Floor Statements

Mr. President. I have been listening to the debate over the past few days, and I think that a common theme on both sides of the aisle has been this is not a perfect bill. There are those on this side of the aisle who rightly say that this bill does not go as far as it could; that it doesn't

focus enough of the assistance on low-income seniors and could do more to keep employers from reducing or eliminating benefits for their employees. Others have raised concerns about the fact that there is a $1,400 ``doughnut hole'' and an overly restrictive assets test that will mean less help for too many Americans. There are those on the other side of the aisle that have rightly said that this bill does not do enough to address the long-term solvency issues facing Medicare. They contend that this $400 billion expansion, without making additional structural reforms, puts Medicare on an unsure footing for the future. It is for these reasons that Members on both sides of the aisle have said they will vote against this bill.

Many maxims have been used over the past few days to describe the choice before us. Some have said, ``A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.'' Others have said, ``Let us not make the perfect be the enemy of the good.'' Still others have said, ``Something is better than nothing.'' I have spent the last 25 years in public service, and if there is one thing I have learned, it is that a true compromise is one from which no one side walks away completely happy. If there is anyone who knows that lesson better than I, it is the senior Senator from Louisiana, Senator Breaux. I have often said that if there is a deal to be had, Senator Breaux will find it. He has an amazing talent for bringing two sides together in a way that preserves the key principles of both. I think he has succeeded in doing that again here.

Going into the conference, Democrats insisted that the final bill must include the following: meaningful assistance to low income beneficiaries; providing Federal assistance to Medicare seniors on Medicaid, dual eligibles; strong Government fallbacks; and real incentives for employers to retain coverage. The conference agreement represents major victories in all four of these key areas.

First, and perhaps most importantly, beneficiaries with low incomes will get immediate assistance in paying for their drugs. The premium, deductible and coverage gap would be waived for people earning up to $12,123 a year, $16,362 per couple. Those making up to $13,470, $18,180 per couple will not have to pay a premium or be subject to a coverage gap and would only have a $50 deductible. What this means in real terms is that one-third of all Medicare beneficiaries, over 200,000 of which are from my State, will get immediate assistance to drugs at little to no cost to themselves. These are people who today have no help.

This bill also provides $88 billion in tax incentives to employers to encourage retaining existing retiree drug coverage. CBO estimates those incentives will greatly diminish the number of employers who will reduce or eliminate their coverage because of passage of this bill. It ensures that all beneficiaries will have access to drug coverage by providing a strong government fallback in the event that private plans do not provide adequate coverage in any particular region. Finally, it provides meaningful support to Medicare providers so that they can continue to care for our Nation's elderly.

These are major victories. I am, however, disappointed by some of the provisions that were ultimately included in this bill, most especially the asset test. I understand that the asset test in this bill is fashioned after asset tests used to determine a person's eligibility for Social Security Income (SSI) and Medicaid. I understand that it is, in fact, three times as generous as the asset tests used by those programs. Yet, in my view, further restricting eligibility for vital Government programs so as to separate out the near poor from the poor is a precedent that should be abolished, not furthered. I think the American public would be shocked to learn how restrictive these asset tests are.

In this bill, if a senior whose income is less than $12,123 a year has more than $6,000 in assets, they will no longer qualify for assistance with their premiums or deductibles. The proponents of the asset test claim that they are necessary to ensure that a person doesn't claim to have an income of $12,123 and at the same time have a vacation home in Florida and $50,000 in stocks. But these are not the people that these asset tests affect. Who they end up affecting is a widow who is living on her husband's $600 a month Social Security check, but just so happens to have a $10,000 life insurance policy or home full of furniture valued at $3,000. That is just not fair. While I am not able to change this policy here, I do intent to work to change it later.

Ten years have passed since this body was first presented with the need to reform Medicare. We have long recognized that the ways of medicine have changed. Medications and outpatient services have taken the place of intrusive surgeries and long-term hospitalization. We know that Medicare has not keep pace with those changes nor does it reflect the current needs of our seniors. Over the past 10 years, we have assembled task forces, engaged in numerous studies, held countless hearings and drafted several legislative proposals, but we have never gotten to where we are today, at the brink of passing a bill that will put us on the path of making reform a reality.

I think we must act now. In a time of rising deficits, it is unlikely we will have $400 billion or the political will to make these improvements any time in the near future. The seniors in my State are tired of waiting for the perfect bill. If we do not pass this bill this year, who knows how much more time will pass before we get to this point. It certainly won't be next year. If we had not reduced our surpluses by giving out tax cuts, perhaps we could have done more, but there is no sense in wondering what could have been. What we need to focus on now is what can be.

One year ago, I was in Louisiana running for re-election and I promised the people of Louisiana that while I would be with the President some of the time and I would be with the Democratic caucus some of the time, no matter what, I would be with the people of Louisiana 100 percent of the time. This bill is good for Louisiana. Ultimately, that is why I support it.

In Louisiana, one out of every two seniors has no prescription drug coverage. Today, 72-year-old Ethel Cernigliaro of Homer is one of them. With only her $727 a month Social Security check to depend on, Mrs. Cernigliaro finds a way to pay her utilities, buy groceries and still cover the $300 and more she pays each month for prescriptions. At this point, Mrs. Cernigliaro doesn't know all of the details of how this Medicare reform will help her, but she is certain of one thing: It has got to be better than what she has now. ``I've been following it closely, and it is certainly encouraging to know someone is trying to do something,'' she said. This bill means seniors like Mrs. Cernigliaro will no longer be without assistance for the drugs they need to maintain their quality of life and health. She and the 200,000 seniors like her will, in most cases, pay no more than $5 a prescription for their medications. Because of this reform, no senior citizen in our State will be without some level of coverage for prescriptions.

What's more, this bill will deliver $551 million over the next 10 years in emergency assistance for Louisiana's hospitals, most of which are struggling to keep their doors open. It will provide $156 million in much needed assistance to Louisiana's doctors. Without this assistance, these doctors could no longer afford to care for Medicare patients. It will provide $25 billion in help for our Nation's rural communities, many of which are in Louisiana. This represents the largest, most comprehensive rural package ever passed by Congress. Finally, this bill provides for much-needed prevention services, including screening for heart disease and diabetes, which could have helped to save the lives of the nearly 10,000 Louisiana seniors who died of these diseases last year.

If this bill does not pass, the people of my State will go yet another year without these important interventions. I, for one, cannot ask them to wait. Since Medicare was first passed into law in 1965, it has been amended and modified hundreds of times. This comprehensive reform package is not the first, nor will it be the last. I look forward to working with my colleagues in the months and years to come to ensure that the Medicare program, and this new prescription drug benefit, will be all that it promises to be and more.

Mr. President, two years ago, I had the distinct pleasure of spending an hour with the President of China, Jiang Jiamin. As you know, President Jiamin is tremendously busy and has numerous requests for personal meetings, but he agreed to meet with this particular U.S. delegation because of the importance of the subject we were there to discuss, international adoption. During this meeting, he shared with us that the Chinese believe every child born is born with a red string attached to their heart, the other end of which is tied to the ankle of their soul mate. It is because of this string, they believe, that soul mates eventually find each other and spend the rest of their lives together. It is his belief, that perhaps the same is true of children who are adopted. That when they are born, their hearts have a string that is tied to the ankle of their forever family, and it is because of that heartstring that they eventually find one another.

I will treasure the memory of this meeting forever. Not only because it was an extreme honor to meet with such a learned and distinguished leader, but because it reminds me of how profound adoption is. 19,237 children were adopted by American citizens last year. 18,477 children the year before that, 16,363 in 1999 and 15,744 children in 1998. That is almost 100,000 children in four years. I think it is easy for us to understand the impact that these adoptions have had on the adoptive families and the orphan children, but what I would like to focus on this morning is the impact that this has for

the diplomatic relations between the United States and countries throughout the world.

In sheer numbers alone, the impact is evident. In real terms, these children are ``mini-ambassadors'' to 200,000 American citizen parents, 400,000 grandparents, conservatively 800,000 aunts and uncles, and 300,000 siblings. According to a recent report by the U.S. Census Bureau, 1.6 million people in the United States were adopted, fifteen percent of them from abroad. Because of this magnificent process, communities all over the U.S. are deepening this understanding and affinity for the people of the world. September 11 reminded us of the importance of continuing to build bridges with the nations of the world. International adoption is one very effective and lasting way to build these bridges.

Over this past year, I have also had the privilege of meeting with the Presidents of Kazakstan, Romania and Russia and high-ranking government officials from Cambodia, Vietnam, Guatemala, Africa, and the Ukraine. Each time the message is the same. They want to do what they can to make the Hague more than just a piece of paper with 59 signatures on it. They are looking to the U.S. to lead the way toward a system of international adoption and child welfare that is based on best practices. A system comprised of meaningful protections for the adoptive parents, the birth parents, and perhaps most importantly the children; a system that universally recognizes that a government institution is not and cannot be an adequate replacement for a family and works toward the shared mission of finding every child in this world a loving and nurturing, permanent family.

I am proud to be here today, along with my colleague, the Senior Senator from Oklahoma, to introduce legislation that will take us in that direction. What it proposes to do is simple, but what it might help us to achieve is limitless. Simply put, this bill hopes to streamline the existing international adoption process, consolidate its federal functions into one agency and to empower that agency with the staff and resources it needs to represent the United States, the largest beneficiary from international adoption. With this office in place, the United States can begin to lead the world community in forging an international system of adoption that protects the interests of all those involved.

Under current law the federal responsibility for international adoption lies with the Department of State and the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services. This dual jurisdiction gives rise to several problems including: lack of coordination, lack of accountability, duplication of efforts and unnecessary paperwork and fees for prospective adoptive families. It also impedes the State Departments ability to fulfill its responsibilities as the central authority under the Hague Treaty on Cooperation in International Adoption.

Now, you may be asking yourself, as I have many times, what does adoption have to do with immigration? You see, under current law children adopted by United States citizens abroad are treated as immigrants, forced to apply for an immigrant visa to enter the United States. This process is not only impractical, since these children obtain automatic citizenship upon entry into the United States, it is inequitable. Children born to U.S. citizens abroad are conferred automatic citizenship upon their birth and are therefore permitted to travel to the United States on a U.S. passport. Children adopted by United States citizens should be afforded this same protection. This bill affords them that protection.

