of burial benefits, for activated Guard and Reserve should be the same as Active Duty. Guardsmen and Reservists cannot be buried in national cemeteries unless they are killed in action. Think about that. A man or a woman serves not just for 6 months, but maybe 2 years, comes home, is called back to go again, dodges the bullets, gets past the landmines, perhaps is seriously injured but escapes unscathed and comes home after serving valiantly, and then is denied burial benefits because they were not ``killed in action.'' I think because of what they have done, it is time for us to give them the right opportunities for burial in our national cemeteries if they are serving the time that our Active Duty serve, with all the dignity that they would deserve in such a situation.
The bill does not authorize every member of the Guard and Reserve to these burial rights, but it is inconceivable why someone who fought overseas for our Nation cannot be buried with his or her comrades simply because one soldier was in the Reserve and one soldier was active--fighting side by side, same foxhole, same patrol, same landmine but yet not the same burial ground.
No. 2, we hope in this bill that guardsmen and reservists activated for 2 years should have active duty GI bill benefits--the GI bill, which is probably one of the best pieces of legislation this Congress has ever passed, it is referred to hundreds of time in speeches on and off the floor, and is one of the bills Americans generally know about, quote, and can say what it does. It has enabled millions of American troops to enroll in college when they returned from World War II. The GI bill created a bedrock of middle-class Americans. It was one of the cornerstones that helped us build the middle class, and it ushered in 50 years of unprecedented economic growth. Why? Because when people get good training and good education, their earning potential goes up and the contribution they can make to their community rises in a significant way.
Today, members of the Active-Duty Forces receive more in GI benefits than the Guard and Reserve personnel, and if the Guard and Reserve personnel weren't contributing in equal ways to our active duty, I would not be here arguing for them, but they are contributing in equal ways, putting their lives in danger. Our bill will allow them to participate more equally in the GI benefits.
The third part of this bill would seek to create parity between Reserve components and Active Duty in terms of their retirement age. Right now, Active Duty can leave the military once they serve 20 years. We think that is a great benefit. It is one of the attractions to the military service. Many of our military men and women serve honorably for 20 years and then retire to go off and have yet a second and third career, as lifespans continue to increase. We are proud of that. We believe and know they contribute in many ways even past their service.
But Guard and Reserve today cannot collect retirement until 60 years of age. This bill would reduce it to 55 years and end what is an unjust situation and help them. Hopefully it will address part of this retention issue by making these benefits more generous.
The fourth and I think one of the most important issues this bill seeks to address is ending the pay gap faced by guardsmen and reservists. Mr. President, I don't know if in Texas you have had a lot of people complain to you about this, but I sure have had people in Louisiana come up and say to me, Senator, I can't possibly understand how we would ask someone to put on their uniform, go to Iraq, and take a 40-percent, 30-percent, or 20-percent cut in pay, to put their life on the line while we enjoy all the benefits staying home here in a safe place here on the homefront. It is not that we have not had challenges right here on the homefront, but not to the same degree and intensity as we are finding on the front lines of the battlefield.
Yet the fact is, because there is no tax credit in our law right now and because it is not mandatory for employers--or the Federal Government, I might add, which is something Senator Durbin and I have worked very hard on together--to maintain their salaries at the level before they leave, some of these guardsmen and reservists are actually taking a 30-percent or 40-percent cut in pay to serve us and to keep us safe. That means while they are making the sacrifice on the battlefield, which many of these men and women are willing to make, we are asking their spouses and their children to give up the car, sell the house, give up their college fund, and it is simply not fair in a country that has the resources we have. In this Congress we want to give tax credits to everybody in the world for everything under the sun. I don't know how we can't find the few hundreds of millions of dollars that it would take to give this tax credit to allow people to serve in the Guard and Reserve and just maintain their salary level while they serve so it doesn't put their families in jeopardy.
I am going to go visit our troops in Lafayette on Monday. I know the community comes together. I know the women, many of them, join together for bake sales and help out and pay each other's car payments. Sometimes the community pulls together to pay the mortgage on the house. I think that is wonderful and it is the good old American spirit. But I don't know if it is necessary, not when we are giving out tax credits to companies that are taking jobs overseas, not when we are giving out tax credits to people who make millions and are not putting on the uniform. The least we can do is help our businesses to write off what they would have as a voluntary compensation package to maintain this salary level for the men and women serving overseas to minimize the sacrifice made by their families here at home. It would also require the Federal Government to step up to the plate
and, as one of the largest employers in the Nation, to make sure those salaries are compensated.
Let me share stories, one or two, from these families. There was an April 22, 2003 article from USA Today that I will ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record.
It starts:
Drastic pay cuts. Bankruptcy. Foreclosed homes. They aren't
exactly the kind of challenges that members of America's
military reserves signed up for when they volunteered to
serve their country. But for many, the biggest threat to the
home front isn't Saddam Hussein or Osama bin Laden. It's the
bill collector.
And that is a shame. I think the two enemies mentioned before the bill collector are people we need to actually be focusing our attention on, bringing them to justice in one case and finding them in the other. I don't think our troops need to be worried about bill collectors back home, but that is the position we have them in because we have not acted, will not act, refuse to act in the face of giving everybody else tax credits, but we can't seem to find room in the budget for these 634,000 of our bravest.
I want to say for the record, in Louisiana, Janet Wright's husband Russell is in the Marine Reserves. He made $60,000 a year. Russell was activated. He will only make $30,000. Mrs. Wright says she started putting water in her children's cereal and hopes her daughter can be quickly potty trained to save on diapers. Mrs. Wright has to count every penny.
This family is from Hammond, LA. I just don't think this is right. I think we can do something about it, and this bill attempts to do that. A 50-percent tax credit to those employers to continue to pay their salaries to fill this pay gap is part of this bill.
One other point of the bill, and then a short conclusion. We put a cap on interest rates. Many of us have loans out for a variety of different purposes--automobiles, perhaps some business loans that have been made for our businesses, obviously mortgages. We put in an interest rate cap so when you are deployed, you don't have to pay more than a 6-percent rate. When rates were 20 percent and 25 percent, that made a lot of sense and it was a great benefit. But as rates are relatively low today, this bill would make a modest change to either have it at 6 percent or prime plus 1. Again, it is not a huge amount of money, but it could potentially save a family a few hundred dollars a year. It is the least we can do as part of trying to help them make ends meet while their primary breadwinner in most cases is the one deployed.
As Congress works to best give our military the tools they need to succeed in the 21st century, we must reinforce and increase the benefits and protections for our Reserves. We have asked so much of them, and they have met every challenge with excellence. As we saw unfolding on our television screens yesterday and today, we couldn't ask them to do more. The least we can do is to look at the package of benefits,
upgrade it where we can, make sacrifices in other areas of our budget, and fund them first. They are the ones who are protecting us at this time. When we can provide greater legal protections to ease the stress on the homefront, we must, when and where we can. Failure to act will just exacerbate retention challenges. It will undermine our efforts to succeed in our war on terror.
I introduce this bill today. I hope we can have a speedy hearing.
I ask my colleagues to join me in sponsoring this bill so we can have a great bipartisan effort. There are many other things we can so the Guard and Reserve really know we appreciate them, because we just do not take pictures with them but we actually put them in our budget.
I yield the floor.
S. 2273
Read full remarks Show lessCongressional Record
Senate Floor·March 26, 2004·p. S3211-S3212
(At the request of Mr. Daschle, the following statement was ordered to be printed in the Record.)
Mr. President, let me begin my remarks this afternoon by thanking my friend and colleague, the Senator from Washington, for her leadership in this very important area. Because of her work, and the work of a man whose leadership we all miss…
Mr. President, let me begin my remarks this afternoon by thanking my friend and colleague, the Senator from Washington, for her leadership in this very important area. Because of her work, and the work of a man whose leadership we all miss dearly, Senator Paul Wellstone, victims of domestic violence have access to programs designed to protect them from what many would agree is the worst type of violence there is. Currently, the Federal Government provides a little under $500 million in domestic violence prevention and treatment programs. The amendment offered by Senator Murray proposes to take our commitment to put an end to domestic abuse to the next level by filling in the gaps left by current law and programs.
As you well know, the goal of the underlying bill offered by my friend and colleague, Senator DeWine, is a simple, but important one, to prevent murder. What it says is that the murder of woman and her unborn, viable child is morally wrong and should be illegal. There is no disagreement on that point. The majority of yesterday's debate has been how best to draft a Federal law narrowly tailored to accomplish that goal. What this amendment attempts to remind us is that there are two ways to prevent the murder of a woman who is pregnant. One, you can put in place laws that recognize the loss of life of the mother and the viable fetus and impose the stiffest of penalties on those found guilty of committing such a murder. But equally important, you can put in place protections and programs that prevent this type of murder before it takes place.
The sponsors and supporters of this underlying bill claim that their objective is to protect the life of a woman and her unborn child, but their actions indicate otherwise. A few Members have come to the floor to raise legitimate concerns about some of the provisions of this bill, but for the most part, the arguments offered by my Republican colleagues are nothing more than excuses. I would like to take a moment to address a few of these so-called reasons to not support this amendment and offer a rebuttal.
The first reason given by groups, such as the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the National Right to Life, for their opposition to this amendment is that the underlying bill is ``clearly an inappropriate vehicle for this amendment as the issues are completely unrelated.'' If I understand this position correctly, it appears that the opponents of the amendment believe that domestic violence is unrelated to murder of pregnant women. This position is misguided at best. Let me tell you what the facts are:
In the United States, a woman is more likely to be assaulted, injured, raped, or killed by an intimate partner than any other type of assailant.
Every day, 4 women are murdered by boyfriends or husbands.
This year alone, 240,000 pregnant women were physically abused by their intimate partners.
Sixty percent of all battered women are beaten while they are pregnant.
Women are most likely to be killed while attempting to leave their abuser. In fact, women who attempt to escape are at a 75 percent higher risk of being murdered than their peers. The No. 1 reason women leave abusers is to protect their children, born and unborn.
Homicide is the leading cause of death for pregnant women and evidence suggests that a significant portion of all female homicide victims are killed by their intimate partners
Let me read for you a quote from an ABC News article dated April 25, 2003:
``Most pregnant women are killed by people they know, like
husbands or boyfriends,'' said Pat Brown, a criminal profiler
and CEO of the Sexual Homicide Exchange . . . ``Sometimes it
depends on how far along the woman is in the pregnancy . . .
If it's a serial killer, they normally go after women who may
be three months pregnant and are not showing very much . . .
