Floor Statements

Mr. President, today I introduce the ``Federal Power Act Amendment of 2003.'' This bill is intended to ensure for the future the two things that matter most to all electricity customers: affordable electricity and reliable electricity.

Electricity users, my constituents and your constituents, wake up in the morning, flip a switch and expect their lights to turn on. They also expect that each month when their electricity bill arrives in the mail that they'll pay a reasonable price for that service. Customers don't care where the electrons come from or what new scheme the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission has in mind for the electricity industry or really much of anything else. And frankly, as a representative of nearly four and a half million people in my home State of Louisiana, affordable and reliable electricity are my primary concerns when it comes to electricity policy, and that is the purpose for which I offer legislation today.

Electricity prices in Louisiana, and throughout the Southeast for that matter, are some of the lowest in the nation. According to the North American Electric Reliability Council's most recent reliability assessment report, the Southeast region is expected to enjoy, at least for the near term, ``adequate delivery capacity to support forecast demand and energy requirements under normal and contingency conditions.'' In other words, electricity customers in the Southeast should expect to continue to enjoy reliable electric service over the short run. My concern, however, is about the future of retail electricity service in my State.

There are several specific areas of concern that I have and that I attempt to address in the legislation being offered today.

First, the current balance between State and Federal jurisdiction, which has worked exceedingly well in my home State to provide low-cost and reliable electric service, is in jeopardy. Retail transactions, regulated by State public utility commissions, have historically comprised 90 percent of most utilities' transactions and continue to do so in a majority of States that have not restructured their electricity markets. In fact, there is not a single State in the Southeast with the exception of Virginia that has authorized retail competition. Yet, customers in our region of the country enjoy some of the lowest priced electricity service.

The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission or FERC, however, has issued a proposed rule that would strip States of much of their current jurisdiction over retail electric service, including the transmission component of bundled retail sales. In so doing, FERC would dramatically impair the ability of States to use retail ratemaking to attain local policy goals and to continue to ensure low costs for retail customers. It would also prohibit States from ensuring that retail customers are given a priority for electricity service. As a result, in the event that supplies are tight, retail customers could lose the right to priority service.

FERC's proposed plan is a one-size-fits-all scheme on the entire country based on a model that closely resembles the one in place in New Jersey, much of Pennsylvania and Maryland. This model may work well in the Northeast, but it has never been tested or proven viable in any other part of the country. In fact, in a study performed by the consulting firm, Charles River Associates, it was concluded that there is ``considerable uncertainty as to whether [the FERC's proposed plan] would provide greater benefits to the southeast than the implementation costs.'' In Louisiana, and I'm sure in many other States throughout the Southeast and across the country, customers are happy with their electric service. So I ask, what's wrong with the current jurisdictional division between the State and Federal government? If a State or region wants to adopt a new approach, they should be free to do so. But we should not allow a Federal agency to make fundamental policy decisions that are best left to State officials who are accountable to local interests. We know what happened out West when California regulators attempted to institute a sweeping, new plan for its electricity markets. I hope to avoid importing those problems into Louisiana.

To address this jurisdictional concern, Section 2 of my bill would clarify the Federal-State arrangement under the Federal Power Act by explicitly stating that States shall have jurisdiction over the retail sale of electric energy, including all component parts of a bundled retail sale. In addition, Section 7 would enable States to continue to allow utilities to reserve transmission capacity for retail customers. This is current law and the current practice in a large number of States, including States with some of the lowest average retail rates and the best history of reliability. As contemplated by Congress when the Federal Power Act was enacted, FERC will retain jurisdiction over the wholesale sales of electric energy and States will retain jurisdiction over retail.

My second concern for retail customers is the potential for increased rates caused by the costs of accommodating the ``merchant generation'' that, over the past several years, have been seeking to connect to the electric grid in the Southeast. Though new generation is important to wholesale competition, it is a strain on the transmission system. To accommodate the new generation, new transmission facilities and upgrades to existing facilities are needed. However, customers in Louisiana would be forced to pay for the facilities needed to accommodate the merchant generators, even though most of their customers are out-of-region customers. State regulatory commissioners, understandably, are reluctant to pass transmission construction and upgrade costs off to local customers who are not benefitting from the electricity. Meanwhile energy dependent regions of the country are denied cheap and reliable electricity.

A reason they choose to site in Louisiana is because we are blessed with abundant reserves of natural gas--the currently favored fuel source for electric generation. Merchant generators are siting their facilities to gain access to these resources as cheaply as possible, and then are delivering electricity to regions where they can sell electricity at a higher cost. If enough transmission is built to export just a portion of the new generation that is planned to come on-line in Louisiana--10,000 megawatts--the estimated cost would impose a retail rate increase of 5 to 11 percent.

Surely, there must be a more equitable way to allocate cost while simultaneously enhancing our transmission capacity. It is not fair to expect customers in energy generating States to keep paying for transmission expansion when this increased transmission is primarily being developed for out-of-region use. In Sections 3 and 4 of this bill, I have attempted to provide a more equitable system. Section 3 would allow for ``voluntary participant-funding'' in which a regional transmission organization may choose to establish a system in which market participants pay for expansions to the transmission network in return for the transmission rights created by the expansion investment. This approach gives proper economic incentives for new generator location and transmission expansion decisions.