This bill also proposes that we update the current law definitions of an ``adoptable child'' to reflect the types of children in need of homes throughout the world. The current law definition of ``orphan'' reflects the reality for which it was created; to help U.S. citizens adopt children orphaned by the wars in Korea and Vietnam. As such, it is an extremely narrow definition that in many cases prohibits a family from bringing their newly adopted child to the United States.

In creating an Ambassador at Large for international adoption, this bill hopes to provide the leadership and high level diplomatic representation so desperately needed in international adoption. Under his or her leadership, the Office of International Adoptions will be able to take the proactive measures necessary to limit corruption and ensure that adoptions are performed in the most efficient, transparent manner possible. The Hague Treaty already gives the State Department this responsibility; this bill is designed to help them fulfill it.

Let me tell you why we need to act now to pass this legislation. Because of the lack of consistent leadership by the United States in this area, many countries around the world are in ``crisis mode'' and have been forced to take unilateral actions to solve perceived problems in the system. For two years, there has been a moratorium on international adoption in Romania. The second anniversary of the INS issued suspension in Cambodia is fast approaching. The governments of Guatemala and Vietnam have taken actions to limit the number of international adoptions. In each and every one of these cases, the foreign governments have expressed frustration with the lack of action on the part of the U.S. to limit corruption or close potential loopholes in the system. The end result, hundreds and thousands of children are left in orphanages. This cannot be.

I have spent the past two years talking to foreign governments, agencies, and most importantly, adoptive parents and they tell me that this legislation is needed. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this legislation and I look forward to seeing it passed as soon as possible.

Mr. President, two years ago, I had the distinct pleasure of spending an hour with the President of China, Jiang Jiamin. As you know, President Jiamin is tremendously busy and has numerous requests for personal meetings, but he agreed to meet with this particular U.S. delegation because of the importance of the subject we were there to discuss, international adoption. During this meeting, he shared with us that the Chinese believe every child born is born with a red string attached to their heart, the other end of which is tied to the ankle of their soul mate. It is because of this string, they believe, that soul mates eventually find each other and spend the rest of their lives together. It is his belief, that perhaps the same is true of children who are adopted. That when they are born, their hearts have a string that is tied to the ankle of their forever family, and it is because of that heartstring that they eventually find one another.

I will treasure the memory of this meeting forever. Not only because it was an extreme honor to meet with such a learned and distinguished leader, but because it reminds me of how profound adoption is. 19,237 children were adopted by American citizens last year. 18,477 children the year before that, 16,363 in 1999 and 15,744 children in 1998. That is almost 100,000 children in four years. I think it is easy for us to understand the impact that these adoptions have had on the adoptive families and the orphan children, but what I would like to focus on this morning is the impact that this has for

the diplomatic relations between the United States and countries throughout the world.

In sheer numbers alone, the impact is evident. In real terms, these children are ``mini-ambassadors'' to 200,000 American citizen parents, 400,000 grandparents, conservatively 800,000 aunts and uncles, and 300,000 siblings. According to a recent report by the U.S. Census Bureau, 1.6 million people in the United States were adopted, fifteen percent of them from abroad. Because of this magnificent process, communities all over the U.S. are deepening this understanding and affinity for the people of the world. September 11 reminded us of the importance of continuing to build bridges with the nations of the world. International adoption is one very effective and lasting way to build these bridges.

Over this past year, I have also had the privilege of meeting with the Presidents of Kazakstan, Romania and Russia and high-ranking government officials from Cambodia, Vietnam, Guatemala, Africa, and the Ukraine. Each time the message is the same. They want to do what they can to make the Hague more than just a piece of paper with 59 signatures on it. They are looking to the U.S. to lead the way toward a system of international adoption and child welfare that is based on best practices. A system comprised of meaningful protections for the adoptive parents, the birth parents, and perhaps most importantly the children; a system that universally recognizes that a government institution is not and cannot be an adequate replacement for a family and works toward the shared mission of finding every child in this world a loving and nurturing, permanent family.

I am proud to be here today, along with my colleague, the Senior Senator from Oklahoma, to introduce legislation that will take us in that direction. What it proposes to do is simple, but what it might help us to achieve is limitless. Simply put, this bill hopes to streamline the existing international adoption process, consolidate its federal functions into one agency and to empower that agency with the staff and resources it needs to represent the United States, the largest beneficiary from international adoption. With this office in place, the United States can begin to lead the world community in forging an international system of adoption that protects the interests of all those involved.

Under current law the federal responsibility for international adoption lies with the Department of State and the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services. This dual jurisdiction gives rise to several problems including: lack of coordination, lack of accountability, duplication of efforts and unnecessary paperwork and fees for prospective adoptive families. It also impedes the State Departments ability to fulfill its responsibilities as the central authority under the Hague Treaty on Cooperation in International Adoption.

Now, you may be asking yourself, as I have many times, what does adoption have to do with immigration? You see, under current law children adopted by United States citizens abroad are treated as immigrants, forced to apply for an immigrant visa to enter the United States. This process is not only impractical, since these children obtain automatic citizenship upon entry into the United States, it is inequitable. Children born to U.S. citizens abroad are conferred automatic citizenship upon their birth and are therefore permitted to travel to the United States on a U.S. passport. Children adopted by United States citizens should be afforded this same protection. This bill affords them that protection.

This bill also proposes that we update the current law definitions of an ``adoptable child'' to reflect the types of children in need of homes throughout the world. The current law definition of ``orphan'' reflects the reality for which it was created; to help U.S. citizens adopt children orphaned by the wars in Korea and Vietnam. As such, it is an extremely narrow definition that in many cases prohibits a family from bringing their newly adopted child to the United States.

In creating an Ambassador at Large for international adoption, this bill hopes to provide the leadership and high level diplomatic representation so desperately needed in international adoption. Under his or her leadership, the Office of International Adoptions will be able to take the proactive measures necessary to limit corruption and ensure that adoptions are performed in the most efficient, transparent manner possible. The Hague Treaty already gives the State Department this responsibility; this bill is designed to help them fulfill it.

Let me tell you why we need to act now to pass this legislation. Because of the lack of consistent leadership by the United States in this area, many countries around the world are in ``crisis mode'' and have been forced to take unilateral actions to solve perceived problems in the system. For two years, there has been a moratorium on international adoption in Romania. The second anniversary of the INS issued suspension in Cambodia is fast approaching. The governments of Guatemala and Vietnam have taken actions to limit the number of international adoptions. In each and every one of these cases, the foreign governments have expressed frustration with the lack of action on the part of the U.S. to limit corruption or close potential loopholes in the system. The end result, hundreds and thousands of children are left in orphanages. This cannot be.

I have spent the past two years talking to foreign governments, agencies, and most importantly, adoptive parents and they tell me that this legislation is needed. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this legislation and I look forward to seeing it passed as soon as possible.

Reserving the right to object, I would like to speak on the bill.

I will speak for the bill.

Mr. President, as a member of the energy committee who has worked very hard with both the distinguished Senators from New Mexico, Mr. Bingaman and Mr. Domenici, as well as the former chair from Alaska, Senator Murkowski, trying to fashion a bill that balances the great interests of every region of this country, I am proud to come to the Senate and urge my colleagues to vote for this Energy bill.

There are provisions that should be in this bill that are not. There are many aspects of this bill that I would have written differently myself. However, the fact is, as any member on the Energy and Natural Resources Committee can state, we have had hours and hours, maybe hundreds of hours, of hearings on how we create a more reliable electricity structure in this Nation, how we try to use our great natural resources in a better fashion to help create the energy this country needs to be more independent and more economically competitive.

I come from the State of Louisiana, which is a net exporter of energy. We do a lot of energy production in Louisiana, not just in oil and gas but cogeneration. We have municipal as well as private companies, public companies, municipal generators of electricity. We drill for a lot of oil and gas. We are not a mining State in that sense, like the West, but we mine our resources and we do a much better job than we did 10 years ago and a heck of a lot better job than 20 or 30 years ago. Why? Because the United States has some of the toughest, most stringent environmental laws in the world when we take our coal out of the ground or when we drill off our shore. The Shell Oil company told me last year if they put all the oil they spilled off the coast of Louisiana in a container, it would not fill up the bottom fourth of a barrel.

There are people in the Senate who think we cannot mine our resources in a way that protects our environment. Do we have a perfect system? No. Is it one of the best in the world? Absolutely. So this Senator and this Democrat is for using our natural resources in a way that helps meet the energy demands of this Nation.

This country consumes more energy per capita than any nation in the world. As far as I am concerned, we have an obligation to produce it. Some Members think we can consume, consume, consume and not produce anything. One of the most extraordinary aspects about this bill is streamlining of regulations, trying to untie people's lands so we can appropriately extract natural resources, clean our coal, have good technology off our shores, and use that money to invest in our environment.

People say the Senator from Louisiana is on the floor because Louisiana gets money out of this bill. The State gets some help. We deserve some help because for 50 years we have sent over $140 billion of this Nation's treasury off the shores of Louisiana. That is not pocket change.

We have saved the redwood forests, and we have funded the whole land and water conservation funding for the Nation. Now we have an opportunity to take a portion of that money and save the wetlands of America. It is not Louisiana's wetlands. This is the largest delta in the continental United States, and it is in crisis. It is washing away. The chairman from New Mexico came to see it. He does not need to read a book or anything about it; he has seen it.

So, yes, we have some resources, a tiny percentage of the money that comes out of the great natural resources of the Gulf of Mexico, not to give this Senator any special project, because I sure do not have any special sweet deal. The deal I have cut for my State, which the Senator knows, is to save these wetlands, where migratory birds for the whole Nation go, and fisheries off the coast of the Gulf of Mexico, from the east coast to the west coast.

So there are lots of good things in this bill. I know we have problems with MTBE. I know we have problems. I am

very disappointed in the hydrogen section that would have helped us move to hydrogen cars. I am very disappointed. The ranking member fought very hard for renewable portfolio standards, and I am disappointed that his language was stripped out.

But I can tell you, the chairman from New Mexico has fought like a tiger to get a balanced bill. The fact is, we are not divided Democrat against Republican; we are divided regionally.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for 1 more minute.