With husbands and boyfriends, the women tend to be eight
months pregnant . . . they can see the woman and the unborn
child as something in the way, keeps them from living the
lifestyle they want.''
In fact, one of the stories told by my colleague from Kansas was of Tracy Marciniak, whose unborn child was murdered by his abusive father a week before he was due to be born. The Senator from Kansas was right, it would be unfair for anyone to say that there was no murder victim in that case. But it is equally unfair for him and others on the other side of the aisle to claim that there was not a victim of domestic violence in that case.
Another argument that has been made is that this amendment cannot be passed because if it did it would kill this bill. That is simply not true. With the Murray amendment attached, there is nothing to prevent the House of Representatives from taking up and passing the amended version as soon as tomorrow. If they did, the bill could be signed by the President sometime next week and could become law within a week. The reason that is ``not possible'' is not a matter of Senate procedure or rules. It is not possible because the House Republicans' mode of leadership is ``our way or the highway.'' It is not possible because they refuse to fund programs that help stop a murder before it happens. It is not possible because they are more interested in making a political point than making a difference.
Finally, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have claimed that they cannot support this because it calls for additional resources, and being in a deficit, we cannot afford to bring additional resources to bear on this issue. Senator Murray's amendment calls for an additional $400 million over 5 years to help fill in the gaps left by current domestic violence programs. With less than $100 million a year, we can make a difference in the lives of the 4 million who have been or will be abused by an intimate partner this year alone, save the fact that domestic violence results in a net loss of $18.4 billion a year for business owners and taxpayers.
Here is what the truth is. When something is a priority for this administration, we have the resources, and when it is not, we are broke. The recently passed budget included $27 billion in tax cuts for people whose income is over $1 million a year. How is it we can find money for this and then claim the deficit as an excuse for opposing an amendment that uses less than one-tenth of 1 percent of that funding to save lives? President Bush claims that the purpose of this bill is to protect women, but at the same time his budget cuts funding for violence against women programs by $10 million, rape prevention funding by $29 million, and freezes funding for the domestic violence hot line and domestic
abuse shelters. I think that is out of line with what the American people thinks, and it is certainly out of line with what I think.
As I said earlier, if my colleagues have legitimate reasons to oppose this amendment, we are happy to listen. In fact, we are willing to do what is necessary to get past any partisan difference and to move this issue forward. Unfortunately, our colleagues are not. I think you have to ask yourselves, then, what is this debate really all about?
Read full remarks Show lessCongressional Record
Senate Floor·March 25, 2004·p. S3124-S3167
Unborn Victims Of Violence Act Of 2004
Mr. President, I come to the floor to support my colleague from the State of Washington and her comprehensive amendment on this important bill and discussion this afternoon. I thank her for the extraordinary work she has done in the area…
Mr. President, I come to the floor to support my colleague from the State of Washington and her comprehensive amendment on this important bill and discussion this afternoon. I thank her for the extraordinary work she has done in the area of domestic violence, not just this year but in every year she has been a Member of this body, over a long period of time, her intense interest and advocacy for women and for children and for families and for communities which her effort shows today.
I have a great deal of respect for the Senator from Ohio. He and I usually don't find ourselves on opposite sides, so it is unusual that I would be here supporting an amendment and the Senator from Ohio, Mr. DeWine, would be opposing it. I understand there are a few--not many-- good reasons that people could raise today against this amendment. But I will tell you what one of the reasons is not that I have heard in this Chamber and I have seen sent out by such groups as the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the U.S. Right to Life organization, two organizations that oppose Senator Murray's amendment. They have some legitimate arguments in this document about some of the details of the amendment, but they also go so far as to say that one of the reasons we should not support this amendment is because it is irrelevant to the underlying subject.
Irrelevant? Domestic violence is irrelevant to the deaths of pregnant women, when experts across the board, Republican and Democratic, people who have been prosecutors before--go look at any study--will tell you the majority of women who are killed in the latter terms of their pregnancies are killed not by strangers, not by people who just happen on to their house, but they are killed by the hands of their husbands or the fathers of their children?
I have to sit here and read a vote alert from the Chamber of Commerce, supposedly representing women who own businesses, supposedly representing women, many of whom are business owners, who perhaps have been victims of domestic violence, and not a word in this memo about ``so sorry that you were beaten so badly that you and your unborn died,'' nothing. They go on to say this is an inappropriate vehicle for this amendment because the issues involved are ``completely unrelated.''
I hope my Chamber of Commerce in Louisiana did not approve this document because I don't believe businesses in Louisiana think these subjects are unrelated, since one of the recent things that just happened in my State was a woman shows up to go to work about 2 years ago in Jefferson Parish, gets out of her car, and in front of about 50 people, going through the revolving doors to get into her place of business, her husband comes up to her, takes out a revolver, sticks it in her face and blows her head off. Whether she was pregnant or not, I can't recall. But to say that it is irrelevant to the subject that we are debating is an insult to many people.
Let me clarify one other point. People come to this floor and act like the Senator from Washington and the cosponsor, who was Senator Wellstone, before his death--he did a magnificent job on this subject the years he represented his State in the Senate. In his memory, I will say this: He worked like a Trojan on this subject. This bill was introduced in the 106th Congress, the 107th Congress, and the 108th Congress. But this bill, although there has been one hearing, pushed mostly by Democrats, has never received a markup, not in the 106th, 107th, and not in the 108th. Evidently, there is not enough Republican leadership thought that this is an important subject to discuss.
Those of us who came to the floor today to debate this issue to try to protect people from murder--women and, yes, their unborn children-- wonder what we have actually accomplished today because with the underlying bill, the only way you can prosecute people is if the murder actually occurs on Federal property.
The bill we are going to pass today is not nearly as good as the 21 or 31 statutes that are already on the books that are legitimate and genuine efforts. When we asked to have some help for the victims of domestic violence, who are women and their children, we get all kinds of ``can't do it,'' ``too complicated,'' ``too expensive.'' Then I have to read the Chamber of Commerce business alert that says the whole subject is not relevant.
I want to read from ABCNEWS.com for the Record, ``Expectant Victim,'' April 25.
On Monday, police found the remains of 20-year-old April
Renee Greer, whose dismembered body was found in a trash can
that had washed into a farmer's field. She was 8\1/2\ months
pregnant when she was reported missing on March 8.
Experts and women's advocates are not surprised to find
that pregnant women are especially prone to violent deaths.
In many cases, pregnant women are killed by their husbands or
significant others.
``Most pregnant women are killed by people they know, like
husbands or boy friends''. . . .
Think of that. It is one thing to get attacked in a dark alley by somebody you don't know; you are coming home later than you should be. It is another thing to be beaten to death by someone who is supposed to love you. It is very terrible for a child to sit there and watch their father, in many cases, beat up their mother in front of them. It breaks more than their spirit. It crushes their heart and destroys their life.
You would think that somebody on the other side of the aisle would think this was significant and relevant and would want to do something about it and put some money in this bill to do something about it. But, no, we don't have time for it, we can't have a hearing on it, and it is too complicated for anybody to understand.
I don't think this is complicated. Let me go on to read this:
``Sometimes it depends on how far along the woman is in the
pregnancy,'' she said.
This is Pat Brown, a criminal profiler and CEO of the Sexual Homicide Exchange. I am sorry, I don't know what State.
``Sometimes it depends on how far along the woman is in the
pregnancy,'' she said. ``If it's a serial killer, they
normally go after women who may be three months pregnant and
are not showing very much. With serial killers, the women are
tiny, easy to handle, not too big--someone they can easily
overcome. They go after a `neat package,' something that is
desirable where they could get something big.
``With husbands or boyfriends, women tend to be eight
months pregnant--they're there and the baby is coming,''
Brown continued. ``They can see the woman and unborn child as
something that is in the way, keeps them from living the
lifestyle they want.''
And we come to the floor and ask for a little help for domestic or sexual violence, maybe a little time off of work to get her situation in order because her husband is working and he also happens to be the one beating her. She needs 30 days to get a job. They say: No, we cannot give you 30 days. We ask for 30 days of unpaid leave, and the Chamber of Commerce goes wild saying they can't afford it--and they don't have to pay for it.
We talk about increasing grants to local communities to help them provide shelters, since we have not seen a significant increase in shelters, but that is too complicated.
So I ask, What have we done today? Are we going to save any lives, whether it is the life of the unborn, or whether it is the life of a woman? No, because there is no money in this for prevention. We, obviously, want to just prosecute people in a very small place, on Federal land, maybe just to make a point. I came to the Senate to do more than just make a point, and I think the Senator from Washington came here to make more than a point. We came here to make a difference. This afternoon, there is no difference being made and it is a shame.
In conclusion, I want to say something about the Right to Life Association. I have worked with them on cloning. I don't support human cloning. Some people do; I don't. I have worked with them. When they came to my office yesterday to tell me they were sorry that they could not support the Murray amendment because it would ``mess up the bill''--and they need a clean bill--I would like to think they need an effective bill. But they just need a clean bill. For what, I am not sure. Maybe for television commercials.
I think we need an effective bill. I would like to prevent these deaths of unborn children, of women, give prevention on the front end, and then go ahead and prosecute people. In my State, that is what we do because we already have a law on the books. So I am happy that Louisiana is already there. The Right to Life Association said they could not support help for domestic violence victims because they, again, agreed with the Chamber of Commerce that it is not relevant.
I hope people who support the Right to Life Association might write them an e-mail or something today and explain to them that regardless of how you feel, whether you are pro-choice or pro-life, clearly, this is relevant to the underlying bill.
With that, I yield the floor. I support the Murray amendment.
H.Con.Res. 95 S. 1019 H.R. 1267 H.R. 1997
Read full remarks Show lessCongressional Record
Senate Floor·March 11, 2004·p. S2651-S2699
Senate
Mr. President, I ask to call up amendment No. 2775. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with. On behalf of myself, Senator Murray, Senator Mikulski, Senator Lincoln, Senator Daschle,…
Mr. President, I ask to call up amendment No. 2775.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.
On behalf of myself, Senator Murray, Senator Mikulski, Senator Lincoln, Senator Daschle, Senator Reid of Nevada, Senator Nelson of Florida, Senator Johnson, Senator Clinton, and on behalf of 5.5 million members of the military coalition and their families, I ask my colleagues to consider giving us the 51 votes necessary to pass this important amendment tonight. This amendment will restore the full pension promised and counted on by widows and widowers of our military personnel. This particular group of patriots is ironically the only group of Federal employees to see their
pension plan reduced by an average of 37 percent.
