Floor Statements

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Thank you, Mr. President.

Mr. President, this afternoon we are being asked to buy a pig in a poke.

That is what we would say in Louisiana--a pig in a poke. Please colleagues, do not vote for the underlying bill. Senator Corzine and Senator Schumer and I offer an amendment which is a $350 billion alternative that is truly stimulative. It tries to work with the administration but takes out the nonstimulative portion and puts in a rebate on wages. If we want to create jobs, then let us stop taxing them.

Our amendment also treats States as respected partners and not as charitable aid organizations, which they are not.

It also says that tax cuts aren't the only way to stimulate the economy; that you can make strategic investments. As politicians, live up to your promises to children by funding education and health care.

Don't buy a pig in a poke, and don't turn your back on the 2 million companies, 2 million farms, and 2 million partnerships that do not get a penny from the dividend tax cut.

Mr. President, pursuant to section 904 of the Congressional Budget Act, I move to waive the applicable sections of that act for the consideration of this amendment, and I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, this amendment would go a long way to send the right message to our guardsmen and reservists. Over 370,000 have been activated since September 11 and the attack on this city and our Nation.

As we know, it has been made painfully aware to us that many of these guardsmen and reservists who serve take a cut in pay because they leave their jobs, they close their businesses to temporarily serve us.

This amendment will give their employers, and themselves if they are an employer, the opportunity to write off 50 percent of the cost of their salaries so those salaries can be maintained while they are protecting and serving us. It is the least we can do.

The other side is going to say they will get to it later. Let's get to it today. Let's not let this tax bill pass without honoring the Guard and Reserves and giving them a chance to keep their businesses open while they keep us safe.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Feingold, Senator Stabenow, and Senator Mikulski be added as cosponsors of the amendment.

Mr. President, pursuant to section 904 of the Congressional Budget Act, I move to waive the applicable sections of that act for the consideration of the pending amendment, and I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, I thank my colleagues for their patience. Senator Sessions and I offered this amendment. We are not going to ask for a vote, but I would like to explain it in 1 minute. We offered this amendment to try to technically correct a glitch in the renewal community law. It only affects districts in Louisiana and Alabama now, but it could affect, in the near term, districts in 40 other States.

I am going to ask the chairman of the Finance Committee to consider this fix. It only costs $14 million a year and it will help create jobs in some of the poorest areas in our country. So if I could ask for their consideration, I will at this time withdraw the amendment.

Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I also have an amendment being submitted that I would like to be included on the list.

Mr. President, to date, approximately 14 million children have lost their parents to the AIDS virus. In many cases, this devastating disease has robbed them of their parents, their aunts, uncles, cousins, brothers and sisters. At a time when they are most in need of the care of loving adults, millions of children are left without anyone to call their own. Some of them are sick themselves, infected often at birth. If we are serious about $1.5 billion for programs aimed at assisting children orphaned by AIDS, then we must do all that we can to ensure that these programs reflect their many needs.

I would suggest that the language in the underlying bill is remiss in that it does not address perhaps their most urgent need, the need for a permanent, loving home. I would like to commend the majority leader and the committee chairman for their foresight in insisting that 10 percent of the funds allocated in the bill be used to serve the educational, development and health needs of these young people. Yet, if these programs are not also focused on connecting children to at least one, caring adult, these programs will undoubtedly fall short of their potential. Every child needs a home. A child whose family has been devastated by disease is no exception. As a member of the Foreign Operations Appropriations subcommittee, I hope that we could address this issue at some point. Again, I thank the majority leader for his leadership and look forward to working with him.

Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk on behalf of myself, Senator Corzine, and Senator Schumer.

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

Mr. President, I will take such time as I may need to explain the amendment. I estimate it to be around 10 or 15 minutes for myself and for Senator Corzine who joins me on the floor. I know there are no time constraints, but I know there are other Members with amendments and the hour is late. I just want to let them know approximately how much time it will take for us to offer the amendment.

We offer this amendment in good faith because many of us are firmly convinced and feel very passionately that the direction the President is leading us with his proposal is the wrong direction.

Times have been much worse in this country over the course of our long history. In many ways, things are moving along pretty well. We are making a tremendous amount of progress on many fronts. But it is in some ways a very crucial time. We are trying to transform our military. We are moving into a technological age for which this particular type of economy needs some special framework. We are fighting terrorism worldwide. We are engaged in conflicts because of the recent attack on our Nation. I wouldn't say this is the calmest of times, but yet we are not in a depression; some would argue not in a recession. But it is an important time to do the right thing.

For the 4.5 million people I represent in Louisiana, it is very important that we get this tax package right. Their livelihoods depend on it. Their children's futures depend on it. Their small businesses depend on it. The health of their parents depend on it. We can't get it wrong, and we are about to.

This plan the President has laid down will not create jobs. The plan the President has laid down will raise taxes. The plan the President has laid down will increase deficits. It will disappoint thousands of parents, teachers, and students who actually believed him when he said he would not leave a child behind. They actually believed him. And they voted for him. This plan does not fund Leave No Child Behind.

This plan says no to so many small businesses that trusted him, that came here to Washington and said: Mr. President, if you get a little more money, could you please help us with our health care premiums? He told them, yes. But this plan doesn't have a deduction for health care premiums. It is the No. 1 issue for the small businesses in Louisiana and across the Nation. You won't find it in the President's plan. It is not in there. He said no to small business.

I know I can't use profanity on the floor of the Senate, so let me just say: It is a darn shame that when he had a chance, when the Republican leadership had a chance to do the right thing at an important time in our Nation, for some reason, that some of us can't figure out, I can't even go where they are going. I don't understand it.

I don't understand a plan, when we need jobs, that doesn't create jobs; when we are trying to fix the deficit, it makes the deficit worse. For what?

So Senator Corzine and I have worked, along with Senator Schumer and many of our colleagues, to come up with something that would actually take the President at his word, which we are continuing to hope we can do. I am getting personally unsure of that, but I am trying to take him at his word that he really wants to create jobs; he wants to get the economy moving again; he wants to have a stimulus package; he wants to make it generally fair to everybody, or as many people as possible.

He wants to honor the military, which he continues to say is one of his No. 1 priorities. We have something in here, a tax credit for the Guard and Reserve. I don't know if anyone in America could say that there is a group of people that deserve a tax credit more than the people who have left their spouses, left their children, left their jobs, put up a temporary sign ``gone to war'' on the front of their building, but we are sitting on this floor tonight giving tax credits to everybody in the world--the double taxation to corporations, many of which don't pay taxes anyway--but we can't find space in the bill to give it to the 400,000 guardsmen and reservists who are being called up to protect us.

That is why I am standing on the floor late at night to try to explain it. At least in Louisiana, people don't understand it. They just don't understand it. So our amendment has something in here for the Guard and Reserve.