Mr. President, I know people have come down here and complained about standard market design. I realize the Senators from the Northeast are concerned about the language that has been put in this bill. But I will tell you, the reason the language has been put in the bill like this is that there are Southerners who are generating a lot of electricity. Why? Because we are drilling, and we are producing, and we are building plants in the South. And I will be darned if our ratepayers have to pick up the tab to ship that electricity to the Northeast. They need to be doing a better job of building plants and laying down pipelines.

I have more pipelines in Louisiana per capita than any State in the Union. If you took an x-ray of the country, you would be shocked. Like a little skeleton, you could see the pipelines under Louisiana. We cannot build any more. And do not believe we are taking the gas from those pipelines. We are sending it all over the country. We are happy to. But we cannot pay for all of it. We have to share the costs in an appropriate way.

So I say to my Democratic colleagues, when they say there is nothing in the bill for Democrats, may I please remind them there is no drilling--30 more seconds--there is no drilling in this bill in ANWR.

I thank the Senator from New Mexico.

There is no drilling, in this bill, in ANWR, which I know the President fought very hard for and this Senator thought might be reasonable, but the majority wasn't there.

Thank you. I urge Democrats and Republicans to support cloture on this bill.

Fifty years.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Neil Naraine be granted the privileges of the floor for the duration of the debate.

Approximately 15 minutes.

Madam President, I join my colleagues on the floor to make relatively brief remarks about this very important energy bill.

As a member of the Energy Committee that has worked very hard to produce this bill, and as confident as I am that a majority of the people in Louisiana want us to produce a good and balanced bill, I want to stand to support the bill that is before us and to urge our colleagues to vote yes on this measure. I commend the chairman from New Mexico and the ranking member from New Mexico on the Senate side and the chairman and the ranking member on the House side for producing a bill that is truly the best bill this Congress can produce.

Is it a perfect bill? Absolutely not. Does it leave some very important sections out that many of us would like to see? Absolutely yes. Does it address every regional concern? No. And no national bill, no bill that comes out of this Congress, would ever be able to make each region perfectly happy because energy, of all issues, is not really a Democrat or Republican issue. It really is based on the regions of the country from which we all come.

Some regions consume a great deal more energy than they produce. Some regions and states, like Louisiana, are a net exporters of energy. We are proud of that fact. We get beat up a lot about it from people who do not necessarily understand the oil and gas industry, but we are proud to drill in environmentally sensitive ways for oil and gas and proud that we contribute so much to nations energy supply.

So we will never have a bill that is going to satisfy the regional and parochial interests of every Member. I am convinced, having worked on this Energy bill, or something like it, for the

7 years I have been in the Senate, that this is the best bill this Congress can put forward.

The second point is, after we pass this bill--and I am confident we will pass and the President will sign it, there is nothing that prevents us, either individually or as a Congress, from stepping forward in the next few months or years to make improvements and adjustments to the bill. We can continue to push for policies that increase our supply, increase new and renewable fuels, improve our conservation, and make this Nation more energy self-sufficient.

But we have not had an Energy bill since 1992. In that bill, Congress revolutionized wholesale electricity markets, encouraged renewable energy production through tax incentives and streamlined and reformed the licensing for nuclear facilities.

In this bill, one of the things I am proudest of, working with Senator Domenici, is to improve, increase and facilitate the construction and licensing of new nuclear facilities because I believe it is time for the United States to have a renaissance in its nuclear industry, so we can increase the supply of energy and drive down prices for all of our consumers, whether they be residential, industrial, or commercial.

For the life of me, I cannot understand why the United States cannot recognize the importance of nuclear energy as a component of our energy policy. Many developed countries, such as France, have realized the new and exciting technologies in this area that make nuclear safe, clean, and reliable. In France, approximately 80 percent of all their electricity consumption is produced by nuclear power.

I am also very proud of the fact that we have, for the first time, recognized the tremendous contribution that Louisiana and Texas and, to a certain degree, Mississippi and Alabama make in producing oil and gas off of our shores.

We have sent to the Federal Government billions and billions of dollars of tax revenues. We have produced many jobs. We are doing our part in Louisiana to make our Nation energy self-sufficient, and we are proud of it because we think for every hour we work, every month we contribute, every year we send money, we put our troops less at risk having to defend America's interests for oil and gas and energy supplies around the world. It is something that people in Louisiana are very proud of.

The fact is, there is something for all of us to gain from this compromise bill. We need to move forward on this bill, in my opinion.

No. 1, it increases our domestic production of energy and, therefore, lowers the prices for everyone. It is hard to estimate what the lowering of the prices will be, but this bill addresses that concern and make steps towards providing a variety of energy sources.

Second, it creates new jobs. So for everyone who is concerned, it lowers unemployment. There is not a Senator in this Chamber who is not concerned about increasing employment rolls and lowering unemployment rolls. This bill, by creating hundreds of thousands of jobs, will, in essence, do that.

We also take steps to conserve, not as many steps as this Senator would have liked to take. I appreciate the comments of the Senator from Hawaii and others, including Senator Dorgan, who spoke about the missed opportunities in this bill. They encouraged us to really step up for conservation measures and I agree. The Presiding Officer made some very appropriate and, I thought, discerning remarks about our missed opportunities for conservation. We have missed some opportunities, but there are still, in this bill, some very excellent conservation and research and development initiatives to be proud of.

I might remind the Democratic caucus, our No. 1 objective--not my No. 1 objective but the No. 1 objective of our Democratic caucus--was not to drill in ANWR. There is no drilling of ANWR in this bill. Other Democrats objected to more drilling off the coast of Florida. There is no more drilling off the coast of Florida in this bill. There were Democrats who objected to drilling in the Great Lakes. There is no drilling in the Great Lakes. So for those who wanted not only energy conservation but, in their view, environmental protections, this bill represents that compromise.

Let me say a word about natural gas because it is very important to Louisiana. Demand is exceeding supply and prices have been abnormally high for the better part of this year. The growing gap between demand and supply has been apparent for some time. Presently our demand is 22 trillion cubic feet annually. The Energy Information Administration projects that the demand will increase by over 50 percent by the year 2025. There is a naturally occurring abundance of natural gas. If we don't do something about producing more of this precious resource the gap between what we need and what we consume is only going to grow. We must act now. If we don't, the problem will continue to drive up prices and make our industries noncompetitive with industries in Europe and Asia, Africa, and other parts of the world. Natural gas is at the heart of helping this Nation to secure and stabilize its employment sector.

In the short term, we provide royalty relief for ultra deep gas wells, something I worked on. I am proud that is in this bill. In the long term, the bill provides for the construction of a natural gas pipeline--a great deal of controversy. The bottom line is this pipeline could bring 65 trillion cubic feet into the market over the next 10 or 20 years. It is gas we need, gas we are going to use, and gas that will lower prices.

In addition to all of that, it is going to put several hundred thousand people to work. Whether you are in Alaska or other States, a lot of people could use jobs right now. This is a jobs bill.

Let me say a word about coal. We don't produce a lot of coal in Louisiana, but there are some States that do. I guess I have a great deal of sympathy for States that, like Louisiana, utilize their natural resources. West Virginia and Pennsylvania are natural resource-based States. Why shouldn't the people of those States get to use the natural resources they have to create jobs and to do it in a way that helps keep the environment clean?

We have some clean coal technology in this bill. It might not be perfect, but what is the alternative? Shut down all the coal mining in the country, put thousands of people out of work, and drive up energy prices? Let's use the technology and encourage the development of even better technology. We have over 250 years of coal reserves in this Nation. The people of our Nation deserve to use those reserves responsibly to their benefit.

I am proud that this bill includes some important renewable fuel standards. In addition to some of the other issues that have been discussed in this bill, we promote wind power. That is very exciting. You wouldn't imagine, though, that we are going to have some of the same interesting debates we have had over oil and gas production; that is, ``not in my backyard.'' I want the energy, but I don't want to see the rigs.

I was quite amused by the fight that went on in Massachusetts or off the east coast about where we are going to put the windmills. People want wind power, but they don't want the windmills that produce the power. Unless our technology can put windmills underground and have the wind go underground, I don't know how we can avoid the aesthetics issue.

Since I am used to seeing oil rigs, I kind of like the way they look and most certainly enjoy fishing around them because they make excellent places to fish that we in Louisiana have understood now for quite some time. I am encouraging wind power and hope we won't have the same ``not in my backyard'' attitude that we have had about other ways to produce energy. Certainly, wind is a very interesting source of power and evidently something that we will never run out of. It is an endless supply.

We are encouraging wind power in this bill and solar energy which is quite exciting. I happened to visit some of the most outstanding solar institutes in the world, one of my last visits to Israel several years ago. I was very encouraged by the technology that is ready to come on the market with the right kind of encouragement and incentives. Many of these are in this bill. We can create new building materials that can lead the way to the 21st century.

This bill includes $300 hundred million for solar programs, several hundreds of millions of dollars for wind

and energy production, and $500 million in grants for biomass programs. Biomass is another example of a new and exciting technology which takes other materials to create energy. It serves to move us to a more diverse portfolio of supply to produce the energy we need for our Nation.

Another important part of this bill is the increased authorization for the Low Income Heating Assistance Program. Being from Louisiana, a State that is hot most of the year, and that we have had a hard time explaining to people that you can die from heat as well as die from cold, we have not been able to get the low-income housing assistance program directed to Southern States. This bill accomplishes that. For Southern States, this is very important to help our people who pay high energy bills and need the air-conditioning, not for comfort but literally to keep them from dying or expiring in some of the hottest and most humid weather. We are very happy that this increased authorization is in this bill.

Finally, I know the chairman from New Mexico and the ranking member will work with us to put some real teeth in the freedom car proposal that the President has launched and I support. It is not strong enough in this bill, but, as I said, nothing will stop us from coming back and putting real time frames and real measures of success.

Mandates for hydrogen fuel cells in our Federal fleet could be added to this bill. But our clean schoolbus technology, some other things that are in this bill, make it, on balance, a very fine bill and one that this country needs.