If we receive 51 votes in this Chamber tonight, there will be 250,000 widows, primarily, some widowers, who will see their pensions increased, and over a million potential widows and widowers will see their pension increased.
For the State of Alabama, 6,000 families will be directly affected; the State of Georgia, 9,000 families; Maryland, 5,700; North Carolina, 8,000; Ohio, 5,000; Pennsylvania, 7,000; South Carolina, 6,000; Texas, 21,000; and Virginia, 13,000. If we do not pass this amendment, all of these families and widows will receive hundreds of dollars less per month than they were counting on and we promised.
The offset would be to make sure that people who earn money in the United States and try to flee and go other places and claim that they are patriots, we would let them pay the tax so these real patriots, the people who moved every 2 years and put their lives on the line and then counted on their pension, would really get it.
The Senator from Oklahoma will say it costs money and it will close a tax loophole for those who flee so they do not pay taxes to support our troops. This body should pay the pensions of the military widows and widowers. That is what my amendment will do.
S.Con.Res. 95 S. 489 S. 602 S. 1072
Read full remarks Show lessCongressional Record
Senate Floor·March 10, 2004·p. S2465-S2537
Congressional Budget For The United States Government For Fiscal Year
Will the Senator yield? Will the Senator yield? Will the Senator yield? I thank the Chair. Mr. President, I thank my friend from Washington. I wanted to ask the Senator from Oklahoma, before he leaves, since he has gone on record several…
Will the Senator yield?
Will the Senator yield?
Will the Senator yield?
I thank the Chair. Mr. President, I thank my friend from Washington.
I wanted to ask the Senator from Oklahoma, before he leaves, since he has gone on record several times this morning as to what loopholes he would agree to close, would he for the record indicate or give us some idea what some of those loopholes would be and how much money could be generated by those loopholes, because there are many people in Oklahoma, Louisiana, Massachusetts, and Washington who would be interested in identifying those dollars so we could apply them to fulfill the promise the President made to fund education. As the Budget chairman, I am very interested in what specific loopholes he would be willing to close.
Can I clarify? The loopholes the Senator from Oklahoma is supporting are going to fund additional tax cuts for those at the higher end of the tax cuts?
I thank the Senator from Oklahoma. I have the floor. I want to make clear for the record, as the Senator from Oklahoma just clarified, he and the administration are willing to close loopholes, but only if the savings from those loopholes go to make permanent the tax cuts that drain the education budget and leave our children at risk. I am glad we got that cleared up.
Let me begin the remarks I wish to make this morning.
The Senators from Massachusetts and Washington are absolutely correct about the dire situation in our States and communities all across the Nation. They are also correct that one of the strongest aspects of the American dream--and I could argue the strongest aspect of the American dream--is the dream parents have for their children, the dream Americans share that no matter how tough their life has been, no matter how shortchanged they might have been when they started, they work hard because they want their children to get the kind of education that will help them be the human beings parents dream their children can and should be and to make their communities stronger.
When this administration took office, they noted that dream. The President said:
The time has come for excuse making to end. With this No
Child Left Behind Act, we have committed the Nation to higher
standards for every public school, and we have committed the
resources necessary to help children achieve those standards.
We want accountability with results, and we are willing to
fund it.
That is what was said, but is not what was done. Budgets are difficult to put together. This document does not look very thick, but this document is a blueprint. This document sets a course for the Nation. This document, if it is not written correctly, cannot meet the promises I have just described.
You know what, Mr. President, this document does not meet that promise. This document does not provide the money promised to every Governor, every superintendent, every teacher, and every parent in this Nation. This document is short $9 billion, and not one Senator on the other side is willing to close one loophole to fill that hole. They are only willing to close loopholes to give more tax cuts. That is the debate on this floor, and that is the choice the American people are going to make in the next election.
With the surplus disappearing, with the war at hand, with the war on terrorism perhaps escalating, the question is, Do we want to make some adjustments in our plans to provide tax cuts or do we want to provide some tax cuts and fund education, invest in homeland security, and support our troops? That is the issue. But this administration, faced with the facts of declining and evaporating surpluses, faced with the facts of a war that is costing more than we anticipated, faced with those facts, chooses to ignore the facts and put out a budget that goes straight dead ahead 100 miles an hour into deficits and in doing so robs the opportunity, pulls the rug out from under every superintendent, every Governor, and every teacher because they are struggling in the schools.
This is what the President says, but this is not what he does. This is what the President says:
Once failing schools are identified, we will help them
improve. We'll help them help themselves. Our goal is to
improve public education. We want success, and when schools
are willing to accept the reality that the accountability
system points out and are willing to change, we will help
them.
We are doing this in Louisiana. We have received accountability. We have identified our schools which are failing. We believed the President, but when we turned to him to ask him and this administration to help us hire new teachers, help us to train the teachers who need to be certified by a date certain the President and the administration forced us to do in this act, when we asked them please help us put on two new classrooms in these schools because we have to meet these new goals, they said we do not have any money, because he wants to extend the tax cuts permanently. He will close the loopholes, but not for them. Sorry, kids, we cannot close the loopholes. I have to close the loopholes for people who need tax cuts.
Now I am going to talk about the increases in education. I know Senator Kennedy is going to speak about this and he knows these numbers better than I do. I will admit, and I understand and know--so don't anybody bother coming to the floor to tell me I do not understand-- there is increased funding in education. I am clear and so are the people in my State that the Federal Government has increased funding. That is not the point. The point is, the increases have not been what the administration promised and do not help us meet the new goals that have been mandated on every county and every parish in this Nation.
I will also say, if the Senator from New Hampshire wants to come to the floor and debate this issue--and as Senator Murray knows very well--the increase in education in 2001, which was
the last budget of the previous administration, was 19 percent. That is how much the increase was. The next year is 2002, which was 18 percent. In the years of the President's budget, which is right here--this is the administration's budget and this is the chairman's mark. The chairman's mark is a little different than the President but it is basically the same document. These are the increases they provide: 19 percent, 18 percent, down to 6 percent, 5 percent, and 3 percent. The outyears look even bleaker.
They put No Child Left Behind basically in here, and as we can see, they pulled the rug out from everybody. That is what this election is going to be about.
I know I only have a couple minutes remaining, but I want to say I know, not because I represent and am a leader from my State and I travel just like Senator Murray does all over her State, how angry people are about this. The front page of the Washington Post yesterday issued a poll that says 57 percent of the American people polled all over the country do not think the country is going in the right direction.
This budget sets the direction, and 57 percent of the people know what is in this budget, not in every line but they are getting the general gist of it. They do not like it, and I do not blame them. There are many things it does, but one thing it does is it breaks the promise to their kids, and when you start fooling with people's children and you start upsetting the dream people have for their children and their education, there is going to be a repercussion from that.
In conclusion, to use the President's own words: The time for excuse- making has come to an end. We have committed to our schools and our children. We have said if we ask for accountability and results, the Federal Government will be there, will be a reliable partner, and this administration has made different choices.
I end with a quote from another President. We have had many great Presidents in our history, thank goodness, and we had a great one in President Kennedy who said:
I believe we possess all the resources and talents
necessary, but the facts of the matter are we have never made
the national decisions or marshaled the national resources
required for such leadership.
He was speaking about the space program.
We have never specified long-range goals on an urgent
timetable, or managed our resources and our time so as to
insure their fulfillment. . . . [L]et it be clear that I am
asking the Congress and the country to accept a firm
commitment to a new course of action--a course which will
last for many years and carry very heavy costs . . . if we
are to go only half way, or to reduce our sights in the face
of difficulty . . . it would be better not to go at all.
That is what I am saying. If we have set a course by this budget, we owe it to our parents, to our teachers, and our children to stay the course, and if we are not ready to go the whole distance, we should not have started. That is the promise that has been broken.
I yield the floor.
Is there any additional time that could be available? This is such an important amendment. Could we take an hour and a half?
I understand.
Will the Senator yield?
I would be happy to ask the question, but I think the Senator from Washington would like to ask the question, and then I assist her in that.
Mr. President, I thank the Senator. I appreciate the leadership of the Senator from Washington.
I am sorry the Senator from New Hampshire has left the floor because I do have about five points to make.
The first point I want to make is, while I respect his leadership in education, and while I think he has absolutely put the best spin possible on the situation that we face, I would say, in Louisiana, that dog just won't hunt.
Those numbers don't add up. His charts do not tell the true story. People in Louisiana and throughout this country are very anxious right now because what they want to hear is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. While I am not saying those specific numbers were not correct, the truth is not just about giving the specific numbers; it is about the whole picture.
I will begin with the truth and the facts to put it in reference. I wish they would put the chart up, but they may not because they will not be able to defend it. But if they would put the chart back up that shows the years they put up there--1993, 1994 and 1995--the Senator said when the Democrats were in charge in 1993, 1994, and 1995, we did not
have that much of an increase in education. That is true.
But what is also true is that the previous Republican administrations had left this country in such debt and in such despair and the deficits were so high that we could not contribute money to any program of any substance because the country was going broke.
So it is true we could not spend that much money on education because we had to take care of the deficit, this big red line. So we had to cut back.
Although Republicans say the Democrats don't know how to cut back and Democrats never will cut budgets, that is absolutely not true. We, under good and solid leadership, started trimming back. And we had to raise some revenues to get the country back into surpluses. When we did get back into surpluses, the budget numbers will reflect that there were increases made by the Clinton administration in education.
I will submit this document for the Record. It is a little scratched up and it is not very clear. I am sorry I don't have it in big print. But it will be put in the Record. If anybody wants to argue about this page, they are more than welcome. This is the official document of the U.S. budget. Nobody will refute these numbers. They are all right here.
What they say is that there were increases of 15 percent, 12 percent, 12 percent, 6.2 percent, 12 percent, 18 percent. It is true that as we got surpluses, we gave more money to education. But what is also true is this budget, which Senator Murray is trying to amend but the Republicans won't allow it, is saying that this budget, then, with these surpluses, wants to take some of that surplus money and commit it to education. This budget says, no, we are going to commit to it tax cuts, all to tax cuts, and no money to education.