You could argue we are in a recession or we are close to recession. It is not booming times out there. I will not stand here and try to argue whether we are technically in it or not. People who don't have jobs really don't care about that. What they care about is having a job. Jobs are hard to come by. We have a record high unemployment rate.

The people who are unemployed in the country are saying: Mr. President, if you have a little extra money, could you please allow us to use the money

in the compensation fund that we paid into to extend our benefits, modest benefits? In Louisiana, it is $196 a week. The average benefit is $250 a week. These are people who have worked, many of them, since they have been teenagers. They find themselves out of work. They are 40 and 50 years old. They came here to ask the President: Could you please extend the benefits? The President doesn't put them in his package.

But he puts in the package corporations that don't pay taxes, and he won't put in his package unemployed people who paid taxes their whole life since they have been teenagers.

I am offering the amendment because our amendment tries to take some things the President put in his package, and the Finance Committee has put in their package, that is sort of modeled on what the President had originally planned, that does do some of the things that will stimulate and that we generally agree on and there seems to be a consensus. And there are some good things in it.

One is the marriage penalty which we recognize is a real penalty. It is taken care of in this amendment.

We accelerate the child tax credit, which is something we all, Republicans and Democrats, agree would be a good thing, if you had some extra money, to give that thousand dollars to people. But instead of the dividend tax, which has been argued by the likes of Alan Greenspan and others that it is not the right time to do, instead of that, we have placed in our $350 billion package wage tax relief.

If we want to create jobs in the Nation, I would maintain that removing the tax on jobs would be the best way to encourage jobs to be created. If you remove the tax from something, people are likely to move toward whatever you remove the tax on. So people are paying a lot of money on their wages, and our amendment would give an immediate $765 rebate to every worker. For two parents, it is almost $1,530, for two workers in a family.

And the way we have structured the amendment, every business would also be able to take that immediate rebate for every worker up to their $10,000 in earnings. So every small business, every corporation would be able to take that benefit of thousands and thousands and thousands of dollars now.

As several of the Senators from the other side have said, that money will go into their pockets, and they will have flexibility to spend it however they want. We are not telling them how to spend it. They could give bonuses. They could invest in property. They could invest in equipment.

But it is putting money in their pockets--real money, not pretend benefits from a dividend they won't get, or would not get anyway because of the system that we have now.

So we offered this amendment--$350 billion. The centerpiece of it is wage tax relief that will benefit every worker, particularly those two- wage-earner families who make up the majority of our American population because this economy demands two wages, basically, to carry the burdens and responsibilities of family life.

It also helps small business in terms of stimulating for plant and equipment expensing up to $100,000, small business health care, Guard and Reserve, unemployment compensation, and a very important component of this is helping the States. People have talked about this as aid to undeserving recipients. It is as if there is something wrong because we are giving aid to undeserving recipients. I like to think of States-- and I served in the State legislature for 8 years, and as treasurer for 8 years--as partners, good partners, hard-working partners. My Governor is a Republican, and I do not consider him an enemy. I do not consider him an undeserving aid recipient. I consider him a partner. Together, with the senior Senator, our Governor, and our legislature, every day we try to give kids a good education, give our teachers a decent salary. We try to keep our hospitals open. When a child is born sick, we try to help their family take care of them, to see that the garbage gets picked up, that the sanitation is done, that highways are built. We do this in partnership. They are not my enemies.

I have heard comments on the floor, and from the White House, that they don't deserve it. Let me tell you something. They work hard, local elected officials--mayors, county council members, and school board members--trying to balance their budgets. They cannot run up deficits like we do. Half of their problem is caused by the fact that we get here day after day and put one unfunded mandate on them on top of another. When it comes down to balancing their budgets, do you know whose backs they balance them on? The schoolchildren get cut, teachers get cut, firemen and policemen get cut, so the President can give a dividend tax cut to corporations that don't even pay taxes.

I am not voting for the plan. I would not vote for it if it was the last plan offered, because I am not raising taxes on police officers, firefighters, teachers, and closing libraries. If you think I am making this up, just go to any Nexus search. I went today and looked up Maine--a billion-dollar deficit. The Maine Legislature considers itself in a crisis mode. This is the State of Senators Snowe and Collins. So far, this is what President Bush is asking the residents of Maine to do--this is his plan, so the President is asking the residents of Maine to cut library services, and one community began to lobby its residents to reject a proposed health care center because the State could not afford it.

Now, you can put up a sign at the libraries in Maine saying ``book sale'' because the proceeds are going to a dividend cut. I don't want to hang that sign on my library in Louisiana, and I don't intend to. If this bill passes, fine, it will pass by one vote, maybe a tie vote. It will not have Landrieu's vote.

People say: Senator, are you opposed to tax cuts? No. I voted for the last tax cut proposal of $1.3 trillion. But, of course, then people came to my State during the election and tried to convince people I didn't when I did. Nonetheless, I am a Democrat who has voted for tax cuts. I am not opposed to them. But if we are going to do them, let's do them right, and fair, and in a way that stimulates the economy and actually creates jobs and honors our States as the partners they are, and respects those who are unemployed, not as charity cases but as people who work and deserve a break, particularly when times are tough.

So we offer this amendment. Senator Corzine will speak because he understands the intricacies of economics in a way that is harder for me to explain. I hope he will explain why the plan that has been laid out does not create jobs in a country that is desperate for jobs and needs a boost so that we can put people back to work and meet the challenges that are before us, and standing up for our military and fighting a war on terrorism at home--that we might have the strength to do that.

The amendment will be voted on tomorrow with a list of amendments. It is offered as a good-faith effort, an alternative, one that is stimulative and will create jobs, is fair, and will hopefully get this economy moving again.

I reserve the right to speak for another few minutes to offer additional amendments.

Mr. President, I think I still control the time.

But I reserved as much time as I would consume to present the amendment. I said I would speak for 15 minutes and then Senator Corzine, and if the Senator from Iowa would allow us to present our amendment, then we would be happy to yield to the opposition.

I thank my colleagues for their comments. I will speak an additional 2 or 3 minutes to wrap up, as I stated when I began.

First of all, I have a great deal of respect for the Senator from Iowa, who has been under a great deal of pressure to try to provide a plan for the Senate to consider. If we are given a fair hand, we could have actually designed a plan that could have been more stimulative, more fair, more equitable than the one we will be considering tomorrow.

No. 1, the dividend proposal--and I could say scheme--tries to convince people this will create jobs in America when it will not create jobs, and it will raise taxes because of the way it is designed in the big picture, taxes at the local level. That is happening now.

If people think that is not going to happen, look at Arkansas. The State of Arkansas just raised income taxes across the board by 3 percent. That is why they have a zero deficit, because they just raised income taxes.

This plan, if it does not create jobs, will actually raise taxes at the local level. In Louisiana, only 18 percent of filers even file for a dividend tax. The average is $450 in earnings, so we are saving them $100.