Again, this is not a Democrat or a Republican bill. It is really a bill in which regional interests are at stake. But from the perspective of Louisiana and particularly in the South, places that produce a lot of energy, this bill gives us relief. It gives us hope that natural gas prices can be reduced. It produces jobs, and it helps us lower the unemployment rate as well as makes our country more energy self- sufficient.

For all of those reasons, I will give my vote and support to the bill.

I yield the floor.

Reserving the right to object, I do intend to make a few brief remarks and then will not object to the unanimous consent, but I would like to speak for as much time as I might consume. Hopefully, it will not be more than about 7 to 10 minutes.

Mr. President, I first compliment Senator DeWine for the outstanding job he has done. He is in a meeting and is not in the Senate at this moment, but we have worked closely together in our capacity now as chair and ranking member, as when I chaired the committee and he served as the ranking member. We have worked together through many different issues. I cannot say enough about his commitment to helping steer a bill that in many instances is contentious--not necessarily because of anything related to the District of Columbia specifically, but of other ideas and ideologies that sometimes find their way into this bill. He and I are both very sensitive to that and support the new leadership team of the District and have tried our best to steer this bill through for the District as well as for the Nation.

I wanted to begin by complimenting him and also say, second, there are some terrific new initiatives in this bill, very much needed. One, led by Senator DeWine, is the continued effort to reform the foster care system, first acknowledging the Mayor himself has taken quite a leadership role and has appointed very able leaders in the District to take a system that is broken, that was in many ways completely dysfunctional, and to begin to bring framework, parameters, results to it which will literally save children's lives, heal families, and find homes for children who have no homes.

Senator DeWine and I believe, along with Mayor Williams, there is no such thing as an unwanted child; there are just unfound families. There are indeed families not only in the District of Columbia but around the Nation which are in need of our assistance, our charity, our help, and our care. When we cannot heal a family and keep them strong to raise the children born to them, it is our responsibility to find a new family for that child or that sibling as quickly as possible. We will not stop until it is achieved. Senator DeWine has provided some additional framework in which to make that possible.

In addition, I am very pleased, along with Senator Byrd, who chaired this committee for many years, that there is also a critical infrastructure piece which indicates we as a Congress have a responsibility, in that the District is not a State, it does not have a State government but it has the same needs, and Congress has stepped up for infrastructure investments in the District which benefit the whole region--Maryland and Virginia as well. One of the primary projects we have funded is the cleanup of the Anacostia waterway which affects the region. It is a major environmental project getting tremendous help and support in this bill.

The security enhancements for emergency planning for the District, I need not tell of its importance. It is in the Nation's Capital, under the threat of terror, that we continue to function. We know how important that is. I begin with compliments to the Chair for including these and many other provisions.

I take the next 5 minutes to lay down some other important points regarding the most contentious issue in this bill. This issue was at the core or center of the debate over the future of public education in the United States of America. It has to do with a proposal of vouchers, taking money from public schools to send children to private schools. That issue is the center of debate over the future of public schools in America. It is that issue, unfortunately, because of the nature of the process in the Senate, which is going to be put into the omnibus appropriations bill. I want to go on record as strongly objecting to it once again and to set the myths from the facts.

The first myth is: The voucher proposal does not drain money from public schools or from other Federal priorities, that this is ``new'' money.

For the record, the $40 million used to pay for this three-pronged approach--of which a third is for vouchers--was taken from the Commerce-Justice-State bill. In other words, that is $39 million less spent on law enforcement, homeland security, or health care.

Again, this is not new money. There were no new taxes raised. There were no new taxes identified to pay for this. This $39 million came out of already existing Federal revenues that are now going to fund vouchers for 1,500 children in the District of Columbia. It is not new money. It is coming from the Commerce-Justice-State bill. I contend unless a new tax is raised at the Federal level or in the District of Columbia, it is not new money. It is a myth.

The next myth I would like to put to rest is the voucher proposal is limited to children in failing schools. Some of us who have opposed this proposal, without certain amendments, have continued to say--not everybody on the Democratic side, for sure, but I have said, as the ranking member, I could support a program that had full accountability and was aimed at helping children in failing schools. Why? Because it is not their fault the schools have failed. It is our fault. It is not necessarily their parents' fault, because parents do not run the schools. Parents are busy trying to run their households, take care of their children, and sometimes work two or three jobs. If we have failed the children, then let us give them help as we reconstitute those schools under the new accountability proposal, and give them some temporary help to move to a school that might be performing.

I offered that proposal. It was rejected. This proposal is not limited or designed specifically for children in failing schools because the power behind this wants to undermine public schools, not help poor children in failing schools. That is the truth.

The fact is, there is nothing in this language that prevents a child enrolled in a high-performing public school or a private school, for that matter, from attending a private school at public expense.

Let me repeat, there is nothing in the language the Republican majority is pushing that prevents a child enrolled in a high-performing public or private school from attending a private school at public expense, with no accountability to the public taxpayer.

The third myth is this is not just a voucher demonstration program; it is a balanced, three-pronged approach for school improvement.

The fact is, in the language pushed by the Republican majority, the only part of this three-pronged demonstration program that is authorized to receive funding for more than 1 year is the voucher portion. What is more, the

only one that will be evaluated for success at the end of 5 years is the voucher program.

First, let me say the only part of this demonstration program that is authorized in this bill to receive funding for more than 1 year is for vouchers. My opponents will say: Senator, the other funding is authorized in other parts of the education bill. That may be correct. Technically, it is correct. But in this proposal--that has been sold, and sold again, once, twice, and sold as a three-pronged approach--this language only has one prong that is authorized and funded, and that is vouchers. That is a fact, and that is wrong.

What is more, the proponents will say at least one good thing at the end of this 5-year ``demonstration project'' is, we will know definitively whether vouchers work or not. The fact is, Senator Carper and I, who tried to negotiate a compromise, felt strongly that would be a very good benefit to know finally. Cleveland and Milwaukee have demonstrated with this. There is so much misinformation. We said, at least it would be worth it to our Democrats who oppose it and to Republicans who think vouchers are the answer, the only answer, to public schools in the Nation, and that is what they want. I think they are wrong. We said, let's have a comprehensive demonstration program. But this language does not have the evaluation language. It dropped the evaluation language. The only thing we will know is, do children who receive vouchers do better in higher performing private schools than they did in poorly performing public schools? I would suggest we already know the answer to that. We do not have to spend $13 million of taxpayer money that is unaccountable to find out. We already know the answer to that.

What we do not know the answer to is if children are given vouchers to leave a low-performing public school to go to a higher performing private school, or if those same children are given a chance in a higher performing public school, or if those same children are given a chance in a higher performing public charter school, do they do essentially better? Does the voucher itself, the essence of the voucher itself, have any bearing on the academic achievement of the child? That we do not know, and we will not find out, thanks to the language that is in this bill.

The fourth myth is: At the end of this 5-year demonstration program, we will finally know if vouchers are a solution. I spoke about that.

The fifth myth is: Vouchers help to improve student achievement. We will not know that after 5 years because of the language that was taken out.

In conclusion, there were some of us willing to support a true three- pronged demonstration program. This is only one prong. There were some of us who would be willing to say we could go through the demonstration if, at the end, we actually knew and had the tight evaluation that would tell us some answers the country would be very interested in knowing. That language was dropped.

There were some of us who said, if accountability was part of this, as the administration promised--accountability, not just to the parents, and not just responsibility to students, but accountability to the taxpayers who pick up millions and millions of dollars--billions of dollars--in education expenses--they want to know, is their money working. But the authors--not Senator DeWine, the chairman, but others who have pushed this--are obviously not interested in letting the taxpayers know if their money is actually accomplishing anything, because the test language and the accountability language has been dropped. It is a false hope.

I will conclude. When we make promises to people with power and money and status, and we do not keep those promises, that is bad enough. But when we offer false hope to children who have very little, to families which have been discriminated against, to poor people who have little, and we fail to keep those promises, that is a sin indeed. We should be ashamed of the actions that represent this bill today.

I withdraw my objection to the unanimous consent request.

Mr. President, I rise to speak on the underlying bill as well as to make some general comments about the Defense authorization bill we just passed and a few comments about the veterans provisions generally.

I thank the Chair and the ranking member for their good work on the underlying bill. I understand we hope to pass this very important appropriations bill before 6 o'clock this evening.

I was unable to be here earlier today. I want to make a couple of comments regarding veterans generally.

There are 400,000 veterans in Louisiana, and 12,000 of them are directly affected in a very positive way by the underlying bill.

Before I speak about that, I wish to say that the chairman of the Armed Services Committee, Senator Warner from Virginia, and our ranking member, Senator Levin, should be commended for crafting a very good Defense authorization bill at a very difficult time.

I was formerly a member of the Armed Services Committee and worked for many years to fashion a bill, and I know how difficult it is even in times that are not stressful, much less in a time when we are in a war against terror in Iraq, here at home and other places around the world. It seems to me, as a former member of the committee, that the conference could have imploded many different times. But to Senator Warner's and Senator Levin's credit and very good bipartisan working relationship, that bill was passed earlier today.

While I don't agree with all the provisions of it, there are a couple which are very important to our troops in Louisiana: No. 1, the 4.1 percent pay raise for all of our troops. And, No. 2, we moved closer to completely eliminating the disability tax on veterans in Louisiana with 20 years of service; that is, 12,000 men and women who now, when they retire, do not get their full retirement and disability benefits but basically have to give up 50 percent of that benefit. This bill we passed earlier today corrects that. For those families and their loved ones, that will mean immediate help.

In addition, the TRICARE eligibility expansion for guardsmen and reservists, if they are unemployed or cannot acquire health insurance from their employers, is a tremendous gesture to the Guard and Reserve who we are counting on and depending on to help defend us at this time. We literally could not win this war or even begin this endeavor without their commitment.

We must remain committed to the quality of life of our veterans and to letting our Guard and Reserve men and women know how much we appreciate them. We must keep ever vigilant, particularly when it comes to the Guard and Reserve. We are getting ready to send another 43,000.

I wish to make a couple of comments about the tax treatment of our Guard and Reserve and speak about some disappointment in that area.