In addition, when President Bush came into office, which was 2001, although we had increased funding for education as the condition of the country improved and we were doing as much as we could, the truth is, the President came into office and said: Even though we are increasing money to education, the past administration didn't do a good job, and I, as the new leader of the country, am going to put in a new law. We are going to step up the requirements and we are going to have accountability. If we do that, then I will fund those new efforts. As you know, he and the Republican leadership have decided they are not going to fund it. They are going to provide tax cuts.
Let me talk about pressure. I know the Senator from New Hampshire, who was Governor and is now Senator, understands pressure. I don't know exactly what he was talking about. Maybe he could clear this up.
But when I supported No Child Left Behind, 40 percent of the teachers in Louisiana were uncertified and their average salary was $27,000 a year. We are one of the lowest in the country. But when that law was passed, a mandate was put in that all of those teachers had to be certified by next year, 2005. We are in 2004. I don't know if the Senator from New Hampshire thinks that is not pressure, but let me tell you, my superintendents are feeling some heat. My legislature is feeling some heat. I am feeling some heat in a good way, because 40 percent of the teachers in Louisiana aren't certified. In this budget, which promised to help train them, help increase their skills, help recruit them, the funding is not there to do it. That is what I call pressure.
Let me talk about the pipeline for a minute. The pipeline issue came up because our Secretary of Education, supported by this administration, after calling all the teachers in America and one of the leading organizations a terrorist organization, which he has apologized for but a lot of people don't think the apology went far enough, after calling them terrorists, he appeared before the committee and said, from a letter:
States are not fully utilizing the Federal education funds
available to them in a timely manner, allowing billions of
dollars to remain in the federal Treasury instead of
improving education for our children.
He has put in writing, for this administration, a charge to every Governor, every superintendent, and every administrator across the country basically telling them, I don't know what you all are complaining about, because you have a lot of money.
Wait until you see the reaction that is going to happen across the country. It starts with the superintendent of Iowa who has gone on record as saying:
The implication that we have let huge sums of federal money
languish, that the funds are at our disposal to use at our
discretion, or that we have not been good stewards of the
public money is not only unfair, but it is patently
insulting.
If this administration, the Republican leadership, wants to continue to insult everyone in America who is trying their best across party lines, across racial lines, across geographic lines to improve education, if they want to keep putting out insults such as this, they may go right ahead. But that dog doesn't hunt. The arguments won't stand. The facts do not justify the story that is being told.
I am going to conclude with this. The facts are these: When the country was in huge deficits, which the Republicans, in large measure, were responsible for because of their irresponsible policies, everything had to be cut back. And as soon as the surpluses started to appear, which was a good thing and everyone worked on making that happen, we said: Let's set a new course for education and invest money but not just throw money at the problem. Because I agree money is not the solution, but let's have accountability and we will find results.
We started down the path. We believed the administration. We pressed on, and then the rug was pulled out from under our feet. That is what this budget is about. That is what Senator Murray's amendment is about. I am proud to be a cosponsor of it and that is the truth.
I ask unanimous consent to print the following material in the Record.
I yield back the remainder of my time.
Madam President, I rise today in support of Senator Murray's amendment that, put simply, proposes to close unfair tax loopholes and use the funding closing them brings to fulfill the promises we made to the parents, teachers, principals, superintendents and, most importantly, our children. For the past hour, my colleagues from across the aisle have tried to put a different spin on this amendment, claiming that it raises taxes to cover increased spending. That is what they would like the American public to believe because then their opposition to it is easier for them to explain. But the fact of the matter is, the underlying budget resolution now before us already proposes that we close these very same tax loopholes, the only difference is that under this budget the revenue generated would be used to pay for new tax cuts for corporations and millionaires. So it seems what we have here is a difference in priorities. Democrats are against tax evasion and for investments in education and Republicans are against tax evasion and for tax cuts for those who do not need them. That is a choice I will leave to the American people come this November.
Two years ago, we challenged our schools to reject mediocrity and failure and to embrace excellence and high standards. We laid out legislation that provided a blue print for reform and we promised we would be there every step of the way, in partnership, to bring about change in our public schools. I was one of the 13 Members of the U.S. Senate who advocated for the kind of change embodied by the No Child Left Behind Act long before it became a part of President Bush's political platform. I believe in the potential of this law, its founding principles, and the direction it leads our Nation. It is by no means a perfect law. No law, in the history of Federal involvement in education, has ever been perfect on the first try. But that does not mean we must abandon it and go back to the drawing board. What we must do is come together to both fund it and fix it.
As the old saying goes, ``talk is cheap.'' Unfortunately, this administration does pays a great deal of lip service to principles such as accountability, teacher quality, innovation and school choice, but are not willing to do a whole lot to be sure that these principles are reflected in the budget. For example, this administration says the following when it comes to the importance of teacher quality. ``We know that our children's future depends on their education. And the quality of their education depends on our teachers. Strong schools and quality teachers are the President's priorities,'' Laura Bush said on the First Anniversary of the Passage of NCLB.
Yet, what they do to fulfill the promise of a qualified teacher in every classroom is a different matter. In this year's budget, President Bush proposes to cut funding for Troops to Teachers and freezes funding for grants to States to improve teacher quality. What this means is that States like my own, are faced with the congressionally mandated challenge of closing the gap in the number of qualified teachers, and have had to try and meet this challenge with approximately $100 million less than they were promised.
The administration maintains that their goal is to improve public schools. In fact, in January of 2001, President Bush made the following promise: ``Once failing schools are identified, we will help them improve. We'll help them help themselves. Our goal is to improve public education. We want success, and when schools are willing to accept the reality that the accountability system points out and are willing to change, we will help them.'' If this is not a promise, I am not sure what is. States like Louisiana believed in this promise and they believe in accountability. For the past 4 years they have been working hard to identify schools that were failing and turn them around. They have done such an outstanding job that they were just recognized by Education Week for having one of the best accountability systems in the country.
Is President Bush fulfilling his promise to support and encourage these efforts? No. He is pulling the plug just when they need help the most. This year's increase in education, which has been shrinking a little more every year since Bush took office, is the smallest increase in education spending in 7 years. What's worse, is that according to his budget, next year, not coincidentally a year after the election, education funding will be cut by $1.5 billion.
Our schools need more than lip service and empty promises, they need help. Now, I have asked the President and my Republican colleagues, why the President would not provide States with the resources he promised would be available to support their efforts. Here is what they tell me. They say, ``Senator Landrieu, the President did not make any promises when it comes to funding, the funding levels listed in the law are just goals. Congress never appropriates as much as they authorize.''
I think it is important for the American people to be able to separate fact from fiction. Let me tell you what the facts are on this point. When a program is a high enough priority for the President, you can bet it will be funded. Let me give you some examples. Last year, Congress appropriated $1 billion for a program called the Millennium Challenge Account, a brand new foreign policy program proposed by the administration. The President demanded $1 billion and he got a full billion. Same was true for the tax package in 2003. Congress authorized the passage of a $350 billion tax cut and we spent all $350 billion. Medicare, the Iraq Supplemental, the Compassion Capital Fund, the list goes on and on.
The Secretary of Education claims that the reason for the decreased financial support from the administration is because States have too much money and are not even spending what they already have. In the words of Ted Stilwill, the school chief from Iowa, ``The implication that [States] have let huge sums of federal money languish that the funds are at our disposal to use at our discretion, or that we have not been good stewards of the public's money is not only unfair, but patently insulting.'' Here are the facts: According to data from the U.S. Department of Education, States are actually spending their federal money faster than expected. As of February 20, using normal spending rates, States should still be waiting to spend about 7 percent of their Federal education money from fiscal years 2000 to 2002. As a matter of fact, States have spent all but 6 percent.
What our kids need is less excuse making, fewer empty promises, and more leadership. In the words of President Bush himself, ``The time for excuse making has come to an end Accountability for results is the law of the land.''
I would like to close my remarks this morning with one final Presidential quote. ``We possess all the resources and all the talents necessary. But the facts of the matter are that we have never made the national decisions or marshaled the national resources for such leadership. We have never specified long-range goals on an urgent time schedule, or managed our resources and our time so as to insure their fulfillment . . . Let it be clear that I am asking the Congress and the country to accept a firm commitment to a new course of action--a course which will last for many years and carry very heavy costs . . . [but] if we were to go only halfway, or reduce our sights in the face of difficulty, it would be better not to go at all.''
Many of you may be saying to yourselves sounds like something President George Bush said when he urged Congress to pass the No Child Left Behind Act, perhaps the most sweeping reform of Federal education policy since 1965. But you would be wrong. This was from a speech given by another President making a historic challenge to the Nation. This is an excerpt from the famous ``Man on the Moon Speech'' delivered by President John F. Kennedy.
In 1961, President Kennedy presented a bold challenge to Congress and the Nation: to reach for the stars, to put a
man on the moon within the next decade. Most thought he was over ambitious, perhaps even crazy. It was such a large task, it could never be done. Put a man on the moon in less than 10 years? In June on 1969, 8 years and 1 month after this speech, Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldren landed on the moon and Neil Armstrong uttered the immortal phrase, ``one small step for man, one giant leap for mankind.''
The difference is that President Kennedy was not only willing to make the challenge. He was willing to stand strong and provide the leadership and the resources necessary to meet it. In 1961, all tolled, the United States was spending $1.6 billion, the equivalent of $8.7 billion today on space programs. By 1966, just 5 years later, we were spending $7 billion, which is close to $30 billion in today's dollars. But it was more than just money, he provided the leadership and the support. He made commitments and he stood by them. This program was more than his speech for the day, it was a top priority. And it worked. History may have been very different if it hadn't.
In the words of the late President Kennedy, ``if we were to go only halfway, or reduce our sights in the face of difficulty, it would be better not to go at all.'' We made a promise to our States, more importantly, to our children. The Murray amendment fulfills that promise, it stays the course and that is why I am proud to support it.
Mr. President, is there 5 minutes available to speak for the amendment?
Five minutes.