The plan that Senator Corzine, Senator Schumer, and I offer will give relief to every worker. It gives help to the creation of jobs in America. It gives a check to every businessperson, every small business, every large business. It puts money in the economy in a significant amount. For a two-wage-earner family, it is $1,500--not next year, not in 2004. The checks go out within a few months--two checks this year.

Averages can be extremely misleading. One of the best examples of this was an article written recently that said if Bill Gates--assume he was worth $20 billion--happened to walk into a homeless shelter and sat down at a table with 19 homeless men, and one of the guys from the other side walked in and said, What is the average income of the people in this homeless shelter, the average income would be $1 billion. But that average is not reflective of the reality, which is one guy has $20 billion and 19 guys have zero. But the average would be $1 billion.

So beware of averages. I am not fighting for averages. I am fighting for the 4.5 million people who live in Louisiana who deserve a break. If we are going to give out $350 billion on this floor, then give them a fighting chance to get a portion of it, to keep their job, to send their kid to college, to pay their house note. And stop confusing them with these charts and these averages that do not mean a hill of beans. Talk the truth to people. That is what we need. We need to speak the truth and keep our promises and be disciplined in what we do.

I offer this amendment with a great deal of passion. A great deal of study has gone into this because we want to work with the President. I want to work with the President. I want to work with the Republican leadership. I have demonstrated that time and time again.

But I can't vote for a package that doesn't make sense, that will not create jobs, and will raise taxes, all the time promising people it is going to do the opposite.

Like I said on the television, it is hogwash. We are going to offer our amendment tomorrow. Hopefully, we will get some votes.

I ask to send two other amendments to the desk. I am not going to debate them tonight, but I offer them now and ask to have the clerk report them. I offer them for consideration but not until tomorrow.

Amendment No. 620

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

I waive any debate. I send another amendment to the desk.

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

I waive any debate until tomorrow.

Mr. President, when NATO formed in 1949, the world had been liberated from the grips of Hitler and the Japanese. But, the rise of communism and the Soviet Union brought new threats and the fear of nuclear war. NATO was created with vision and vigor to combat, through political and military means, the spread of communism. NATO has succeeded.

Today, the Soviets are gone, and a partnership between Russia and NATO is growing. Still, freedom-loving societies have been threatened anew by state and non-state supported terrorists looking to achieve their destructive aims through the spread of WMD.

The question looms whether NATO will address these new threats or be pushed to the side because it was unable to transform when the cold war ended. Some have said NATO's mission ended when the Berlin Wall fell. Some have even said NATO is dead. Well, I do not think NATO is dead. Now is the time to recommit ourselves to NATO to ensure that the world's greatest alliance for peace perseveres and is improved to remain strong for another 50 years. To do so, NATO must adapt its mission to deal with today's threats. NATO members must commit to a common defense with both policy and budgetary commitments that improve interoperability and reduce the capabilities gap between the U.S. and other members. As NATO's largest and most powerful member, the United States and her leaders in the Senate stand ready to strengthen NATO and repair recently strained relationships amongst NATO members. We must do so, and we must take the first step by supporting NATO enlargement and the admission of seven new members: Romania, Bulgaria, Estonia, Slovenia, Slovakia, Latvia, and Lithuania.

NATO expansion makes strategic sense because expansion creates a united Europe. The addition of the seven aspirants creates a land bridge forming a contiguous alliance on the European Continent. Now, Western Europe from the Atlantic will be connected with its allies in Greece and Turkey on the Mediterranean and Black Sea. With the Partnership for Peace, NATO spreads across three continents. Bitter enemies just 13 years ago are now reliable allies.

NATO membership is a carrot to political and economic reform to all nations wishing to join the alliance. Again, just 13 years ago, the seven proposed new members of NATO were under the darkness and weight of the Iron Curtain. Today, they are burgeoning democracies committed to market economics. To be in NATO, a democratic form of governance is needed. Spain, Greece, and Portugal undertook political reforms to gain NATO approval, and the same is true today for the seven countries currently seeking NATO admission.

The seven new members are ready to actively participate and contribute to a robust NATO. In fact they are already doing so. I would like to cite Romania as one example. Romania has undertaken major political and economic reforms. Romania overthrew Nicolae Ceausescu--a ruthless and oppressive totalitarian leader. Since being unshackled, Romania has celebrated its freedom. Romania has held four nationwide elections, and democracy is blossoming.

Romania is also committed to the defense of the members of the NATO alliance, both in Europe and the U.S. Some have questioned what the seven new members can bring to the table to

benefit NATO. We need not question whether Romania will be a positive force within NATO. Romania has risked the lives of its soldiers for the benefit of the United States.

Participation in Operation Desert Storm--Romania contributed a military hospital company to the Allied Forces.

Participation in Afghanistan--Romania used its own airlift, a C-130, to transport a battalion of soldiers to Afghanistan. These forces have made two rotations. Romania is currently involved in the peacekeeping mission in Afghanistan.

Operation Iraqi Freedom--Romania mobilized its military police and a nuclear, biological, chemical detection team to work alongside U.S. forces in Iraq.

Currently 5,000 U.S. marines are based at Constanza, Romania. Our strategic threats are different today than they were 50 years ago. We are no longer endangered by Russia. Today, the greatest threat to NATO and its members is the threat of terrorism and the spread of weapons of mass destruction. As a result, the U.S. should consider whether it would be wise to reconfigure our forces overseas.

Our new threats are coming from the Middle East and southwest Asia. Romania and Bulgaria are halfway between Germany and the Middle East. Moving bases closer to the threat will allow the U.S. to mobilize faster and get to the fight sooner. We would also be welcome in Romania and Bulgaria. There is some question whether we are still welcome in Western Europe.

There are those who say NATO is dead or has no modern mission. That is simply not the case. The Soviet Union may no longer be a threat, but threats still exist. The end of the cold war may have erased the notion of warfighting where million-man armies face million-man armies on the European Continent. But, the end of the cold war unleashed despots willing to use the asymmetrical means of terrorism and WMD proliferation as methods of aggression and diplomatic blackmail.

NATO must adopt a new mission--combating terrorism and WMD proliferation both in Europe and globally. The threats that emerged from September 11 do not only affect the United States, these threats should be a concern to the entire NATO community. As we have seen, al- Qaeda cells were active in Germany, Spain, France, and Italy.

International terrorism on our shores was unknown to Americans prior to September 11. However, it was not uncommon in Europe. The other NATO members should unite behind America's interests to root out terrorism and stop WMD proliferation because the European members have been targets before and could be targets, again. This will require NATO to look not only within its borders, but NATO must also look beyond its borders. NATO members and Partnership for Peace participants stretch from the Pacific Ocean in the U.S. to bordering on China in Kazakhstan. There are several countries just on the edges of NATO's borders who wish to terrorize those countries within NATO.