Yesterday, with some fanfare, the Military Family Tax Relief Act was passed. It is a help, but in my mind it is an insufficient gesture. It is too modest for what our men and women in uniform deserve. The bill provided $1.1 billion in tax relief, which was asked for and which is most certainly deserved. It doubles the amount of payments to survivors of soldiers killed in action from $6,000 to $12,000--not a lot of money, but it helps the families better than the $6,000 that was in the previous law. It allows guards and reservists to deduct travel expenses, it allows troops to deduct the cost of equipment they buy themselves, and it reduces the residency requirement so our troops can take full benefit of the capital gains provision in the law as do other Americans who are not in the service.

But this bill did not go far enough. I wish to speak for a minute about this and my strong objection to moving forward with it without additional help and support.

The bill that was signed, Tax Relief for Families in the Military, represented .006 percent of the $1.75 trillion in tax relief that has been passed by this Congress at the urging of this administration. Let me repeat. The bill that was signed on Tuesday for the military only represented .006 percent of the tax cuts that have been provided by this administration to Americans generally. Yet the military, the men and women in uniform today, the over 1 million men and women in uniform, are providing 100 percent of our security, one could argue. That is not to diminish the role of our men and women in uniform, police and fire on the home front, but protecting our borders, fighting the battles overseas, they are providing 100 percent of the protection. Yet they only receive in this bill .006 percent of the tax cut.

We asked, Republicans and Democrats alike, to please include a provision that would have allowed the Guard and Reserve who are leaving their jobs and leaving their businesses to go fight in Iraq, to please have the Federal Government recognize that many of these families are losing income, sometimes as much as 60, 70, or 80 percent. We are asking them not just to go and put their life on the line, but we are asking them to put their livelihood on the line.

When some Members petitioned this administration, and particularly the House Republican leadership, to give some relief, to provide some tax relief to these businesses to encourage them to maintain those salaries for our Guard and Reserve, we were told: We do not have enough money.

We had 1.75 trillion to give tax cuts generally to people not in the military, but we could not find a few pennies to help our businesses in this country, to help their employees meet their salaries for the benefit of their families. I know the Senator wants to get back to the HUD bill, and I will in a minute, but I want to make this point and then get to the underlying bill, VA-HUD.

What we have to do in every way we can, whether it is this veterans bill we are debating now, whether it is in Defense authorization, or whether it is in our tax bills, to recognize our first priority should be to our men and women in uniform, overseas and here on our home front. When we design tax packages and tax benefits, they should be the first, not the last, to receive the help. They should be getting the lion's share or the essence or the core, not the crumbs that fall from the table.

Unfortunately, still, despite the lives that are being given, despite the effort that is being made, they still are receiving crumbs when they deserve the whole loaf of bread.

I will submit for the Record an article about a reservist reward for MSG Rodriguez: His reward was bankruptcy. When MSG Rodriquez and his company were activated for 1 year, they were given an 8-hour notice. He had to leave behind his wife to run the couple's construction company. He comes home and his daughter, of course, is crying and in tears, his wife is upset because they lost their business. Their income was cut by 80 percent. I ask unanimous consent to have this article printed in the Record.

The efforts some Members made to get this issue dealt with were rejected because we did not have enough money to help this reservist or the thousands and hundreds of thousands who are fighting for us, taking the cut in pay and losing their companies in the process.

Also I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record an article printed regarding 120,000 Federal employees who serve in the National Guard and Reserve. Nearly 14,000 have been called to active duty to help fight the war in Iraq. Senator Durbin and I wanted to get in the tax bill that was passed a provision that would allow them to maintain their salaries, their Federal salaries, so as not to fall down, basically, to receive the lower salary they receive in the Guard and Reserve. The sad thing is it would not have cost the Government anything because we had already budgeted to pay them their full salaries. This was rejected.

I say for the benefit of the people in Louisiana, we do not understand how we can give our tax credits to everybody but the Guard and Reserve. We can give out help to everybody except those Federal employees who take off one uniform and put on another, leave their homes for 6 months to a year, sometimes longer, and we expect them to take a cut in pay when we are giving tax credits to people who are not fighting.

If I could conclude on this one issue which really pours salt into the wound, when people say, Senator, we could not afford it, we actually found a way to pay for it. We said we should pay for it by making people who are right now evading U.S. taxes because they have made so much money in America because our troops have put their life on the line to protect the way of life which allows business people to make a lot of money in America, these business people who have made a lot of money because of what these men and women are doing in the Armed Forces, these business people are now deciding they are paying too much in tax, so they go to another country. They do not want to pay their taxes.

So we said let's make those folks pay their taxes and use those proceeds to pay for tax relief for the men and women in the military. We were told we cannot do that. We cannot possibly make people who owe taxes to America pay their taxes so that we can pay the men and women in uniform and give them a tax cut. I hope we will change our policy because it is wrong. We have missed an opportunity to help these families.

I conclude by thanking Senator Mikulski and Senator Bond for their hard work on behalf of veterans. They have restored a lot of the cuts that were proposed by this administration. I am proud to be part of helping to pass a veterans bill. But let's not forget it is not just about appropriations bills where we can help our men and women in uniform. Tax bills can help them. Other direct spending bills can help them. No one deserves our help more than people who put on a uniform every day and actually put their life on the line.

This Senator does not think we are doing enough and can afford to do more when we found an offset to make regular people pay the taxes they owe. If they do not want to put on a uniform and fight, that is fine, but at least give the benefits to the people who are protecting their ability to make a living.

I yield the floor.

Will the Senator from Virginia yield for a question?

Will the Senator yield?

Just a question. I am sorry the Senator from Utah left the floor. Perhaps if he hears this question, he might come back to respond.

I am wondering, since he raised the name of Al Sharpton, Rev. Al Sharpton, who asked for a vote on one nominee, supposedly. If Al Sharpton--I am sure he did, and others--asked for a vote on 60 of President Clinton's nominees, which represented 20 percent of the nominees sent up by a former President, would the Senator from Utah have agreed to a vote, if Rev. Al Sharpton had called him? I don't think so. He could come back to the floor and respond to that.

The issue is not single votes. The issue is whether the Senate of the United States, the Democrats, have a right to give advice and consent to the President. The facts speak for themselves. The Senator from Virginia knows them well. The numbers are 168 of President Bush's nominees have been approved with bipartisan support and cooperation from the Democrats in the Senate. Only 4--only 4--have been stopped-- only 2 percent. That is in contrast to the thousands--this is my question.

Did the Senator from Utah or the Senator from Virginia know that when President Clinton was in the White House, thousands and thousands of individuals--did you know--called to ask for votes on the 60 percent?

I am asking a question: Did you know? That is my question. Did they know that when the former President sent hundreds of nominees and asked for a vote--and I am sure Reverend Sharpton and others--did they know, some of the members and groups involved and interested Americans involved--did they know that 55 nominees were not given a right to have their vote called?

Will the Senator from Virginia yield?

Will the Senator yield for a clarification?

Will the Senator yield for a clarification?

The Senator from Arizona.

I think I----

Parliamentary inquiry: How much time do the minority and majority have at this hour to be allocated?

Thank you.

Mr. President, I would like to answer a couple of points that the Senator from Tennessee raised. My colleague from Iowa is here to join me for a few moments to speak on the floor about this subject.

Let me say there really isn't a Member I respect more in the Senate than the new Senator from Tennessee. He and I served together on the Energy Committee. I am well aware of his very progressive views on civil rights. I am aware of his history as a clerk for one of the finest justices who has served in the country. I am aware of his connection to Louisiana and as a southern leader. As a Democrat, I respect the work he did in Tennessee as a Republican Governor of that State. I look forward to many wonderful years working with him.

But I would like to answer the question of why many people in the South are upset and concerned about what the Republican majority is calling on us to do today.

I want to start with the charge that the Senator from Virginia said-- stalling, stalling, stalling. The Senator from Tennessee knows very well the Democrats did not ask for this 30 hours. The Republican leadership is stalling the veterans bill, the Energy bill, and the housing bill, which people in our State--as the Senator from Tennessee knows, I have 400,000 veterans in Louisiana. He must have 500,000 veterans in Tennessee. Their bills are pending while we debate whether or not it is fair to block 4 of 168 nominees--4 of 168.

The second point I want to make is that the Senator from Arizona took 90 seconds to come to the floor and refer to the people who are listening--and we do believe the country is interested in the debate here in the Senate--that these four individuals were ``not given a trial.'' I think the words were ``hung without a jury,'' or some such inflammatory language.

Please let me say for the Record that these 4 judges out of 168, only 2 percent of President Bush's nominees, were given hearings. The nominee from Texas, Priscilla Owen, 1 full day of hearing; the nominee from Alabama, Judge Pickering, 2 days of hearings, and 1 day was given after the anthrax attack. The Capitol was literally under attack and we felt so strongly about providing a hearing the day after the attack that the nominee was given a hearing.

Mr. Estrada was given 1 day of hearing, and Mr. Pryor was given 1 day of hearing.

So the notion that these nominees have not been given their day in court, time to express their views and to answer questions, is absolutely false. That is in contrast to the 57 nominees of 63 of President Clinton's nominees. Let me repeat: 57 out of 63 who didn't get 1 minute of a hearing, not 1 minute.

These 4 we have blocked for reasons that I and my colleagues will go into--and Senator Harkin will speak about in a minute--have been blocked for very good reasons. All of them got a hearing. I just wanted to make that clear.

I know the Senator from Tennessee will remember those hearings in those committees.

The third point I want to clarify is the Senator from Utah said he would never not give a nominee the opportunity for a vote. The Record will reflect that the Senator from Utah has voted seven times against cloture for giving a nominee--not a judicial nominee but appointee--a vote on the Senate floor.

I urge Senators to not use words such as ``never'' or ``every'' because the fact is, filibusters have been attempted before over the course of our history: In 1968, in 1980, in 1994, and in the year 2000, but they haven't been successful.

This filibuster is successful for one reason and one reason only: The American people do not want these four judges on the bench. They just do not want them on the bench, and they are expressing that through the Democrats here in the Senate. I will tell you why.