Mr. President, I thank those managing the bill, and I thank the Senator from South Carolina for bringing this amendment to the floor. I would like to cosponsor this amendment because it helps our veterans and Guard and Reserve in two very important ways. The Senator's portion of this helps to extend the TRICARE piece and extends also in this amendment the GI benefits for the Guard and Reserve.
As I have said many times, the Guard and Reserve that is protecting us today, that is serving as the core in many instances of our Armed Forces, is not the Guard and Reserve of our fathers' or grandfathers' generations. They are citizen soldiers. They are professional soldiers. Because of policy changes we put into place, the Guard and Reserve now are picking up about 40 percent of the battlefield burdens, and they deserve a greater portion of the overall budget to support them.
Do our active troops deserve support? Absolutely. But our Guard and Reserve, because they are picking up an ever-increasing responsibility regarding this war against terrorism, the war in Afghanistan and the war in Iraq, and even right here on the homefront, deserve more help and support.
I am proud to be a cosponsor of this amendment. I believe it will pass with great support on both sides.
I wanted to take a minute to also talk about something I hope we can find a way in this debate to fix. I want to see if we can find a way to fix the survivor benefit plan, which was enacted in 1972. This survivor benefit plan was a pension benefit for military spouses, after the retirees passed away. We said if the retired veterans wanted to basically pay into a certain account, when the retiree died, their wives would receive 55 percent of the veterans retirement pay.
We created this fund. However, after it was established, budget policies were put into place that basically cut out that benefit. So we now have the unbelievable and untenable situation where spouses--most of them women; I would say 85 to 90 percent are female--who, by the request of our military, move themselves and their families every 2 years, which makes it extremely difficult for anyone to develop any consistency in a career outside the home, even if they were able and willing. Moving every 2 years doesn't give them the opportunity to expand their earning capacity. That was a sacrifice many spouses and their families made to support the men in this case--in most cases-- serving in our military and to support the country.
Yet for all that great commitment and service and dedication, we tell them, thank you very much, but we are going to cut your benefits from 55 percent of what you and your spouse put
in, in some instances, down to 32 percent. It is not fair.
There are Senators on the floor--I see the chairman of the Budget Committee--who say we cannot afford to cut back the tax cut to provide for this. They say the tax cut is too important and we cannot even modify it or change it or postpone it or adjust it even in the slightest amount to pay for that.
I disagree. I think we can find a way to adjust the tax cut to pay for the widows who moved every 2 years, paid their own money into the fund, and now they get shortchanged. When we talk about supporting our military families, let's remember the soldier on the battlefield, and let's also remember the soldiers who are at home, both the spouses and children who bear a tremendous burden, who do it willingly and with great patriotism. Let's not ask them to sacrifice when others in this country are not willing to make that same sacrifice.
I will be offering this amendment later, supporting the amendment that is on the floor. Hopefully, we can convince some of the leadership to make adjustments in their tax cut plans to do some things we need to do for our men and women in uniform and their families.
I yield the floor.
S.Con.Res. 95 S. 852
Read full remarks Show lessCongressional Record
Senate Floor·March 10, 2004·p. S2586-S2588
Survivor Benefits
Madam President, I thank the floor manager. It has been a long day, and perhaps we have made some progress and the hour is a little late. I am going to speak just on two amendments of mine that I will offer and which will be voted on…
Madam President, I thank the floor manager. It has been a long day, and perhaps we have made some progress and the hour is a little late. I am going to speak just on two amendments of mine that I will offer and which will be voted on tomorrow.
I will take the time tonight to speak at some length about these amendments because our time will be so limited, unfortunately, because of the rules under which we are operating.
Before I do, let me restate for the record that I intend to vote against this budget. It is not a budget that will put America on the right course. This is a budget that will turn a stream of red ink into a raging river that will threaten to wash away Social Security, and this is according not to the Democratic spin room or Democratic operatives, this is according to Alan Greenspan, who testified before the Budget Committee last week and basically said because of the choices President Bush and the Republican leadership are making in this budget, adjustments will have to be made to Social Security.
He could have gone on to say--and I am sure he will in further speeches--that adjustments are going to have to be made to education and the Federal contribution to education. We are going to have to make adjustments to housing initiatives in this country, and we are going to have to make adjustments to the contributions we make to colleges and universities because if this budget goes into law, the country will basically be on a course to bankruptcy because the debt is rising so high.
We have been attacked by terrorists. We have a war now that is costing us hundreds of millions of dollars. We have passed a major education initiative that the President himself said he wanted to fund, and the economy has, in many instances, tanked, contrary to all of our hopes and expectations.
Yet the plan is for tax cuts every day, always deeper and greater, which is threatening to wash away a lot of things that are important to people in this country. One of the things we cannot fix because of this blind adherence to tax cuts for people who earn over a million dollars is a survivor benefit for our military personnel.
There are a lot of issues for which we could fight. I want to show this document. It is from the Military Officers Association: Fighting for Fairness. The public is going to have a hard time believing this, so I am going to try to go over it as simply as I can. In 1972, our Government promised the spouses of people in the military--now, most of the spouses would be women but not all of them would be women. Most are women. Our Government promised them if they would contribute a certain amount of money into a special fund, after the member of the service passed away, they could provide a nest egg for their spouses. These are spouses, and everyone is familiar with this. These women--millions of them--move every 2 years, generally. They move themselves, their children, and most do it with a smile and joy on their face because they are committed to helping the country, and they are supporting their husbands who are protecting us every day.
We promised to give them what we call a survivor's benefit. But we have failed to live up to that promise. We have, instead, said even though we said we would do that, we decided to save money so we could give money, as the Senator from Oklahoma said, to the millionaires who need tax cuts in this country. We said instead of making the promise to these individuals, we have another priority, and that is to give people who make over a million dollars tax cuts because they need it. But we cannot give spouses of the people in the military their full benefit.
It gets worse because the document we gave them actually doesn't mention the offset. I am going to submit it because I want to make it clear that this is the document our military signed, and it will be read for the Record. Nowhere in here did it talk about an offset. An offset is, when the spouse gets to be 62 years of age, instead of receiving the benefit that her husband put aside specifically for her, thinking that
he was doing a good thing to help protect her in her old age because she moved every 2 years and she has had to live under tremendous pressure--when you move every 2 years, I think people would understand it would be hard to keep a career going in the right direction and continue to increase your earnings, if you did want to work outside of the home. Maybe you could manage to get a minimum-wage job or something, but it would be very hard to develop a career when you have to move every 2 years. She did. These women did. Then they signed a document that said they would receive this benefit, and, lo and behold, they were told after they were in their sixties and their husbands had died, after their husbands served 20 and sometimes 30 years in the military protecting us and giving us the advantages, that the thousands of dollars they were counting on were not there.
It gets worse. In addition to not funding this for our military families, we do fund, as the Federal Government, if you work for the Federal Government in civilian employment and you take out a policy for your spouse, you do not have the same offset. So we have the very unfair and terribly unjust situation today where if you are a spouse of a military person, and you have moved every 2 years, your spouse has protected the country for the last 30 years, and you get to be 62, you do not receive that full benefit because we need to save money to cut taxes for people who make over $1 million. That is the situation.
My amendment, which I am going to ask be voted on tomorrow, would fix that situation. I do not think it is going to be adopted, but I am going to offer it anyway because I want my colleagues on the other side to be on the record saying the choice they make is not to fix this situation which will cost us approximately $2 billion because we cannot afford it. We can afford $2.6 trillion in tax cuts, but we cannot afford $2 billion to help our military families.
I am not going to vote that way, but some people will, and they can explain it to the thousands of retirees in their States. I am not sure how.
For the record, under the civil service retirement system, the percentage of survivor benefits, people receive 55 percent; the Federal employee retirement system receives 50 percent, but not the widows and widowers of people who served in the military. I do not understand it, and nobody in Louisiana understands it because we continue to increase the military budget. I know, because I voted for every increase in the military budget since I arrived in the Senate 7 years ago. I voted for billions of dollars because I believe in a strong military.
I do not know how not living up to your promises to people in uniform to help them protect their spouses helps us to strengthen our military. If anybody knows, maybe they can communicate that to me because I do not know.
I am hoping when we vote on this amendment tomorrow, perhaps we can find some money in this budget to take care of this situation. I understand the House has acted. I also understand a bill has been filed by the Senator from Maine, a Senator for whom I have a great deal of respect, Ms. Snowe. It is a bipartisan effort. I am hoping maybe we can find some money in this budget to make some adjustments for the survivors benefit plan.
I ask unanimous consent to print in the Record a letter that was recently printed in the Washington Times that outlines this situation, and also the actual document our families signed that leads them to believe they are going to get this benefit.
I thank the Chair for consideration of that amendment at the appropriate time.
S. 1916 H.R. 3673
Read full remarks Show lessCongressional Record
Senate Floor·March 10, 2004·p. S2588-S2589
Education
Madam President, the second amendment I wish to talk about for a moment and offer tomorrow for a vote is not about the military; it is about education. I was in the Chamber earlier today speaking about education. Let me recap. Senator…
Madam President, the second amendment I wish to talk about for a moment and offer tomorrow for a vote is not about the military; it is about education. I was in the Chamber earlier today speaking about education. Let me recap.
Senator Murray offered an amendment which I was pleased to vote for, proud to vote for. Although it only received 48 votes, I think it was one of the most important amendments we discussed all day. The reason I say that is because one of the major platforms of this administration when this President took office--I can remember the speeches. I sat in the great room of the House Chamber and listened to the State of the Union speeches. I will paraphrase, but I heard this.
I heard the leader of our country say we are not doing enough in education; that our schools were not doing what they should do, and that he had a plan. If we would just stop throwing money at the system, if we would start expecting success, not funding failure, if we would embrace accountability, if we would make sure all of our teachers were certified, and if we would really work together across party lines and come up with a new plan for public education in our Nation, that is what we should do.
I was convinced, committed, and worked very hard to see that bill pass, and it passed. That was the No Child Left Behind Act. It was not a big lift for me for a number of reasons.
I am very proud of my State because before we entered into this agreement at the Federal level, the State of Louisiana was one of about five States in the Union that was pioneering this exact concept. It said for 150 years we have just thrown money at the system not really requiring or expecting good results and not really measuring our commitment of dollars based on the results we were getting, and that did not seem to make sense. So we switched our system, holding all schools accountable, not just for the averages for the subgroups of children--African Americans, rural children, poor children--but making sure we were not leaving anybody out.