NATO has made a pledge to combat terrorism and WMD proliferation. The promise made by the NATO heads of state at the Prague summit to focus on terrorism and WMD proliferation is encouraging. Now, we need action. We should not let recent spats with France and Germany obstruct the implementation of this new mission. Moreover, France and Germany should not let their disagreements with the U.S. obstruct this new mission. Such actions benefit none.

For NATO to remain relevant, the European members must close the capabilities gap between U.S. and European forces. Many NATO members, including France and Germany, have reduced defense spending over the last decade. Such reductions leave the alliance vulnerable and make it difficult for NATO members to participate in operations with the U.S.

U.S. defense spending is dwarfing European defense spending. America's defense budget is greater than all other 18 NATO members combined. The $48 billion dollar increase in U.S. defense spending from fiscal year 2002 to fiscal year 2003 is greater than what 12 of the other 18 members spend on defense.

Europe's leaders are world leaders. NATO members must make a greater investment in national security, NATO's longevity, and world security. We do not need them to spend as much as the U.S.; we need them to complement the U.S. and add value to NATO operations.

NATO should focus its spending on interoperability and communications improvements. The U.S. has committed billions to making it so all four branches of the military can be linked using the same communications devices. We are dedicated to interoperability within our own forces. It has not been easy and the job is not finished, but we have seen the fruits of this effort in Iraq and Afghanistan. Who would have imagined years ago that a B-52 pilot could talk with a Special Operations team on the ground to deliver close air support? This was possible because of interoperability.

NATO must focus on such interoperability. Not only must we ensure that a European tanker plane can refuel a U.S. fighter. We must ensure that 26 members, who speak many different languages, can share a common communications network and operate as one cohesive force, not 26 independent militaries. If this gap is not closed, no value will be added and we will have to question NATO's worth.

NATO must not be just an alliance based on military strength. NATO must be a diplomatic alliance. Military might alone is not the solution. First, we must use all diplomatic means to achieve peace. The united strength of NATO as a diplomatic force will also increase the security of NATO's members.

In the near future, NATO must make decisions to determine whether it will be a vibrant alliance capable of protecting its members in the 21st century or whether it is a relic of the past. I know it can have a meaningful mission in the future--a mission focused on rooting out terrorism and stopping the spread of WMD. To do so, NATO members must increase defense spending and focus on modernization and interoperability. I am confident NATO's members want NATO to have a great role in shaping the 21st century. As a member of NATO, the U.S. should push for a strong alliance. By expanding NATO to include seven new members, we will take a key step in making NATO strong and viable for the 21st century. The Senate sent a strong message of support by approving the admission of Romania, Bulgaria, Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia, Slovenia, and Slovakia to NATO. The vote is good for the safety of the U.S., Europe, and the world.

Mr. President, as you walk the halls of the Senate today, you may have noticed many young and bright faces. Today, we are celebrating the 11th anniversary of ``Take Our Daughters to Work Day.'' Senator Hutchinson and I have been pleased to oversee today's activities with our colleagues.

Over 11 million girls ages 9 to 15 are spending today with their parents, relatives, friends, neighbors, and other mentors experiencing the wide range of careers the world has to offer.

Since 1993, 82 million young women and some young men have participated in this outstanding program. According to a recent poll commissioned by the Ms. Foundation for Women, girls believe the program increased their interest in education, broadened their thinking about the future, and strengthened their relationship with their parents and other caring adults.

This morning's Senate activities began with a breakfast and a tour of the Senate floor for approximately 200 girls and their sponsors, many of them Senate staff members and assistants who wanted to share with their girls the excitement and challenges of working in our Nation's Capitol, and in particular, here in the Senate.

This year, I am happy to host 19 young ladies, all with very promising futures, many from my home State of Louisiana. Please welcome: Miss Leslie Ann Leavoy of DeRidder, LA; Miss Monica Manning of Conyers, GA; Miss Sofia Gold of Chevy Chase, MD; Miss Nicoleta Koha and Miss Joyanna Malutinok of Lexington, MA; Miss Eliza Shaw, Miss Molly Claire Shaw, Miss Lindsey McDonough, Miss Allison McDonough, Miss Janie Abernathy, and Miss Kerry Garikes of Washington, DC; Miss Adrienne Lewis and Miss Megan Johnson of Baton Rouge, LA; Miss Caroline Mitchell of Mandeville, LA; Miss Jillian Baker of McLean, VA; Miss Taylor Denson and Miss Emma Caffery of New Orleans, LA; Miss Lena Jones of Fort Gordon, GA; and Miss Katy Magruder of Maitland, FL.

In closing, I would like to thank the Ms. Foundation the founder and organizer of this outstanding program that has impacted in a very positive way the lives of millions of girls and has become a tradition for thousands of workplaces around the country.

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

Today the Senate continues a process that began almost 2 years ago. At that time, the Senate Energy Committee held and completed the first of several planned mark-up dates with the goal of putting together a comprehensive energy bill. After a number of postponements due to circumstances beyond our control, we engaged in 2 months of debate on the Senate floor last spring and produced a bill by a vote of 88 to 11.

Unfortunately, the House and Senate were unable to resolve their differences in a conference so we find ourselves once again tasked with the formidable challenge of developing an energy policy for the Nation.

I am pleased to report that after 2 weeks of mark-ups under the leadership of Chairman Domenici and the ranking member, Senator Bingaman, the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee has lived up to its duty by reporting a comprehensive energy bill to the Senate for consideration.

So, the challenge of completing a comprehensive energy bill is once again before the Senate. There are likely to be additional obstacles before us along the way. The question is can we overcome them to complete our duty? It was Woodrow Wilson who once said:

The only use of an obstacle is to be overcome. All that an

obstacle does with brave men is, not to frighten them, but to

challenge them.

So the challenge is now before us.

This legislation does an excellent job of utilizing the variety of energy options available to the country particularly from a production standpoint. It is up to the full Senate to balance this with some meaningful conservation measures.

We had a number of hearings in the Energy Committee earlier this year to address the volatility we face in the price and supply of both oil and gas. Since we import 60 percent of the oil we consume, the price of oil is often at the mercy of world events such as the political turmoil in other countries--Venezuela and Nigeria--that we rely on for imports. We can and should produce more at home but must simply acknowledge that reducing the amount of oil we consume has to be part of the equation.

On the other hand, the natural gas market is quite a different picture.

Our country currently produces 84 percent of the natural gas we consume. However, there is a gap looming on the horizon. The energy information forecasts that the demand for natural gas will increase by 30 percent in the United States over the next 15 years, with supplies available to meet 70 percent of this need.

The facts are clear: our natural gas market is in a state of transition. Industries across the country that rely on natural gas as feedstock such as the chemical and fertilizer industries are confronted with high pries which is translating into the loss of jobs. We need to act now.