Let me talk about Mr. Pryor for just 1 second. I want my colleague from Tennessee to know, and my colleague from Alabama will know this. I know I am going to aggravate some Democrats when I say this. But I was willing to vote for Judge Pryor, and I had basically told that to the Senator from Alabama, who is a good friend of mine, someone with whom I really enjoy working, who is much more conservative than I am on some issues. But I really do like him and I really do trust him in many ways. I talked with him and we talked about it. I was prepared to vote for Mr. Pryor until this ad appeared. Let me read it to you. Judicial Chambers:

While some in the Senate are playing with religion,

Catholics need not apply.

I am a Catholic. When these ads appear, by right-wing groups that want to divide this country, Catholic against Protestant, Gentile against Jew, man against woman, straight against gay, it is something inside me that just boils up.

When the Republican leadership tells me I have a problem with Catholic judges--my father is a Catholic judge, and my sister is a Catholic judge. I don't have problems with Catholic judges. I don't have problems with William Pryor. I have problems with this red meat rhetoric that is anti-American, anti-constitutional, and defies every principle that this country and the men who are dying today and women in Iraq fight for. It is not a matter of whether you are Catholic, whether you are Jewish, whether you are Protestant. You should be judged on qualifications. But the right wing--and I told the Senator from Alabama until the National Republican Party repudiates this ad, the chairman of the party stands up and says these ads have no place, and the Republican Party repudiates these ads, the nominee will not get my vote--not because he is pro-life and I am pro-choice, not because of this or that, but because of this ad.

That is what this election is about. I will tell you the people in my State are tired of it. I have Catholics and Protestants who want to be united, to be together, who want to create jobs, who want to help veterans, want to figure out the problem in Iraq, and they are so tired of the Republican leadership just using every little wedge issue, religion or race to wedge everybody apart. I know Democrats aren't completely innocent of these tactics, but it has gotten to the point where it has basically shut down the work here.

I want to be clear. My dad is a Catholic judge; my sister is a Catholic judge. I am not against Catholic judges. But we are against ads like that, and until they are repudiated we will not allow this nominee to go forward.

I don't even know if I want to go into Judge Pickering from Mississippi because I know he is from a fine family. But I will say this about that. I know his son well. He is a wonderful man. He is in Congress. I know he has beautiful grandchildren, and he has a wonderful family. But I will tell you this: The Senator from Tennessee should know this better than anyone because I think he is part of the new South. I think his whole life has been spent helping us in the South deal with the terrible issue of discrimination, to the point where it breaks your heart to think about what the laws did to people, crushed their spirits, crushed their lives, robbed them of the opportunity for anything. I grew up in that kind of place. I spent my whole life trying to change it, and I know he has, too.

One of the reasons we have stopped the Pickering nomination is that many of us--and I don't think it is just Democrats, it is Republicans and Independents in the South--want the nominees on that Fifth Circuit to be about the new South, not the old South. To many of us, many of the moderate, middle, mainstream civil rights organizations, this Pickering nomination is about the old South. He was not one of the strongest civil rights leaders in Mississippi. There are hundreds of qualified judges, White and Black, who really sacrificed for civil rights. Why couldn't we have somebody like that on our bench? They don't have to be liberal. They could be moderate or conservative. Why do we have to reach back and find someone from the past? Why not reach forward?

When Judge Pickering got out of law school, he asked his law partner to join him. His law partner belonged to the Mississippi Sovereignty Commission. My father got out of law school a few years before he did, in 1954. Judge Pickering got out in 1961. My father never, in 100 years, would have asked a member of the Mississippi Sovereignty Commission to be his law partner. It just wouldn't have happened, because our family was a civil rights family. We rejected everything the Mississippi Sovereignty Commission or the Louisiana Sovereignty Commission or the Alabama Sovereignty Commission did, which was to basically intimidate African Americans. No matter how good they were, no matter how hard they worked, no matter how talented they were, no matter how many times they went to church or loved their children, because they were Black, they couldn't get a job, they couldn't live in the neighborhoods. That is what the sovereignty commissions did.

So you are asking me, after spending 40 years of my life fighting against this, to stand here and say it is OK to appoint someone like this to the bench? And then get upset when I say I have a problem with that?

Well, I am sorry about it. I do have a problem with it. Most of the people in my State have problems with it because, believe me, there are lots of people in Mississippi who were in the civil rights movement on the right side of the movement, not the wrong side; the forward side, not the back side. And I will tell this President or any President, we are looking for people in the future, not the past. We are looking for a new South. We reject the old South.

In conclusion, let me just say that my time has expired. Senator Harkin is in the Chamber. I thank him for his great patience. I am sorry I got a little exercised. But I guess coming from the part of the country I do and being Catholic, it has been very hard, especially for us, to have to hear some of the rhetoric that is thrown around on the Senate floor.

Again, to my friend from Tennessee, I have the utmost respect for him. He has been a real leader in this effort.

I yield the floor and acknowledge Senator Harkin who is here to speak.

Parliamentary inquiry.

I object.

I object. I know the distinguished chairman has been on the floor for a while making some truly offensive statements to colleagues on this side of the aisle that, in my opinion, are beneath the dignity of the committee on which he serves as chair. I ask the chairman if he recognizes the number on this chart. Could he state for the record what it is.

The Senator from Utah----

The distinguished Senator from Utah has answered the question.

He has answered my question. He said he didn't know what the number was. I would like to explain to him and to the other Members.

No, I will not. The number is 98 percent----

The number the distinguished Senator from Utah did not recognize--I don't know why he would not recognize it since he is chairman of the committee, but he says he doesn't recognize it. The number is 98. Ninety-eight percent of the judges that were sent to this Senate by President Bush we have approved--98 percent. There are not many people in America, not white people, or black people, or Spanish people, or women, or men, who think the Senate should approve 100 percent of any President's nominees. It is beyond the realm of reason, particularly a President who did not win the popular vote.

Earlier in the debate, the chairman, who also doesn't recognize this number, this 98 percent, also fails to recognize the numbers in the last election. The numbers of the last election were Bush 50,456,169; Gore 50,996,116. So 500,000 more people voted for Vice President Gore in the popular vote than President Bush. He won by a handful of electoral votes in Florida, and we know that. The Court decided it. I am not complaining about it, but numbers are important. Let me tell you another number----

I will not.

I will not yield for a question.

Another number is 63. I want the public who is watching this--and I think a lot of people are watching this, and I am glad because this is what the next election is going to be about, and I am very excited to help lead this fight. Sixty-three nominees were blocked. It wasn't an open filibuster. It wasn't debated in the open, like tonight where there are no secrets and we can all speak about what we believe. This was done in secret, and not by many Senators who represent millions of people, but maybe by one Senator who just decided he or she didn't like the nominee, and so they would not sign the slip.

The chairman of the committee reigns over this. He understands this number 63. They didn't even have the decency of getting a vote or a hearing in committee because the chairman from Utah had a system in place that blocked them.

No, I will not yield.

Thank you, Mr. President. I will not yield the floor, and we are not going to yield this point.

Technically, the majority is correct that there has not been a technical filibuster successfully completed. But there have been filibusters on this floor that have been tried, but they weren't strong enough to stand up to them because their arguments weren't strong enough. The only way a filibuster can survive is if the arguments and the truth is strong enough to stand up to lies. That is the only way a filibuster survives. That is why this filibuster survives, because the truth is always stronger than a lie.

This 63 people never could come out of committee. I am not even going to go into that. I am going to talk about something else.

How much time do I have remaining?

Good. I am going to take every one of them.

I want to tell the Republican majority something quite simple. This country, no matter your best efforts, will not be divided. No matter your vicious rhetoric about Protestants and Catholics and blacks and whites and Hispanics and women, we refuse to be divided. In a time of war, which we are in, when the country is under assault and we have men and women dying in Iraq, it is the height of disrespect and un- Americanism to come to this great floor and talk about the pettiness and say this woman Senator, who has spent 25 years in public office, and every woman who has ever served, that there is something wrong if I don't want a woman as a judge or I don't want African Americans to be here.

The Senator from Utah must forget where I am from. I would like to remind him where I am from. I am going to fight for Louisiana. In the 63 years before Rosa Parks decided to sit down in her seat because her feet were so tired she could not move, a man named Homer Plessy decided he would get on a rail car that was entitled ``whites only.'' He got on it in New Orleans, my hometown. He rode on the train and he knew he would be arrested. But a group of lawyers, African-American free men of color, had decided that he would be the right one. Why? Because he was white enough to pass, to get on the train, and black enough to be arrested. And that is exactly what happened.

Forty years before the Civil Rights Act, Plessy rode that train and the great movement began to free people who had been slaves for 300 years.

I have to sit in the Senate Chamber and listen to the Republican majority argue that, in the whole country, they can't find a better African-American woman than this Janice Rogers Brown to serve on the bench, to hold up Rosa Parks, to honor the work of Louis Martinet, and to honor the memory of Plessy. The only person they can find to serve on the bench is a woman who says--and I want to read what she says so the people in this country can just decide for themselves. Don't listen to all the technical parts. I am just going to read to you what the woman said and you decide for yourself if you think this is mainstream or not:

Some things are apparent. When government moves in,

community retreats, civil society disintegrates, and our

ability to control our own destiny atrophies. The result is

families under siege, war in the streets, the precipitous

decline of the rule of law, the rapid rise of corruption, the

loss of civility and the triumph of deceit. The result is a

debased, debauched culture which finds moral depravity

entertaining and virtue contemptible.

What do you think Rosa Parks thought when the Federal judge came down to Alabama and government intruded and said: Lady, you don't have to suffer anymore. You think that Rosa Parks thought that government was bad?

Let me go on to say what this mainstream woman thinks of all the grandparents in the United States.

My grandparents' generation thought being on the Government

dole was disgraceful, a blight on the family honor. Today's

senior citizens blithely cannibalize their grandchildren,

because they have a right to get as much ``free stuff'' as

the political system will permit them to extract.

Excuse me, but on behalf of all the grandparents I represent, this is an insult to every single one of them who raised their children, and then when some of their children got into trouble, raise the grandchildren and the great-grandchildren on their Social Security paychecks of $672 a month, which the Republican side refuses to raise, and a minimum wage which is $5.50, which they won't raise, and you are asking me to put a woman on the court that insults the grandparents of Louisiana? Take your dossier and go somewhere else.

Now, if these people are in the mainstream, then I don't know what mainstream we are talking about, because it is not mainstream in Louisiana. That is what this debate is about.