We were well on our way. Louisiana was doing great. Then this administration came in and said: Your plan, although you like it and the people of Louisiana like it and you are making progress, I do not think it is strong enough. He, the leadership, pushed this country into an even stricter plan. The leadership, the administration, said: If you go there, I will be there. I will help and provide the funding in the budget for No Child Left Behind.
One of the reasons I am going to vote against this budget tomorrow is because that did not come true, because it is short $9 billion. For Louisiana, it means about $200 million.
I have schools that have been rated as in need of improvement. They are trying so hard, and they are doing a beautiful job. But they need to hire a few more teachers. This administration said it would be there to help hire the teachers. The President said that, but it is not in his budget, and it is not in the budget in the chairman's mark to help them.
Unfortunately, one of the small items that is in the budget which really pours salt on the wound is, while we do not have the $9 billion for No Child Left Behind, I want to share with everyone what is in the budget, which is very hard to read. What is in the budget is $50 million to send kids from public schools to private schools, basically. It reserves $50 million for school choice initiatives that move children from public schools to private schools.
Now we have the situation where we are not going to fund taking children from lower performing schools to move them into higher performing public schools, but we are going to specifically provide additional money to move them into private schools.
For the record, in Chicago, under the President's plan, 125,000 students were eligible for transfer, meaning that 125,000 students found themselves in schools that did not make the mark.
They requested a transfer to a higher performing public school, which is one of the promises of No Child Left Behind, but only 3,000 were transferred. Why? Because there is no space. Why? Because they do not have the money to hire additional teachers. Why? Because the President's budget specifically prohibits money from being used for school construction, because the Republican leadership, led by President Bush, does not want money spent on school construction.
I do not know how children are moved from a lower performing school to a higher performing school if the higher performing school is filled unless classrooms are added, expanded, or teachers are added. Because he flat-funded the teacher section and prohibits money from being used to build additional schools, I am not quite sure how our superintendents, Democrats or Republicans, are going to handle it, but they have a real challenge before them.
In Los Angeles, we have 230,000 children who are eligible for transfer. I do not think anybody in the Chamber could guess how many actually were transferred. One hundred students. Two hundred thirty thousand children are eligible, and 100 were transferred.
I learned today, and I am going to submit for the Record, if I can verify it--and if not, I will remove this from the Record--there has not been a new school built in L.A. in the last 20 years. That may not be correct, but I want to say it tonight. If it is not, I will remove it from the Record. L.A. is growing so fast, and these children have no place to go, and this budget does not help them get anywhere. It says instead of helping children go to new public schools, we are going to send them to private schools.
Of course, there are no spaces in the private schools, either, so I am not sure where we are going to send them.
In Baltimore, 30,000 children--that is this year--last year were eligible for transfer. Only 194 were transferred. In New Orleans, in my home city, 35,000 children were in failing schools. Only 400 were transferred. The rest were denied because of lack of space in higher performing schools.
My amendment is going to remove the $50 million, and say no money can be spent in this budget sending children to private schools until we provide options for them to go to public schools. Many of these families would choose public schools, but according to this budget they cannot go because we will not help them add teachers, and they are strictly prohibited from using the money for school construction in this budget.
Those are the two amendments: One to help spouses in the military. I think we can find a few million dollars to help them and I am hoping to take this out of the budget so we can keep our priorities straight, which is helping all schools with the best we can, but living up to our promises of No Child Left Behind first.
When we have funded that effort, which is not just any other Government program--I know we do not fund every Government program at the authorized levels, but this is different. This was a special promise made. This was the foundation of a new beginning for our public schools. This was a promise that was made to the people of our country, and it is a promise that is not fulfilled in this budget, which is why, again, I will vote against it, and I will be pleased to offer these amendments in the morning.
I yield back my time.
Read full remarks Show lessCongressional Record
Senate Floor·March 2, 2004·p. S1998
Honoring The John Ehret High School
Mr. President, from May 1-3, 2004 more than 1,200 students from across the United States will visit Washington, D.C. to take part in the national finals of We the People: The Citizen and the Constitution, the most extensive educational…
Mr. President, from May 1-3, 2004 more than 1,200 students from across the United States will visit Washington, D.C. to take part in the national finals of We the People: The Citizen and the Constitution, the most extensive educational program in the country developed specifically to educate young people about the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights. Administered by the Center for Civic Education, the We the People program is funded by the U.S. Department of Education by act of Congress.
I am proud to announce that the class from John Ehret High School from Marrero will represent the State of Louisiana in this prestigious national event. These outstanding students, through their knowledge of the U.S. Constitution, won their statewide competition and earned the chance to come to our Nation's Capital and compete at the national level.
The 3-day We the People National Finals Competition is modeled after hearings in the U.S. Congress. The students are given an opportunity to demonstrate their knowledge before a panel of adult judges while they evaluate and defend positions on relevant historical and contemporary issues. Their testimony is followed by questions designed to probe the students' depth of understanding and ability to apply their constitutional knowledge. Columnist David Broder once described this annual competition as ``the place to come to have your faith in the younger generation restored.''
Most recently, the We the People program was highlighted at two national conferences held in 2003: the White House Forum on American History, Civics, and Service, and the first annual Congressional Conference on Civic Education. Evaluations and independent studies have validated the effectiveness of the We the People program on students' civic knowledge and attitudes. This innovative civic education program continues to be one of the best antidotes to apathy and cynicism in our Nation.
I wish these students the best of luck at the We the People national finals and applaud their achievement. We should all be proud that they are learning and advocating the fundamental ideals that identify us as a people and bind us together as a Nation.
Read full remarks Show lessCongressional Record
Senate Floor·February 27, 2004·p. S1892-S1895
Statements On Introduced Bills And Joint Resolutions
Mr. President, every year, Americans commemorate the birthday of America's greatest civil rights leader, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Last year I was pleased to introduce legislation to authorize the Secretary of the Treasury to mint coins…
Mr. President, every year, Americans commemorate the birthday of America's greatest civil rights leader, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Last year I was pleased to introduce legislation to authorize the Secretary of the Treasury to mint coins to recognize Dr. King's contribution to the people of the United States. Revenues from the surcharge on the coin would go to the Library of Congress to purchase and maintain historical documents and other materials associated with the life and legacy of Martin Luther King, Jr.
I had hoped that this bill could have been enacted last year on the 40th anniversary of Dr. King's ``I Have a Dream'' speech, but we were unable to do so. Today, I would like to reintroduce the Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Commemorative Coin Act of 2004, to have the coin minted in 2009 in commemoration of the 80th anniversary of Dr. King's birth. Dr. King's significant contributions and his message should live on for future generations. America should remember him as a national hero and a pioneer.
In recognizing Dr. Martin Luther King's legacy, it is important that we continue to learn from his actions and words. When I was a young girl in Louisiana, I learned from Dr. King that the struggle for civil rights and racial equality was more than simply changing the law, it required changing our hearts as well. Dr. King recognized that the civil rights movement presented Americans with a choice. We could choose hate and fear, or we could choose love and understanding. Dr. King believed that when Americans choose love in their hearts, peace and equality would follow. Dr. King offered us a peaceful way to reach equality through non-violent protest and action. I believe that this should continue to be a fundamental moral challenge for our country. In his famous ``I Have a Dream'' speech, Dr. King said, ``I have a dream that one day, the sons of former slaves and the sons of former slave owners will be able to sit down together at the table of brotherhood.''
I would also like to take the time to thank my good friends on both sides of the aisle for supporting this important legislation. I urge others to join us in remembering the selfless deeds of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., by cosponsoring this bill.
S. 2142 S. 2143 S. 2145 S. 2146
Read full remarks Show lessCongressional Record
Senate Floor·February 27, 2004·p. S1895
Introductory Statement on S. 2146
Mr. President, every year, Americans commemorate the birthday of America's greatest civil rights leader, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Last year I was pleased to introduce legislation to authorize the Secretary of the Treasury to mint coins…
Mr. President, every year, Americans commemorate the birthday of America's greatest civil rights leader, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Last year I was pleased to introduce legislation to authorize the Secretary of the Treasury to mint coins to recognize Dr. King's contribution to the people of the United States. Revenues from the surcharge on the coin would go to the Library of Congress to purchase and maintain historical documents and other materials associated with the life and legacy of Martin Luther King, Jr.
I had hoped that this bill could have been enacted last year on the 40th anniversary of Dr. King's ``I Have a Dream'' speech, but we were unable to do so. Today, I would like to reintroduce the Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Commemorative Coin Act of 2004, to have the coin minted in 2009 in commemoration of the 80th anniversary of Dr. King's birth. Dr. King's significant contributions and his message should live on for future generations. America should remember him as a national hero and a pioneer.
In recognizing Dr. Martin Luther King's legacy, it is important that we continue to learn from his actions and words. When I was a young girl in Louisiana, I learned from Dr. King that the struggle for civil rights and racial equality was more than simply changing the law, it required changing our hearts as well. Dr. King recognized that the civil rights movement presented Americans with a choice. We could choose hate and fear, or we could choose love and understanding. Dr. King believed that when Americans choose love in their hearts, peace and equality would follow. Dr. King offered us a peaceful way to reach equality through non-violent protest and action. I believe that this should continue to be a fundamental moral challenge for our country. In his famous ``I Have a Dream'' speech, Dr. King said, ``I have a dream that one day, the sons of former slaves and the sons of former slave owners will be able to sit down together at the table of brotherhood.''
I would also like to take the time to thank my good friends on both sides of the aisle for supporting this important legislation. I urge others to join us in remembering the selfless deeds of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., by cosponsoring this bill.
S. 2146
Read full remarks Show lessCongressional Record
Senate Floor·February 23, 2004·p. S1456
Recognition Of Isidore Newman School
Mr. President, I am honored to recognize Isidore Newman School as it celebrates 100 years of educating the children of New Orleans. When the school opened its doors on October 3, 1904, it was in a class by itself. Then called Isidore…