Most of the natural gas supply sources that have been offered as solutions, such as the natural gas pipeline from Alaska, are medium to long term options. However, in the bill before us today there is a provision which is one of the few, if only, short term options, we really have to affect the market. This provision builds on a recent rule proposed by the department of Interior providing incentives for deep gas production from wells in shallow water areas that have already been leased. Given the projections for potential supply in these areas, the opportunity to deliver significant new natural gas production to the market in order to stabilize prices is simply too good an opportunity to pass up.

Another significant program authorized in the oil and gas title of this bill would take the step of recognizing, for the first time, the impacts to oil-and gas-producing states such as Alaska, Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi and Alabama, from the development that takes place on the outer continental shelf off of their respective coastlines.

With less and less areas available for production, and the deepwaters of the gulf of Mexico still a hotspot for the foreseeable future, it is time for Congress and the Federal Government to recognize the importance of the development that has been occurring and continues to take place off the shores of Louisiana and Texas and compensate those States for their role in providing the Nation's energy supply.

If our policy in this country is going to continue to defer to a State's wishes

as to whether oil and gas development takes place off its coast, then the least we should do is compensate those few States--Alaska, Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi and Alabama--for the duty they preform in supplying this Nation with a significant amount of the oil and gas it needs to function. After all, the OCS is now the largest producing area in the United States as more than 25 percent of both the Nation's oil and natural gas is expected to be produced from the OCS in 2003. In fact, the OCS is the largest single source of oil for the entire U.S., surpassing even Saudi Arabia.

Nuclear energy now provides approximately one-fifth of all electric power used in this country, but does so without compromising our air quality. It is the largest clear air source of electricity in the Nation today, generating two-thirds of all emission-free electricity. Nuclear power is perhaps unique among our supply options, as there is a large potential for expansion in the relative near term with little downside in terms of environmental quality or increased reliance on foreign fuel sources.

For future generations of Americans whose reliance on electricity will increase--and who rightfully want a cleaner environment--nuclear energy is an essential partner in our energy and environmental policy. The provisions contained in this title of the bill--renewal of Price- Anderson, incentives for the construction of new base-load nuclear plants, and the emphasis on encouraging hydrogen co-generation from nuclear power--recognize that nuclear energy is a vital component of our energy portfolio.

One of the most contentious debates we will engage in over the next several weeks involves the issue of electricity. We are confronting an industry that is facing difficult times from the dysfunction of California's market to a loss of market capitalization.

Amid this turmoil, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission has proposed sweeping, untested changes to the business of providing basic and essential electric service to our constituents. Instead, we need to legislate with a caution not reflected by FERC's standard market design, SMD. While the bill before us took the important step of delaying any further action on SMD until January of 2005, there are a number of areas where I believe the electricity provisions before us come up short in addressing the shortcomings of SMD.

First, the State-Federal jurisdictional divide, which has worked exceedingly well in Louisiana to provide low-cost and reliable electric service, is jeopardized by the SMD proposal.

Second, I am concerned about the potential for increased rates for my retail customers as a result of the costs of accommodating the ``merchant generation'' that, over the past several years, has been seeking to connect to the electric grid in the southeast. While it has added to the competition, it is also straining the grid, and under FERC policy may end up straining the pocketbooks of regular homeowners who would be forced to subsidize the interconnection and transmission costs.

Lastly, I remain concerned that we need more investment in transmission facilities, but do not have sufficient policies to encourage it. Transmission is critical to sustaining wholesale markets. I had hoped that the electricity title of this bill would have been reported out of committee with much-needed participant funding language in order to significantly increase transmission investment.

When we turn to electricity during this debate, I intend to offer several amendments to address these concerns.

We now realize that perhaps the best alternative to oil and gas production in this country is conservation. As our economy continues to grow so does our demand for energy. While we have made some noteworthy strides on the conversation front there are miles to go. When we talk about our dependence on oil in this country we have to acknowledge that there is no alternative that matches oil for cheapness and convenience. While we should continue to produce oil in this country where we can that alone cannot be the answer. With over 60 percent of our daily oil consumption coming from the transportation sector, we have to start there. The challenge to this body is how to strike a sensible balance by establishing a reasonable increase in fuel economy standards that will not compromise vehicle safety, unduly increase cost and significantly limit consumer's choices.

I think every member probably realizes the importance of ultimately changing the ``coinage'' of energy in the transportation sector from oil to something else.

This bill addresses that something else by authorizing about $3.6 billion for an increase in hydrogen fuel research and development, demonstration projects, federal purchase requirements, and specific goals to move hydrogen vehicles out of laboratories and onto the nation's roads. A hydrogen economy that lessens our dependence on foreign oil is within our grasp.

During markup before the committee, I supported what amounts to a reasonable renewable portfolio standard. I continue to believe that it is a commonsense approach to ensure that renewable sources of energy-- wind and solar--be a part of our electricity supply. Renewable energy is homegrown and does not need to be bought from foreign markets. The advantages of our ability to domestically produce renewables are obvious: protection for consumers from the prospect of supply interruptions outside the region or country which we cannot control.

It frustrates me to hear people talk about climate change as something that we can simply adapt to--no big deal. I can assure everyone here, changing climate is a big deal for Louisiana. My state continues to lose its coastline and critical wetlands every year. We already feel the human impact and economic loss from hurricanes every year. There are some that think these storms could get worse with global warming, although the scientific jury is still out. We owe it to our constituents and to our colleagues in the Senate to give our best efforts, in this bill, to come up with a commonsense and effective policies to deal with this threat.

For conclusion, the challenge before us now is to acknowledge how much we depend on these traditional fossil fuels--our Nation still relies on oil and gas for 65 percent of the energy it consumes. That is not going to change overnight. At the same time, we must continue to make significant strides toward using the impressive diversity of energy sources we have at our disposal including nuclear and renewable energy. Also, if we continue to ignore the importance of conservation we do so at our own peril.

With a little balance and common sense, we can make the diversity of supply available in this country go a long way. All of the supply options available to our country have a substantial role to play in our future energy mix. However, none by themselves is the answer.

I yield back the remainder of my time and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, article I, section 8, clauses 12 and 13 are the source of Congress' power regarding the Army and the Navy. Interestingly, while clause 12 of the Constitution gives Congress the power to raise and support armies, clause 13 requires Congress to provide and maintain a navy. Thus, while we have discretionary authority with regard to the establishment of an army, the Constitution presumes that we will always have and maintain a navy.

Despite this constitutional duty, our current surface fleet is smaller than our fleet in 1917, the year before we entered World War I. What is worse, the future looks even more bleak. At current build rates, we will sink below a 200 ship navy. In fact, we are building ships at rates unseen since 1932--the height of the great depression.

I submit that this policy is unsustainable. The U.S. Navy is not only a great pillar of American military might, it is an important tool in our diplomacy. American ships conduct about 175 international exercises every year. Yet, in recent years we have had to scale back participation, and in some cases, cancel exercises because the ships were simply not available. These joint exercises improve our ability to coordinate activity with our allies. They allow us to instill American notions of professionalism and service into the navies all around the world, and they give us important intelligence on emerging naval capabilities.