The Senate Democrats didn't want to have this filibuster. We are made to have this filibuster because the Republicans on that side think they can divide the country and split us up and cause trouble. I will tell you what people at home want. We are in a war. They want us to be united and fight together. But they have us fighting against Catholic, Protestant, rich, poor, young and old. It is a disgrace, and it is not the Democrats fault. It is the Republican majority.

I will just say this. I know the men and women who serve over there and individually they are fine. But, boy, collectively they can sure get themselves up into a lather. The country deserves better. The people want better.

We have an Energy bill to pass; we have appropriations bills to pass; I have 400,000 veterans in my State who are looking for help, and they turn on the television to see the chairman from Utah saying something about the women in the Senate don't want women on the bench, and we don't want Hispanics on the bench, and we don't want African Americans on the bench? Whoever heard of such ridiculousness?

I beg this body, let's stay on the facts. The facts are that we have approved 98 percent of President Bush's nominees. We have rejected people such as Janice Rogers Brown, and no matter how many times they bring her up, she will be rejected because she makes statements like this that are an insult. She is not going anywhere. We will vote on her 100 times. She will never get on the bench. Whether or not we have a vote on her, she is not going to get on the bench.

Let me say I just made a call--how much more time do I have?

Good.

I just made a call to the National Bar Association, which is the most distinguished group of African-American lawyers in the country. I am sure maybe there are smaller groups that other people might think are, but this is the most well thought of group of lawyers. This group of lawyers, more than almost any other group, would surely know the history of the civil rights movement. They would surely understand the characters and people I have talked about, and all the stories and all the drama. You would think that President Bush, who ran on compassionate conservatism, and the Republicans who keep saying we are reaching out to African Americans--we want to reach out to African Americans, we want to go and put African Americans on the bench--you would think that sometime in the last 3 years they would have called the National Bar Association, or the President would have called the National Bar Association and said: Look, I'm a conservative. You all probably are more liberal as a group, although there are probably some conservative members. Why don't you give me a recommendation, knowing that I can't support a real liberal judge. But if you work with me we could get some really good African Americans on the bench that are highly qualified, that the Democratic majority would like. I would feel happy about that. We are in a war. It would be really important for us to unite our country.

Do you think he ever consulted with them? No. The President, this White House, or the Republican leadership never called the National Bar Association, which is the most prestigious group of African-American lawyers, to just ask them. Is there any conservative judge, moderate conservative judge you all would think would be good that I could appoint?

This is not about doing what is right. This is about winning elections and ginning up the far right in the wings. I understand that. It has been done before. But not during a war. Not when people are dying. It is just not right.

So we could stay on the floor all night, all tomorrow, all next week, but I tell you the people in this country are going to have enough of it pretty soon because they don't believe this is right. They can tell when something is not moving in the right direction.

I will end with this. No matter how hard the Republican majority tries to divide us, we will not be divided. We are going to stand united. We are going to speak the truth. We will debate in the open why these nominees do not deserve to sit on the bench and why we will filibuster these nominees.

We will continue to do that until the people decide in the next election what kind of America they want. In my heart I believe they want an America that is united, not divided.

I see my colleague from New Jersey is here. We have a few moments left. I thank him for his patience.

Mr. President, I thank the chairman and ranking member of the Senate Agriculture Appropriations Subcommittee for the opportunity to address several issues as the Agricultural Appropriations Bill for fiscal year 2004 is considered on the floor of the Senate as well as in a conference with House Agricultural Appropriations Bill for fiscal year 2004. It is my intention in this statement to express positions with respect to several areas of particular importance to me and my State of Louisiana that the chairman and ranking member will take during conference with the House. I would also like to thank both the chairman and ranking member for the number of my requests that were addressed in S. Rept. 108-107.

There are several instances in the report where the committee expresses its

desire that the agency give consideration to projects of interest and concern to entities in Louisiana. This reflects the committee's finding that these projects are worthy and deserve consideration by the agency. Therefore, I urge you and the chairman of the Appropriations Subcommittee on Agriculture, Senator Bennett, to join me in further announcing our desire that the Secretary of Agriculture give consideration to the following projects when granting any available funds through programs for which these projects may be eligible.

First, the Union-Lincoln Parish Water Supply Initiative is a crucial project which has focused on the depletion of the Sparta Aquifer, a natural aquifer which is the primary source of drinking water for North Louisiana and Southern Arkansas. The Sparta Groundwater Conservation District recently released initial information from its analysis of the Sparta formation indicating that demand must be cut from a projected 72 million gallons per day to 54 million gallons per day over the next 10 years. To offset this gap between demand and available supply, alternative sources including river water, reservoir water, as well as possible other aquifers must be examined. The committee recognized this need on page 112 of S. Rept. 108-107.

Second, the Bawcomville Flood Control Pumps, originally constructed in 1955, protect two residential communities against flooding from the Ouachita River. Additional pumping capacity is required to reduce interior flooding and accommodate urbanization. The committee recognized this need on p. 110 of S. Rept. 108-107.

Third, the Southern Training and Social Service Complex is of vital importance to the communities and economy of central Louisiana. This facility will provide a sports program and after-school juvenile program for at-risk youths in the central Louisiana area. The committee recognized this need on p. 111 of S. Rept. 108-107.

Fourth, the Town of Golden Meadow, LA, requires improvements to the drainage infrastructure on one of its main thoroughfares, Jefferson Street. The committee recognized this need on p. 110 of S. 108-107.

Fifth, the Town of Golden Meadow, LA, requires a multi-purpose building that would serve as the center for emergency response during hurricanes and other catastrophic times. The committee recognized this need on p. 110 of S. 108-107.

Sixth, Continental Structural Plastics in Spring Hill, LA, requires plastic extruding equipment to manufacture plastic railroad ties for the proposed new railroad line that would bring needed economic development in the area. The committee recognized this need on p. 111 of S. 108-107.

Lastly, the Greater Ouachita Port Commission seeks to establish a facility that will provide for the operation of a river port and commercial park, comprehensively connecting Ouachita Parish and the surrounding area to international trade and commerce. The committee recognized this need on p. 111 of S. Rept. 108-107.

Mr. President, I would like to thank the chairman and ranking member of the Senate Agriculture appropriations subcommittee for the opportunity to address several issues as the Agricultural appropriations bill for fiscal year 2004 is considered on the floor of the Senate as well as in a conference with House Agricultural Appropriations Subcommittee. It is my intention in this statement to express positions with respect to several areas of particular importance to me and my State of Louisiana that the

chairman and ranking member will take during conference with the House. I would also like to thank both the chairman and ranking member for the number of my requests that have been addressed in S. Rept. 108-107.

First, there are two instances where the House Committee report, 108- 193, included references to items that were not provided for in the Senate report. On page 28 of the House Report, $1.5 million was provided for planning and design in the establishment of a new facility at the ARS Sugarcane Research Laboratory in Houma, Louisiana. Also, on page 18 of the same report, language was included that referenced the Pennington Biomedical Research Center (PBRC). Although, neither item is included in Senate Report, 108-107, I request that the Senate defer to the House and provide for both items in a final conference report just exactly as they are referenced in the House Report.

Second, during the fiscal year 2003 appropriation process, both the Senate Agricultural Appropriations Committee Report, 107-223, p. 55 and Senate Amendment 1 to the Consolidated Appropriations Resolution, H.J. Res. 2 or Omnibus Appropriations Bill for fiscal year 2003, provided $70,000 to be used to initiate a multi-year program to conduct clinical epidemiologic research on diseases associated with intensive reptile disease research in Louisiana. Unfortunately, this funding was not included in H.J. Res. 2 as signed into law on February 20, 2003, P.L. 108-7. Although I included this same request among my requests submitted to the Senate Agriculture Appropriations Subcommittee in fiscal year 2004, unfortunately there was no funding provided in either the Senate or House Bills. I am hopeful that during conference negotiations, the chairman and ranking member of the Senate Agriculture Subcommittee can provide some funding for this urgent research.

Third, I am hopeful that during conference negotiations, the Chairman and Ranking Member can recognize the expertise of Grambling State University in Louisiana, one of 117 Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs) which for over 100 years has been providing African American farmers the education and skills to produce better crops. Specifically, Grambling's contribution in the area of aquaculture research has and would continue to spur economic development and sustainability within impoverished communities in North Central Louisiana and the Louisiana Delta Region. In addition, the significant impact of this research would be felt among farmers and businesses throughout the State. Furthermore, this research would accentuate the intent of the White House Initiatives on HBCUs regarding increasing both the capacity and capability for HBCUs to engage in research. Grambling State University would serve as the lead institution in a collaborative effort that will lend the expertise of institutional resources and technical support in assisting individuals and communities among the tri-State areas of Arkansas, Louisiana and Mississippi.

Finally, I want to thank the chairman and ranking member for maintaining the funding at the same levels as fiscal year 2003 for four accounts that greatly impact the Nation's 18 historically black land- grant colleges and universities or the 1890s as they are often referred. Southern University of my State of Louisiana is among this group of very important and unique public universities. These four accounts include: Evans Allen--research formula funds; Extension formula funds; Capacity building Grants Program and Facilities Funding Grants. While I realize that the Subcommittee's spending cap for this year is significantly less than last year, I request that these four accounts be increased during conference negotiations with the House. With adequate funding the 1890 black land-grant colleges and universities could build and sustain new areas of specialization and, thus become more competitive in attracting public and private financing. Capacity Building is the model for eradicating historic inequities in State and Federal funding to the 1890 black land-grant colleges/universities, especially with regards to chronically under- funded faculty capacity. In fact, a recently released GAO study, 03- 541, May 2003, entitled ``USDA's Outreach to Minority Serving Institutions Could Improve Grant Competition'' highlights capacity building and facilities funding as two key areas necessary for successful competitive grant awards. The GAO study finds that many 1890s need to attract top faculty to perform research, and it is very difficult to do so when research facilities are underfunded. An increase in facilities funding is necessary to fund costs of badly needed facilities while not hindering the improvements today for research, extension, students and faculty on 1890s campuses.