Mr. President, I am honored to recognize Isidore Newman School as it celebrates 100 years of educating the children of New Orleans.
When the school opened its doors on October 3, 1904, it was in a class by itself. Then called Isidore Newman Manual Training School, it adopted a philosophy, in vogue at the time, that teaching children skills such as sewing and woodworking would enhance their minds. It was the only school of its kind in New Orleans. On Newman's opening day, the principal, James Edwin Addicott, explained the little-understood teaching concept to The New Orleans Times-Democrat: ``The manual training school does not attempt to teach any particular art or trade. What it does attempt is to educate the hand as an invaluable and necessary aid in the development of the brain.''
The school was unique for another reason: its unusual assortment of pupils. On that historic first day, the young Mr. Addicott stood at the doors of his brandnew school and waited for 102 children to arrive from a Jewish orphanage a few blocks away. It was for them that Isidore Newman, a German-Jewish, rags-to-riches immigrant, had endowed the school. But Mr. Addicott also waited for 23 children from private homes, Jewish and non-Jewish. For Mr. Newman had specified that this school be open to all children, regardless of religion.
The school's reputation for academic excellence and top-notch facilities spread, and within a few years, children from private homes outnumbered those from the orphanage. Gathered together in this unique environment--for New Orleans society was quite segregated at the time-- the children did just what the founders dreamed they would do: they got along. The school became a haven of inclusiveness, and friendships formed on the playground lasted a lifetime.
By the 1930s, Newman had become a college preparatory school, no longer offering courses in the manual arts. By the 1940s, the orphanage had closed. But Newman continued to be the most religiously mixed prep school in the city.
Newman's first century has been filled with triumphs, tragedies, and lots of laughs. The school has always felt like a large, extended family, where the development of the individual and the individual's devotion to the whole are stressed equally. Newman instills in its students the value of service to one's community, while at the same time encouraging the personal growth, intellectual and otherwise, of each child. The results have been remarkable. In 1985, Newman was recognized as 1 of 281 exemplary schools in the United States by the U.S. Secretary of Education. It was one of only seventeen private, nonsectarian schools chosen. And Newman has been a model of diversity. In 1968, Newman became the first private, nonparochial school in New Orleans to desegregate.
Today, Newman is an accredited, independent, coeducational school serving more than 1,100 students from prekindergarten through 12th grade. The school's record of academic excellence is on a par with the best prep schools in the Nation. Its graduates have gone on to the finest colleges and universities. They have presided over Federal courts. They counsel Presidents. They write bestsellers. They are Rhodes scholars. They play professional sports. They run large media conglomerates and Fortune 500 companies, and they have been generous, important philanthropists and civic leaders in New Orleans and beyond.
I congratulate the school on reaching this important milestone, and I wish Newman all the best for another century of excellence.
Read full remarks Show lessCongressional Record
Senate Floor·February 12, 2004·p. S1195-S1267
Safe, Accountable, Flexible, And Efficient Transportation Equity Act Of
Mr. President, I understand there is a pending amendment, the Dorgan amendment? I wish to set that amendment aside temporarily and speak on an amendment which I intend to withdraw. I send this amendment to the desk for its consideration,…
Mr. President, I understand there is a pending amendment, the Dorgan amendment?
I wish to set that amendment aside temporarily and speak on an amendment which I intend to withdraw.
I send this amendment to the desk for its consideration, but my intention is to speak for about 10 or 15 minutes and then I am going to ask to withdraw the amendment because, unfortunately, even though this is an extremely meritorious concept, I am not certain we have the votes for it at this time, but I thought I should take some time to talk about it.
I ask unanimous consent the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.
Mr. President, I offer this amendment on behalf of myself and Senator Breaux, Senator Pryor, and Senator Lincoln from Arkansas--the two Senators from Arkansas and Louisiana. There are other Senators who are very interested and have given us a lot of encouragement as we moved forward with this concept.
I first want to thank the leaders of this bill for their tremendous work in putting a very balanced transportation bill together. You can see how controversial and emotional some of this debate is regarding highways and jobs. Highways, if not built correctly or built in the right way, or if rail or mass transit isn't provided, if the trade burden is too heavy on one area, can cost jobs, as you just heard the Senator from Pennsylvania speak.
This is a very complicated and very big bill and a very expensive bill, but one we certainly have to find a way to afford because it is the infrastructure on which our economy in large measure is built. It is not the only infrastructure. I would like to remind everyone that schools and education are just as important, but our highways, our rail, and our Interstate System particularly are the foundation for jobs and economic growth.
The concept of the amendment I talk about--again, I am going to withdraw it--is to pull a few percentage points of dollars away from the general program and direct it to the completion of major interstate routes that are in desperate need in order to handle the new international trade and the increased truck traffic and the increased moveable inventories that are in large measure traveling by truck on our highways because of policies we have as a Congress put into place over the last couple of years.
We have an Interstate System to be proud of. We have made mistakes over the decades as we have constructed it. Obviously we have not been as sensitive to the environment when we began this several decades ago as we are today. But it has been a remarkable achievement of the American people, to dedicate their tax revenues and their gasoline tax revenues and general tax revenues. It is a true partnership between the Federal Government and local governments, as we built this Interstate System, primarily built by the Federal Government.
As you can see, these are the major corridors throughout our country. In the early days of the country, as trade was more east-west, as we traded more with Europe and with the Pacific rim, our highways have had to move across the country and of course the whole Nation has been on a westward expansion. It started on the east coast and then moved westward.
The problem now is States such as Louisiana and Texas and in large measure Pennsylvania, Indiana, Michigan, Missouri--the heartland States, these States right here in the middle of the country--are under a tremendous burden as the population has increased. I realize two- thirds of our population lives within 50 miles of a coast. I am from a coastal State so I understand the populations are very heavy. But the populations are also very heavy right here in the heartland and there simply are not enough interstates moving north-south.
That is what this amendment attempts to do, to say to those writing these policies--and all of us have an input in that--let us pay attention to finishing some of these interstate corridors. From Louisiana, the corridors that are most important to us are I-49 and I- 69. I will talk about that in just a minute.
Again, the map shows the concentration of interstates is east of the Mississippi River, not west. The Western States, particularly those in the center, need to have additional interstates that are completed. I- 49 would affect Louisiana, Arkansas, Mississippi, and others; I-69 which is not completed, Texas, Louisiana, Arkansas, Tennessee, Kentucky, Indiana, and Michigan; I-35, which is not completed, Iowa and Minnesota; the CANAMEX interstate, which is not yet completed, Arizona, Nevada, Utah, Idaho; and ports to plains, Texas, Oklahoma, and Colorado.
Although I did mention Pennsylvania, I want to put up another map. I know the chairman has worked very hard. I am sure he and the staff know these numbers, but 46.6 percent of the truckborne traffic that comes from Canada comes through this entrance right here, and 49 percent that comes from Mexico or through Mexico comes through this point.
The I-69 corridor, which is not finished, is a very important corridor to be completed because other corridors that do exist--there are probably one or two others in this section--are not enough to handle the percentage of the traffic.
The Senators from Pennsylvania, Senator Specter and Senator Santorum, with New York and Pennsylvania right here, are feeling the sting of a lot of those trucks coming through, not stopping, not delivering goods, not delivering jobs, but creating a lot of traffic, havoc, a lot of potholes, and accidents are coming through these corridors because of the way our economic system is developing.
Do we want to stop the economic growth? Absolutely not. But we have to provide for it. That is basically what our amendment attempted to do.
I wish to speak for a few more minutes about it, but I am hoping as we draw some attention to this corridor and the percentages of trade that come through on a north-south direction we can get more help and more support.
I think the committee has done a beautiful job. I have worked with the chairmen on both sides. Louisiana has been treated fairly. This is not a complaint from the State of Louisiana. I like the idea that our State, along with many others, is getting a bit more money under the new formula.
I think it sounds very fair when you say every State should get at least 95
percent of what they put in. But the problem with that is it sort of takes away a bit from our concept of interstates and completing interstates. Whether it helps Louisiana or not, ultimately, when these corridors are completed, it helps every State. In this case, two of the corridors I am speaking about would cut through Louisiana, and would be a great help to us, and also to the whole Nation and our metropolitan areas.
That is the underlying concept of the amendment. Again, to generally describe it, it would take a small percentage--6 percent--which equates to about a $16 billion commitment over the next 6 years to finishing anywhere from four to five of the major corridors through the middle part of the country. This is only one. There would be others that would fall into this concept and this amendment.
Let me keep the I-69 chart up for 1 minute and talk about one of five that will be completed in the middle part of the country.
I-69 will serve the Nation's top 25 seaports, 13 inland waterway ports, and 15 of the Nation's top air cargo ports. One of the reasons we need to finish I-69 is because it helps to link our seaports, our waterways, and our airports. That is true for every one of these corridors that would be proposed in this plan.
When I-49 is complete--hopefully one day soon--it will extend from New Orleans to Kansas City, but it benefits the whole Midwest part of the country, from the great port of New Orleans, the port of Houston, the port of Mobile, with huge amounts of trade and traffic which are goods imported and exported moving through these ports. They need north-south corridors. We simply don't have enough north-south corridors. We have a lot of east-west corridors but not north-south corridors.
Once completed, the I-49, I-29, and I-35 corridors will intersect with nine other east-west interstates, including I-94, I-190, I-80, I- 70, I-44, I-40, I-30, I-20, and I-10. Building the north-south corridors connects them to the east-west to make this grid workable and helps all of us to be more efficient and profitable as we move goods and services around and through this great Nation.
There is one final point I want to show a picture of. This is a hard picture for me to look at, but the ranking Member from Vermont, Senator Jeffords, has actually seen this with his own eyes. He was gracious enough to come down to Louisiana. We were literally standing there looking at a bridge, which is not in this picture frame. The Senator asked me what would happen to the bridge if there was an accident. At that point, a large shrimp trawler literally hit the bridge, knocking the mast of the trawler off and knocking the nets down. The bridge was out of commission for several hours. The Senator witnessed that himself. There is only one way in and one way out.
But the frightening thing for people who are observing and listening to this today is this is the main highway for offshore oil and gas revenues coming into the continental United States. This is LA-1. Eighteen percent of the imports and a majority of the offshore oil and gas drilling that is done happens at the end of this road. With a heavy rain, it goes under water. This road needs to be elevated and protected. The marshlands need to be restored. All of that can be done with the right kind of investment.