Additionally, the Navy serves as a powerful deterrent in situations short of war. How many situations have we used our Navy as a symbol of American resolve. The firepower and strength represented by a carrier battle group has been important in the Taiwan Straights, in the Sea of Japan and in the Persian Gulf. There is no reason to believe that it will become any less so in future years.

The Quadrennial Defense Review puts the requirements for the number of ships in the Navy at 360. Naval strategists warn that we are already proportioning risk. In other words, we are already deciding what seas we will leave underprotected, so as to ensure that we will have enough ships to cover flash points.

The legislation I am offering today is a simple statement of policy. It states that it is the policy of the United States to return to a Navy of at least 375 ships. This should include 15 carrier battle groups and 15 amphibious ready groups. Yet, even this number is a dramatic decrease from our high point of a 600 ship navy. However, it is an achievable goal, if Congress begins to appropriate resources to the Navy shipbuilding account at reasonable levels.

The bill is based on another policy statement we adopted into law in 1999--the National Missile Defense Act. That law provided guidance to our authorization and appropriations process. It also provide guidance to the President's budget. It has been successful in ensuring that the last two administrations have budgeted sufficient resources to keep our national missile defense program on track. This statement of policy is more important still. It is not a statement about a future technology, it is a statement about a military capability that this country dare not abandon.

I trust that the Senate shares my commitment to the future of our fleet. While it may come at real expense, I know my colleagues share the view that it is an expense worth making. I look forward to working with my colleagues to ensure that this bill is adopted.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, the Renewal Community Program has been a tremendous success in promoting economic growth in my home State of Louisiana. It has boosted local economies and cut unemployment in areas that need it most. The Department of Housing and Urban Development designated 40 urban and rural areas around the country as renewal communities, under the Community Renewal Tax Relief Act of 2000.

Renewal communities can take advantage of wage tax credits, tax deductions, capital gains tax exclusions, and bond financing to stimulate job growth, promote economic development, and create affordable housing. This assistance goes to areas with poverty rates of at least 20 percent, and unemployment rates that are one-and-a-half times the national level. Households in renewal communities have incomes that are 80 percent below the median income of households in their local jurisdictions.

One of the most beneficial business incentives under the program is the wage tax credit an employer can receive for hiring and retaining residents of renewal communities. Businesses can receive up to a $1,500 Federal tax credit for every newly hired or existing employee who lives and works in the Renewal Community.

Louisiana has four renewal communities. One is in New Orleans and the remaining three cover a large portion of the Central and Northern parts of the State. These three renewal communities have common borders. This is a tremendous benefit for Louisiana, but it also creates some problems. Under the rules of the program a business in one renewal community cannot receive the wage tax credit if they hire someone who lives outside that renewal community, even if that person lives in the renewal community right next door.

A good example of what I am talking about is in the northern part of the State. The Ouachita Renewal Community which covers the City of Monroe in Ouachita Parish is surrounded by a number of parishes that fall into the North Louisiana Renewal Community--Morehouse Parish to the north, Richland Parish to the east, Caldwell Parish to the south, and Lincoln Parish to the west. The borders of these two renewal communities are literally two or three miles apart. Monroe is the economic hub of that part of my State. People from Morehouse, Caldwell, and Richland Parishes will naturally look for work there. But under current law, a company in Monroe cannot get a wage tax credit for hiring someone who lives in the renewal community right next door.

The situation in Louisiana is fairly unique. I am not certain whether Congress really anticipated that one State would receive more than one renewal community designation or that those renewal communities would be so close together. I certainly understand the desire to promote economic development in specific areas. That can work if renewal communities are far apart. But when they are so close together as they are around Ouachita Parish, or a little further south in the middle of my State, where the Central Louisiana Renewal Community borders the North Louisiana Renewal Community, then we need to make the program more flexible. A person living in Franklin Parish near the border with Catahoula Parish does not necessarily know that both parishes lie in two different renewal communities. If the closest job is in Catahoula Parish, that is where a Franklin Parish resident is going to go. The problem is that a business in Catahoula Parish would not receive the tax break for hiring the worker from Franklin Parish--only a few miles away.

We need to add some common sense flexibility to the Renewal Community program. Today I am introducing legislation that will allow the employers in one renewal community to hire employees from an adjacent or nearby renewal community and still receive the wage tax credits granted under the Act. This legislation essentially treats renewal communities that are within five miles of each other as one. This bill will make a small change in the Renewal Community program, but it will make a big difference to the people of my state.

This legislation will make a very important program more successful for Louisiana and other states like it. I urge my colleagues to support this bill. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, we are living in difficult economic times. Too many people are out of work and the economy is not growing enough to put them back to work permanently. The March unemployment rate was 5.8 percent and it has been holding around this mark for about a year. More bad news came just last week when the number of jobless claims soared to 445,000 for the week ending March 29. That is the highest number of weekly claims for unemployment benefits in almost a year.

While unemployment has been rising, other economic indicators are dropping. New orders for manufactured goods in February decreased $4.9 billion or 1.5 percent; shipments also fell 1.5 percent, the largest decrease since February of last year.

These cold, hard numbers cannot measure the unease and uncertainty many Americans feel today. The Conference Board Consumer Confidence Index fell 2 more points in March after a 3 point drop in February. When your neighbor is out of work and cannot find a job, you worry that you might be next. So you hold off on buying that new washing machine, the new car you need to get to work, or you put that dream vacation on hold. Americans have experienced losses in their pensions and 401(k) plans. When you combine all of this with the uncertainty surrounding the war against terrorism and the war with Iraq, you create a great drag on the economy.

I think all of my colleagues agree that the economy is not where we want it to be right now. We agree that it needs a booster shot. We have partisan disagreement over specifics and the size of the stimulus. But if we put aside our partisan differences, I believe we can come up with a bipartisan solution to help the economy in the short term.

We can accomplish this if we agree on a few, narrow principles for an economic stimulus plan. First, we should aim toward providing an immediate boost to the economy. We do not need tax cuts that will only begin to help several years downs the road. The economy needs help today. Second, the urgent need for the boost today means that the economic stimulus plan must be simple and easy to administer so that full effects can be felt right away. Third, I believe that a stimulus plan must be fiscally responsible. While the economy needs a boost today, that boost should not come at the expense of our ability to meet our needs tomorrow. And finally, the stimulus package must be equitable. It must be fair. It should touch all Americans, not just a select few.

Today, along with my colleague Senator Corzine, I am introducing one idea for economic stimulus that meets all of these principles. We propose that all working Americans receive tax relief equivalent to the amount of payroll taxes paid on the first $10,000 of earnings--a total of $765. The rebate would be made in two installments. The first would come within 2 months of passage of the bill and the second would come by December 1st of this year. Employers would also receive an equivalent tax credit for their employees.