Increased Research and Extension formula funding means saving otherwise lost faculty positions at the Nation's historically black land-grant universities. Cash-strapped States are actually forcing cuts and substantial tuition increases on these institutions who served students from the lower economic scale. Formula funds constitute the core of 1890 land-grant programs and are critical to sustaining the 1890s land-grant mission of teaching, research and extension and public service. I am hopeful that we can find a way to increase the funding for some if not all of these four accounts.

Mr. President, today the Senate passed the Military Tax Fairness Act of 2003, about $1.1 billion in tax relief for our military families. I support this bill. We all support this bill. In fact, we passed this unanimously or near unanimously on a coupe of previous occasions. We are visiting this bill again today because the House of Representatives does not like the offset we used to pay for the bill. We paid for it by taxing individuals who renounce their United States citizenship in order to avoid paying U.S. taxes.

It is astounding to me that this bill keeps getting bounced back and forth between the Senate and the other body over this issue. We are talking about tax relief for military families and we want Americans who are exploiting tax loop holes to step up and make that relief possible. Most of these people have known great financial success. They were blessed by the economic opportunity that our nation's liberty gives us and the free enterprise system which make those fortunes possible.

Those blessings were secured by our military personnel. Every year, the United States Treasury loses about $80 million on individuals who decide that they would prefer to have their cake and eat it too. They want American markets, they want American prestige, they want American stability, but they do not want the obligations that accrue to American citizenship. All the Senate was saying is if you benefited from this nation's security, you should be willing to pay for it.

When the Senate first considered this legislation, I had hoped to include a tax credit for the private sector employers of our National Guard and Reserve. When our Guard and Reserves answer the call to serve they leave jobs, homes, and most of all, their families behind. Many employers continue to pay all or part of the salaries of those employees who get called up. My legislation would provide those patriotic employers with a tax credit for paying up to 50 percent of the salaries for their Guard and Reserve employees.

I understand that my legislation cannot be included in this bill. So I am introducing a sense of the Senate resolution to put us on record as supporting these employers. The resolution states that we should pay for this tax credit by closing the expatriation loophole.

The facts are simple, and they are laid out in this resolution. Since 2001, the President has signed tax cuts amounting to $1.75 trillion. Today, military families will get their first taste at direct relief. Yet, this bill amounts to less than .1 percent of the tax relief that the Government has doled out. No one could justify this to voters. So it's been happening behind closed doors--in conference reports, and parliamentary maneuvering. This resolution is a first step to putting a bright, hot spotlight on the truth. The leadership of the House Ways and Means Committee is more interested in protecting expatriate corporations, than it is in providing meaningful tax benefits to the men and women of our Armed Forces.

I am glad for what we are doing in this bill, but there is so much more that can be done and should be done. Personally, I believe that a military tax vehicle should be used to discuss military tax issues. However, the Senate cannot stand in the way of immediate relief to the families of those who have given the ultimate sacrifice in battle. For that reason, we are passing this resolution today to send a signal that this imbalance must come to an end.

I appreciate the chairman and ranking member of the Finance Committee for agreeing to this resolution in conjunction with the underlying bill. I look forward to working with them in the future on giving this tax relief to America's employers.

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

Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk----

Mr. President, I ask the Senator if he wouldn't mind if I presented this for 5 minutes. That is all the time I need.

I thank the Senator.

I thank the Senator.

Mr. President, I thank the Senator for his courtesy because he was involved in a very important conference earlier today and he is anxious to proceed on his amendment.

I will offer this amendment in the hope that my friends on the other side will support it. There is very good support on this side for this amendment. It has to do with women and children in armed conflict.

I send the amendment to the desk.

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

Mr. President, recent reports indicate that the percentage of civilians killed and wounded as a result of armed conflict has risen from 5 percent at the turn of the century to almost 90 percent today, which means that in war it is not just the soldiers who are being killed, the men and women in uniform, but also civilians. That is a new occurrence in this century. It is something that this amendment attempts to address by directing our resources--not adding money, not authorizing new language, but simply directing, within the context of this bill, some attention to be given to this fact.

War is not what it used to be. Its horrors are experienced by more than just the soldiers fighting on far-off battlefields. It is experienced by women and children. It is taking a brutal toll on

these civilians, most of them women and children.

Over 30 wars are now being waged around the world. One in four of the world's children live in war zones.

In the past decade, more than 2 million children were killed during wartime, more than 4 million were wounded, and 1 million have been orphaned or separated from their families as a result of war.

It is estimated that over 300,000 children have been forced to serve as soldiers. These are children as young as 7, 8, and 9 years old serving as soldiers, including an alarming number of girls serving as combatants, cooks, and, unfortunately, sex slaves.

In Sierra Leone, 94 percent of displaced families surveyed had experienced sexual assaults, including rape, torture, and sexual slavery.

After the genocide in Rwanda, 70 percent of the remaining population was female and more than half of the mothers were widows.

Despite these statistics, a survey of current Government-sponsored foreign aid programs reveals that there are but a few coordinated programs targeted at the protection of women and children in conflict and after.

Senator Biden and I offered legislation to address the shortfall. S. 1001 would authorize the new women and children armed conflict fund, similar to the displaced children's fund. In addition, it would require several other efforts to be undertaken by our Government to make sure that this issue was addressed appropriately. It would require that the U.S. Government develop and implement a strategy to ensure that its humanitarian programs respond to and reduce the risks of exploitation, violence and abuse of women and children in places like Uganda, Liberia, and Iraq; prevent future crises by creating a list of early warning signs to alert policymakers of possible risks to women and children; foster stability in conflict-prone environments by focusing on reducing threats to innocent civilians in crises around the world.

What my amendment does is provide a bridge for us to stand on until this bill can be passed and this fund can be established. It says: Here is what we can do not, within our existing programs with our existing funds.

The Landrieu amendment ensures that organizations and programs currently serving refugees and displaced persons incorporate protections against violence; encourages the Secretary of State and Administrator of USAID to incorporate into their current agenda specific policies and programs that identify the specific needs of, and particular threats to, women and children; asks for the Secretary to report to Congress on their progress in this area to date and provide recommendations for improving U.S. and international systems for the protection of women and children.

Protecting women and children is not only the right thing to do, but it is also the smart thing to do. Women are a critical part of rebuilding war torn countries.

In March 2003, UN Secretary General Kofi Annan made the following observation:

Study after study has shown that there is no effective

development strategy in which women do not play a central

role. When women are fully involved, the benefits can be seen

immediately: families are healthier and better fed; their

income, savings and reinvestment go up. And what is true of

families is also true of communities and, in the long run, of

whole countries.

A focus on safety and protection directly impacts the overall well being of women and children. This year's Mothers Index, published by Save the Children, reports that there is a direct correlation between under education and poor health and conflict. Seven of the bottom ten countries in the area of health and education are in conflict and post- conflict situations.

This amendment does not call for us to break the budget caps or create a new program. It merely ensures that every dollar that we are spending to secure the peace is spent in the most effective way possible.

Again, this amendment provides a bridge for us to stand on until the bill I just described can be passed in its complete authorized form. So this fund can be established, and then the authorizing bill would come forward with more of the details.

But it is important that we take this step today to recognize the fact that there are so many women and children brutalized in war. It is not just about the soldiers in uniform any longer, unfortunately. This amendment asks the Secretary to report to Congress on their progress in this area, and it encourages the Secretary of State and the Administrator of USAID to incorporate into their current agenda specific policies and programs that identify the specific needs of and particular threats to women and children.

In conclusion, I submit that study after study has shown the necessity of our effort to direct funds in this way.

I ask unanimous consent that specific quotes from individual young women and girls, particularly, be printed in the Record. The language is pretty graphic so I will not read it in the Chamber, but I want it printed in the Record to say how serious this issue is in terms of the United States and all of the aid we are giving, and directing a portion of that, and to be cognizant of the tremendous torture, humiliation, and pain inflicted upon innocent women and children.

That is the essence of my amendment. I hope it can be accepted. I hope there won't be a necessity for a vote on such a commonsense and much-needed amendment. I ask for the Senate's consideration at the appropriate time.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, I am pleased to join my colleagues from Maryland to oppose this rule change. Let me say quickly, because I know the time is short, we have tried this in Louisiana at Fort Polk, in Leesville, to be exact--1,500 Federal jobs, people not overly paid, but well paid with good health benefits, and others.

Needless to say, the base plays a vital role in the economy of central Louisiana and is by far the single largest employer in the area. The secondary employment impact on the State is even more significant with Fort Polk accounting for millions of dollars in payroll annually.

The workers at Fort Polk are patriots. They work hard, they stay longer, they get the job done. I heard that not from the unions, not from the workers, not from some local politician--I heard that from the military commanders at Fort Polk who just did not want to see their workforce contracted out.

They already had experience with contractors at Fort Polk, and, frankly, they didn't like it. Base operations were bogged down by the refusal of contractors to take the little steps that improve quality of life, improve the aesthetics at the base, and go that extra mile when troops were deploying or coming home.

It is not that the contractors were not willing to take the work, it is that they wanted to charge the Government more to do it. Despite these objections, the workforce at Fort Polk was subject to the A-76 process. It has been an embarrassment and totally unworthy of the way this Government should treat it workers.

To boil the controversy down to its bare essentials, contractors bidding on the Fort Polk work were made aware of what the DoD civilian bid would be. Now the OMB wants to take this process even further.

Now the OMB says contractors don't have to prove they would save any money. They only have to show they would provide some ``financial benefit.'' Now the OMB says that workers can't include in their bids proposed reorganizations to make themselves more efficient. Now outside contractors will not have to figure in any health care benefits to their workers into these packages.

Good jobs are simply too hard to come by in Louisiana for me to allow this to go forward without a fight.

We know what A-76 really means in Louisiana. It means that workers that are paid a reasonable wage, including real health benefits and a pension, will be replaced. They will be replaced, frequently by the same people, but this time, they won't have health benefits or pensions. The difference will be the profit that corporations will pocket.

Our Armed Forces deserve better than to be supported by civilians who are underpaid, understaffed, and overstretched so that contractors can pocket a few extra dollars per hour. That is not a savings to the American people. It is pennywise and pound foolish.

With this experience, I simply cannot endorse broadening a system that I consider already broken.

I thank the Senator from Maryland for her fight and strong advocacy on this issue.