This is probably one of the worst examples of not using our Federal resources directly and well, in the sense that $6 billion is produced from the Treasury off the shores of this highway, but we can't get one penny to broaden or fix this highway--that is not true. We have, through the generosity of the chairman, gotten some money to fix and designate this highway. But this is one of the corridors that could be greatly improved by a commitment to finish the major economic corridors we rely on for our security and which give us energy security--but also in the middle part of the country to help us move oil and gas off our shores to light up Chicago, New York, or places in Pennsylvania and Vermont, and move goods through the Gulf of Mexico. This is a major corridor.
My amendment seeks to re-focus only a small percentage--6.4 percent-- of our Federal highway spending on finishing our network.
My proposal calls for creating a finish program. The finish program would provide enough funds to finish or substantially finish a few highways of international significance.
In 1995, we dissolved the interstate program and left behind a few major uncompleted segments. From its founding by President Eisenhower until its dissolution in 1995, the Federal interstate program provided a dedicated stream of funds to build our system of interstate highways.
This map of completed interstate's shows the concentration of interstates east of the Mississippi River and the great gaps in the network that exists west of the Mississippi River, particularly north- south interstates.
ISTEA and TEA-21 provided a new program that listed a number of high priority corridors that are vital to national economic development, but did not provide the funding to construct these highways.
The proposed finish program would provide the necessary funding to finish or substantially finish the most significant of these Congressionally designated high priority corridors so that we can begin closing the remaining gaps in our national network.
All of the proposed roads for the FINISH program have already been Congressionally designated high priority corridors, yet we haven't given them priority funding. Many segments of these roads do not exist. Some of these roads exist but are inadequate and are awaiting improvements. All of these proposed road projects link our borders north and south. All of these proposed road projects will bring tremendous social and economic benefits for both their regions and for the Nation.
Of the six corridors that I propose be included in the FINISH program, I want to focus on three specific corridors that I know best because they directly impact Louisiana. These three specific corridors are: I-69, I-49 and LA-1.
When completed, this will span the Nation's heartland, connecting Canada and Mexico through the States of Michigan, Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Tennessee, Mississippi, Arkansas, Louisiana and Texas.
Since the passage of NAFTA, Canada and Mexico are now the U.S.'s major trading partners. In 2001, 80 percent of U.S. trade with Mexico and 67 percent of U.S. trade with Canada was transported by truck. The I-69 corridor accounts for over 63 percent of the Nation's truck-borne trade with Canada and Mexico. This map of the I-69 corridor shows that the Michigan border points of Detroit and Port Huron account for over 46 percent of the Nation's truck-borne trade with Canada. The Texas border between Laredo and the Lower Rio Grande Valley accounts for over 49 percent of the Nation's truck-borne trade with Mexico.
I-69 will serve the Nation's top 25 seaports, 13 inland waterway ports and 15 of the Nation's top air cargo airports. This corridor would directly serve 25 million people. I-69 will provide economic development in some of the Nation's most impoverished regions, including the Mississippi Delta and the lower Rio Grande Valley.
In the I-69 corridor States, there are over 9.1 million people living below the poverty level. In 6 of the 9 corridor States, the population in poverty exceeds the U.S. average. Currently, only two sections of this corridor--Interstate 69 from Port Huron, MI to Indianapolis and Interstate 94 from Port Huron to Detroit and west to Chicago--are complete and open to traffic. However, these sections are in need of upgrading. The remainder of I-69, from Indianapolis south to the Mexican border, is in varying stages of completion. Location and environmental studies are near completion and many sections are under design work and construction.
When completed, I-49 will extend from New Orleans to Kansas City. When completed, it will provide a continuous trade highway from Canada through the Midwest and New Orleans to Latin America.
Major portions of the route are already constructed: In Louisiana, from Lafayette to Shreveport as well as other sections in Arkansas and Missouri. Environmental work has been completed for every unconstructed section of the roadway. Records of decision for every one of these sections
have been signed by the Federal Highway Administration. Project funding is the only remaining obstacle to the completion of the Interstate.
I-49 is a nationally significant freight distribution and inter-modal corridor that will service the deepwater ports of South Louisiana, New Orleans, Houston, Beaumont--four of the top five ports in the Nation by tonnage--the Great Lakes ports of Duluth, Superior, Chicago, Gary and Milwaukee, as well as numerous other inland waterway ports throughout the Midwest and plains States.
The I-49 corridor bisects a 420-mile north-south gap in what is potentially one of the most agriculturally and industrially productive regions of our country between I-55 to the east and I-35 to the west. Once complete, the I-49/I-29/I-35 corridor will intersect with nine other east-west interstate highways including: I-94, I-190, I-80, I-70, I-44, I-40, I-30, I-20 and I-10.
With existing rail facilities along the corridor including BNSF, KCS--now NAFTA Rail--and Union Pacific, completion of I-49 will spur the creation and expansion of major inter-modal facilities from Canada to the Gulf of Mexico. Once complete, I-49 will provide $817 million in annual savings to the Nation's economy by reducing travel time, transportation costs and congestion. Over 6 years, these savings will total over $4.9 billion. Coincidentally, the total remaining cost to construct I-49 is estimated at about $4.9 billion. Construction and completion of I-49 will support the creation of up to 206,290 new jobs.
I thank the chairman from Oklahoma and the ranking member from Vermont. Of course, the Senator from Nevada had a great deal to do with this bill. I thank them for their balanced approach. But I suggest to them if we could accelerate the completion of some of our major interstates in the middle part of this country, it would help everyone. It is desperately needed from an economic, security, and safety standpoint for the 30 or 40 States that are tremendously affected by the lack of this kind of infrastructure.
Amendment No. 2615 Withdrawn
Mr. President, I withdraw my amendment.
Will the Senator yield for a question?
Is there any way the votes could be stacked at a set time so we would know about votes later tonight?
Senator Breaux and I are entertaining for Mardi Gras this weekend. We are honored to have 2,000 of our friends in town. But he will have a good time anyway.
H.R. 7 S. 919 S. 1072 S. 1637
Read full remarks Show lessCongressional Record
Senate Floor·January 20, 2004·p. S31-S32
Additional Statements
Mr. President, each year I try and take advantage of the opportunity to visit some of the high performing schools in my State. This past year, I had the privilege of spending time with the students of Ruston Elementary School in Ruston,…
Mr. President, each year I try and take advantage of the opportunity to visit some of the high performing schools in my State. This past year, I had the privilege of spending time with the students of Ruston Elementary School in Ruston, LA. I was very impressed by them and their level of achievement. The fifth grade students had just spent the semester studying the U.S. Senate and its role in American democracy. They were eager to learn about our work and the many traditions that make the Senate one of the most deliberative bodies in the world. I asked some of the students if they would mind sharing some of their work with me so that I may bring it back to Washington and enter it into the Record. I would like to thank their teacher, Sonja Walker, for all of her good work. In these poems, the children tell us that they are proud to be an American. I, for one, think America should be proud of them.
I ask that the following poems be printed in the Record.
The poems follow:
I'm Proud To Be American Poem
(By Alhira)
I'm proud to be an American today.
We have rules here in the USA.
Rules that we love, rules that we hate.
I'm proud to be an American in the USA.
We have nice, kind, and sweet in the USA.
I love to be an American.
Flowers
(By Sabrina Bowden)
Some flowers are red,
Some flowers are blue,
Some are yellow, green, and purple,
Like Mardi Gras masks
Worn on children's smiling faces,
While others are orange or white.
But one thing they all have in common
Are the big green stems
And leaves that support the petals
And carry fresh, clean water to the leaves.
Butterflies
(By Pymir Brown)
They swirl around in my stomach.
It feels like I'm going dizzy.
They're playing volleyball.
Hitting the ball over the net,
Back and forth
To each other.
Don't you just love butterflies?
Busy
(By Jasmine Calloway)
Busy.
Busy yesterday,
Busy today.
Busy tomorrow,
Busy everyday.
Busy and work,
Must be the same.
Work today,
Busy tomorrow.
If you think about it,
It's all the same.
Remembering Abe
(By Travis Carter)
America seems so beautiful,
When I see the flag wave,
But the most thing I think
Of is when Abe freed the slaves.
He brought everyone freedom
And stopped segregation.
He let everybody work together
To form a nation.
Abe helped us greatly
Through our troubled days,
So now we have love
In all sorts of ways.
Love
(By Crystal Harris)
Love,
Love is something you can't make or take,
It just comes on a regular basis.
But sometimes your love could be taken away.
It might be the one you never even cared for, your love.
You just tricked your love.
Its hard to say goodbye to your love and it never comes back.
Don't just dangle over a haystack, go find another love,
And love him like you never loved any one before.
Love,
Love,
Love.
I'm Proud To Be an American
(By Jamakia Hatter)
I'm proud to be an American,
I'm proud to do what I do, aren't you?
I'm proud to stand for what I stand for,
Especially when you're number one.
I'm proud of what I believe,
I'm proud to be in a country that's free.
My country tis of thee and its sweet land of liberty.
This is why I'm proud to be an American.
Feelings
(By Judy Huynh)
Feelings, hopes, dreams
Treasured so beautifully
Like a butterfly flying across the meadow.
Feelings, sorrows, madness
Swirling so painfully
Like a tornado.
Your hopes and dreams sink
Your heart is so cold and pure of darkness
Like a vacuum feeding on your sorrows and madness.
Feelings, feelings, feelings.
If I Were President
(By Kevin Jackson)
If I were President, it would be fun. I could do all kinds of
things.
I know I would have to do a lot of work, but in my free time,
I would do this.
First, I would go and meet Michael Jackson.
He is my favorite singer and he would teach me how to do the
moon walk.
Next, I would go meet my favorite actor, Chris Tucker.
He was in my favorite movie, Rush Hour 2.
I would ask him about the movie.
Last, but not least, I would get my groove on by going to
China.
I would do all kinds of things. I would eat Chinese Food
everyday.
This is what I would do.
If I Were the Senator
(By Randall Loyd)
If I were the Senator,
I would make a law about recess,
Or even school.
I would make a law of pizza.
There would be free pizza.
America the Vacuum Cleaner
(By Ben McFatridge)
Like a giant vacuum
America
Sucking all of the evil and terrorists
Out of the world,
Until it is clean,
And rid of terrorists.
From Chaos to Courage
(By Matthew Rich)
We watched them fall,
With unbelieving eyes.
We saw it burn,
With staring eyes.
We saw the rubble,
With teary eyes.
Then we saw the flag,
With its brilliance,
Shining through the dust.
Now we see it
With courage in our eyes.
Please Remember
(By Samantha Rich)
Remember when time was ours to enjoy.
Sometimes you wish you could turn around,
And live it again,
But you can't.
So remember,
Remember what happened.
How we were there for each other,
Singing Christmas music,
Cheering for each other,
Hoping for each other to win.
So remember all that happened,
Back when things were the same,
And I'll always remember you and smile.
Though memories last, time goes on.
Although it is hard,
We always have to say goodbye.
So please remember,
Please remember me.
Why
(By Shane Rich)
Sometimes I wish I could just ask why, and that why would be
answered.
If I had that opportunity this is what I'd ask.
Why can't we have world peace, where terrorists didn't exist,
and bombs, and guns, and wars were unheard of?
Why can't we come together to join and be a nation?
And why can't it be that no one was prejudice or racist?
And why can't we take out all the bad and use truth and
kindness to fill it in?
But if I could change it I wouldn't, because I'm going to
leave that to God!
Read full remarks Show lessCongressional Record

Load more statements

Floor Statements

Personal Responsibility And Individual Development For Everyone Act--

Statements On Introduced Bills And Joint Resolutions

Introductory Statement on S. 2273

(At the request of Mr. Daschle, the following statement was ordered to be printed in the Record.)

Unborn Victims Of Violence Act Of 2004

Senate

Congressional Budget For The United States Government For Fiscal Year

Survivor Benefits

Education

Honoring The John Ehret High School

Statements On Introduced Bills And Joint Resolutions

Introductory Statement on S. 2146

Recognition Of Isidore Newman School

Safe, Accountable, Flexible, And Efficient Transportation Equity Act Of

Additional Statements