This plan meets the principles I have outlined. It is a short-term plan that will put spending money in the hands of working Americans. It will be simple to administer--rebate checks were a part of the tax cut we passed in 2001. The plan is fiscally responsible: the rebate checks will be paid out of general revenues and not from the Social Security trust fund. Finally, this plan is fair. Every working American will benefit.

Mr. President, I hope the Congress will act quickly to revive our economy. Today, Senator Corzine and I are putting one idea forward. My colleagues have a variety of other ideas that they will put forward. The Senate should look at each and put together a final package that is simple, immediate, fair, and fiscally responsible.

Mr. President, article I, section 8, clauses 12 and 13 are the source of Congress' power regarding the Army and the Navy. Interestingly, while clause 12 of the Constitution gives Congress the power to raise and support armies, clause 13 requires Congress to provide and maintain a navy. Thus, while we have discretionary authority with regard to the establishment of an army, the Constitution presumes that we will always have and maintain a navy.

Despite this constitutional duty, our current surface fleet is smaller than our fleet in 1917, the year before we entered World War I. What is worse, the future looks even more bleak. At current build rates, we will sink below a 200 ship navy. In fact, we are building ships at rates unseen since 1932--the height of the great depression.

I submit that this policy is unsustainable. The U.S. Navy is not only a great pillar of American military might, it is an important tool in our diplomacy. American ships conduct about 175 international exercises every year. Yet, in recent years we have had to scale back participation, and in some cases, cancel exercises because the ships were simply not available. These joint exercises improve our ability to coordinate activity with our allies. They allow us to instill American notions of professionalism and service into the navies all around the world, and they give us important intelligence on emerging naval capabilities.

Additionally, the Navy serves as a powerful deterrent in situations short of war. How many situations have we used our Navy as a symbol of American resolve. The firepower and strength represented by a carrier battle group has been important in the Taiwan Straights, in the Sea of Japan and in the Persian Gulf. There is no reason to believe that it will become any less so in future years.

The Quadrennial Defense Review puts the requirements for the number of ships in the Navy at 360. Naval strategists warn that we are already proportioning risk. In other words, we are already deciding what seas we will leave underprotected, so as to ensure that we will have enough ships to cover flash points.

The legislation I am offering today is a simple statement of policy. It states that it is the policy of the United States to return to a Navy of at least 375 ships. This should include 15 carrier battle groups and 15 amphibious ready groups. Yet, even this number is a dramatic decrease from our high point of a 600 ship navy. However, it is an achievable goal, if Congress begins to appropriate resources to the Navy shipbuilding account at reasonable levels.

The bill is based on another policy statement we adopted into law in 1999--the National Missile Defense Act. That law provided guidance to our authorization and appropriations process. It also provide guidance to the President's budget. It has been successful in ensuring that the last two administrations have budgeted sufficient resources to keep our national missile defense program on track. This statement of policy is more important still. It is not a statement about a future technology, it is a statement about a military capability that this country dare not abandon.

I trust that the Senate shares my commitment to the future of our fleet. While it may come at real expense, I know my colleagues share the view that it is an expense worth making. I look forward to working with my colleagues to ensure that this bill is adopted.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, the Renewal Community Program has been a tremendous success in promoting economic growth in my home State of Louisiana. It has boosted local economies and cut unemployment in areas that need it most. The Department of Housing and Urban Development designated 40 urban and rural areas around the country as renewal communities, under the Community Renewal Tax Relief Act of 2000.

Renewal communities can take advantage of wage tax credits, tax deductions, capital gains tax exclusions, and bond financing to stimulate job growth, promote economic development, and create affordable housing. This assistance goes to areas with poverty rates of at least 20 percent, and unemployment rates that are one-and-a-half times the national level. Households in renewal communities have incomes that are 80 percent below the median income of households in their local jurisdictions.

One of the most beneficial business incentives under the program is the wage tax credit an employer can receive for hiring and retaining residents of renewal communities. Businesses can receive up to a $1,500 Federal tax credit for every newly hired or existing employee who lives and works in the Renewal Community.

Louisiana has four renewal communities. One is in New Orleans and the remaining three cover a large portion of the Central and Northern parts of the State. These three renewal communities have common borders. This is a tremendous benefit for Louisiana, but it also creates some problems. Under the rules of the program a business in one renewal community cannot receive the wage tax credit if they hire someone who lives outside that renewal community, even if that person lives in the renewal community right next door.

A good example of what I am talking about is in the northern part of the State. The Ouachita Renewal Community which covers the City of Monroe in Ouachita Parish is surrounded by a number of parishes that fall into the North Louisiana Renewal Community--Morehouse Parish to the north, Richland Parish to the east, Caldwell Parish to the south, and Lincoln Parish to the west. The borders of these two renewal communities are literally two or three miles apart. Monroe is the economic hub of that part of my State. People from Morehouse, Caldwell, and Richland Parishes will naturally look for work there. But under current law, a company in Monroe cannot get a wage tax credit for hiring someone who lives in the renewal community right next door.

The situation in Louisiana is fairly unique. I am not certain whether Congress really anticipated that one State would receive more than one renewal community designation or that those renewal communities would be so close together. I certainly understand the desire to promote economic development in specific areas. That can work if renewal communities are far apart. But when they are so close together as they are around Ouachita Parish, or a little further south in the middle of my State, where the Central Louisiana Renewal Community borders the North Louisiana Renewal Community, then we need to make the program more flexible. A person living in Franklin Parish near the border with Catahoula Parish does not necessarily know that both parishes lie in two different renewal communities. If the closest job is in Catahoula Parish, that is where a Franklin Parish resident is going to go. The problem is that a business in Catahoula Parish would not receive the tax break for hiring the worker from Franklin Parish--only a few miles away.

We need to add some common sense flexibility to the Renewal Community program. Today I am introducing legislation that will allow the employers in one renewal community to hire employees from an adjacent or nearby renewal community and still receive the wage tax credits granted under the Act. This legislation essentially treats renewal communities that are within five miles of each other as one. This bill will make a small change in the Renewal Community program, but it will make a big difference to the people of my state.

This legislation will make a very important program more successful for Louisiana and other states like it. I urge my colleagues to support this bill. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, we are living in difficult economic times. Too many people are out of work and the economy is not growing enough to put them back to work permanently. The March unemployment rate was 5.8 percent and it has been holding around this mark for about a year. More bad news came just last week when the number of jobless claims soared to 445,000 for the week ending March 29. That is the highest number of weekly claims for unemployment benefits in almost a year.

While unemployment has been rising, other economic indicators are dropping. New orders for manufactured goods in February decreased $4.9 billion or 1.5 percent; shipments also fell 1.5 percent, the largest decrease since February of last year.

These cold, hard numbers cannot measure the unease and uncertainty many Americans feel today. The Conference Board Consumer Confidence Index fell 2 more points in March after a 3 point drop in February. When your neighbor is out of work and cannot find a job, you worry that you might be next. So you hold off on buying that new washing machine, the new car you need to get to work, or you put that dream vacation on hold. Americans have experienced losses in their pensions and 401(k) plans. When you combine all of this with the uncertainty surrounding the war against terrorism and the war with Iraq, you create a great drag on the economy.

I think all of my colleagues agree that the economy is not where we want it to be right now. We agree that it needs a booster shot. We have partisan disagreement over specifics and the size of the stimulus. But if we put aside our partisan differences, I believe we can come up with a bipartisan solution to help the economy in the short term.

We can accomplish this if we agree on a few, narrow principles for an economic stimulus plan. First, we should aim toward providing an immediate boost to the economy. We do not need tax cuts that will only begin to help several years downs the road. The economy needs help today. Second, the urgent need for the boost today means that the economic stimulus plan must be simple and easy to administer so that full effects can be felt right away. Third, I believe that a stimulus plan must be fiscally responsible. While the economy needs a boost today, that boost should not come at the expense of our ability to meet our needs tomorrow. And finally, the stimulus package must be equitable. It must be fair. It should touch all Americans, not just a select few.

Today, along with my colleague Senator Corzine, I am introducing one idea for economic stimulus that meets all of these principles. We propose that all working Americans receive tax relief equivalent to the amount of payroll taxes paid on the first $10,000 of earnings--a total of $765. The rebate would be made in two installments. The first would come within 2 months of passage of the bill and the second would come by December 1st of this year. Employers would also receive an equivalent tax credit for their employees.

This plan meets the principles I have outlined. It is a short-term plan that will put spending money in the hands of working Americans. It will be simple to administer--rebate checks were a part of the tax cut we passed in 2001. The plan is fiscally responsible: the rebate checks will be paid out of general revenues and not from the Social Security trust fund. Finally, this plan is fair. Every working American will benefit.

Mr. President, I hope the Congress will act quickly to revive our economy. Today, Senator Corzine and I are putting one idea forward. My colleagues have a variety of other ideas that they will put forward. The Senate should look at each and put together a final package that is simple, immediate, fair, and fiscally responsible.

Mr. President, I would like to take just a few minutes to speak about the unfolding victory in Iraq and to speak about a specific point that I am going to be spending some time working on throughout the course of the next couple of days and as we spend some time, in a recess, traveling back to our States and visiting other places in the world that have been supportive in terms of our alliance in Iraq.

I want to say, just before we break tonight, that the people of Louisiana have watched, with relief and exuberance and pride, the exploits and the work of our troops in Iraq. We have been proud of each and every soldier and the work they are performing under very difficult circumstances, but they are performing beautifully, exceptionally, as expected. We are very proud of their work, the Active Forces as well as the Reserve Forces.

We know we have done many things right in Iraq. We know there are some weaknesses we will address. The military is always the first to say--which is why I enjoy working so closely with them--this is what we did right and we are proud of it and we are going to do it better. But we don't mind admitting there are some things we could do better next time. And lessons learned is something that our military goes through after each and every exercise, which is why they are so good, and why we get better and better and better. I am very proud of that kind of approach.

So as we watch this victory unfold in Iraq, with every toppling of every statue, with the destruction of every image of Saddam Hussein, we can begin to build a new image, a new vision for the people of Iraq, one they so richly deserve and have waited decades and decades to arrive. And it is our pride and our great joy that America and Britain and our allies are helping to bring about this vision, as we speak tonight on the floor of the Senate.

We have been involved today in many other important issues, but, of course, there is no issue more important to this Senate or to this Congress or to this country right now, or to the world, than what is unfolding in Iraq as we speak.

I want to just make a note about one specific aspect of the postbattle plan for Iraq. I am going to be working closely with many committees in the Senate to help to fashion that plan, which, of course, will be broad and comprehensive. Hopefully, we will have bipartisan support.

The President will submit many of his own ideas. The international community will contribute. I, for one, have felt very strongly that our military should continue to lead that effort. While they are soldiers first, and soldiers always, they have tremendous skills and abilities when it comes to postconflict periods, when the battle is actually over and the bullets stop flying and the construction and reconstruction begins. Not that our military would want to be engaged over a long period of time, but there are, most certainly, skills that our military can bring to establishing the, at least, early stages of that civil affairs network and framework.

So I am pleased to see the House and the Senate moving back to the administration's original position, which was to allow our military to lead that effort and the Pentagon, as opposed to the State Department; most certainly for the U.S. to continue that leadership position as opposed to the U.N. The U.N. should be a partner, the international community should be a partner, but the U.S. should lead that effort.

I think that is the way we are moving, and I most certainly support that. And I could venture to say, without seeing any polls, I know the people of Louisiana would want that kind of arrangement to be made.

In one part of the post battle plan for Iraq, the reconstruction plan, I am hoping that we would strongly consider--and I will be filing a resolution in just a few days, as soon as we can get some of the details worked out, and, hopefully, file it in a bipartisan way--a resolution that would suggest that we help the people of Iraq establish a permanent trust fund for their long-term economic development, a trust fund based on the revenues received from the production of oil and gas.

The reason I want to spend just a few minutes speaking about this idea is there have been several articles written. We have done, in our office, some research on this subject. And I have had a great deal of experience with the people of Louisiana with this concept. And we are not the only State that has created trust funds from the oil and gas reserves.

Just like Iraq, although we are not a nation, Louisiana produces a tremendous amount of oil and gas and has some of the richest reserves in the United States.

Texas is also a State that has tremendous resources and established, years ago, a permanent trust fund. The proceeds of that fund are directed to the support and maintenance and the strengthening of their two major universities in Texas. And the billions of dollars that have flowed into this trust fund have provided educational opportunities and research opportunities that have led to jobs creation and economic strength in the State of Texas.

The State of Alaska probably has the largest of such a trust fund, called the Permanent Alaska Trust Fund. Not only have those resources been used to help Alaska strengthen its economy, but there are also, literally, rebates that go from that fund to each individual citizen of Alaska. There are only 500,000 people, but the fund has worked in many wonderful ways.

I will suggest through this resolution that we in the Congress lay out an idea to create such a trust fund for the people of Iraq, run by the people of Iraq, to make sure of that diminishing resource, although they supply now 6 percent of the world's oil, and while I am convinced that our technology working with them will find more oil, and potentially gas reserves, that is a diminishing resource, just as in Louisiana

and Texas and Alaska. And beginning a plan now for that money to be used in appropriate ways for education, for health care, for economic development, for improving the infrastructure in Iraq and setting up in a way that protects those moneys so they can be used for the people of Iraq would serve as a great foundation or at least a significant part of a plan for reconstruction for Iraq.

In conclusion, the people are talented and industrious, the infrastructure is there to be built on. With a few good and solid ideas like carving out a trust fund with specific funding from their oil and gas reserves, the people of Iraq can enjoy those reserves and benefit from them, not just in the next year but in many years to come.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.