Similarly, Section 4 of my bill would require the FERC to initiate a proceeding to establish rules for interconnecting new generation to transmission facilities. As in Section 3, any costs made necessary by the interconnecting generator would be funded by the generator, or cost-causer, in return for a right to use such facilities funded by the investment.

The third problem that I see is the lack of new investment in transmission facilities. FERC noted in its Electric Transmission Constraint study that transmission congestion costs retail

customers across the country millions of dollars every year. Over the past 10 years, demand for electricity has increased by 17 percent while transmission investment during the same period has continuously declined about 45 percent.

What is even more troubling is that current demand for electricity is projected to increase by 25 percent over the next 10 years with only a modest increase in transmission capacity. In the short term, this lack of transmission investment and the corresponding lack of transmission capacity, adversely affects the ability of retail customers to realize the benefits of wholesale competition. Over the long term, and if this trend continues, the reliability of the bulk power system could be compromised. In the summer of 2000, transmission constraints limited the ability to sell low-cost power from the Midwest to the South during a period of peak demand, causing higher costs for customers. In the summer of 2001 during the California electricity crisis, transmission constraints along the Path 15 transmission route were a significant cause of the blackouts experienced by customers in the northern parts of that State.

To help spur this needed investment in the transmission sector, Section 5 of the legislation would provide further guidance to FERC in establishing transmission rates in two ways. First, Section 5 would amend Section 205 of the Federal Power Act to clarify that the cost causer is responsible for paying the costs of new transmission investment and that all users of the transmission facilities are required to pay an equitable share of the costs such facilities. These provisions will help ensure that users of the transmission system have proper economic price signals and encourage investment where it is needed most. Second, Section 5 would add a new section to the Federal Power Act, Section 215, that would require the FERC to initiate a rulemaking to establish transmission pricing policies and standards to promote investment in transmission facilities. Although the Commission may have sufficient authority under current law to initiate such policies, our Nation's transmission system has been neglected too long and I believe that the FERC could benefit from more specific guidance from Congress.

Finally, customers are not realizing all of the potential benefits of wholesale electricity markets because of its balkanization. The likely result is higher electricity prices. In different parts of the country, electric utilities are in various stages of joining together to form large regional markets, or in the terms used by FERC--regional transmission organizations. In addition, public power entities, including municipal utilities, cooperatives, and federal and State power marketing associations have been willing or resisting, to varying degrees, to contribute to the efforts to establish regional markets. Exacerbating this problem is the underlying fact that FERC does not have the same jurisdiction over public power utilities as it does over electric utilities.

Properly functioning regional markets for electricity can bring about significant benefits to customers in all parts of the country. More competitive wholesale generation, for example, will allow retail sellers greater opportunities to purchase generation from independent power producers. Improperly functioning markets, or one-size-fits all proposals that do not take into consideration regional differences, can be devastating. Current law and policy at FERC has been insufficient in achieving the proper balance between the need for robust regional markets, the reality of regional differences and the legitimate efforts of utilities.

Therefore, in Section 6 of the bill, the FERC would be required to convene regional discussions with State regulatory commissions to consider the development and progress of regional transmission organizations. It would further provide for specific topics of discussion between FERC and the States including the need for regional organizations, the planning process for facilities, the protection of retail customers, and the establishment of proper price signals to ensure the efficient expansion of the transmission grid. Section 6 would also help reduce the balkanization of the electric grid by authorizing the federal utilities such as the Tennessee Valley Authority and the Bonneville Power Administration to join regional transmission organizations. Also, in an attempt to help expand wholesale markets, Section 8 would provide for FERC to require that public power entities provide a limited form of access to their transmission facilities. This provision would give wholesale generators increased access to markets and ensure that competitors pay only the fair and reasonable price to use the transmission grid owned by public power.

In conclusion, I ask my colleagues to support this legislation and consider its affect on retail electricity customers in their States. Affordable and reliable electricity should be our objective for all customers, in all parts of the country.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for Kevin Avery to be granted the privilege of the floor.

Mr. President, on rollcall vote No. 89, I voted nay. It was my intention to vote yea. I ask unanimous consent that I be permitted to change my vote. It will not change the outcome of that vote.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Kevin Avery be given floor privileges.

Mr. President, less than 24 hours ago, President Bush, our Commander in Chief, issued orders to begin military actions to disarm Saddam Hussein and his totalitarian regime. War is never our first choice, but it is sometimes a necessary last choice. As a mature democracy, we prefer to settle disputes peacefully and use diplomacy whenever possible. But sometimes, disputes cannot be settled peacefully. Force must be used to defend against threats to our freedom and liberate an oppressed people. That is what we are doing in Iraq. I want to express my support for our men and women in uniform and this course of action.

I wish to offer my wholehearted and unwavering support for those serving in our Armed Forces. The men and women serving our country in the military symbolize the best America has to offer. They are dedicated to the defense of our Constitution and willing to make the ultimate sacrifice, if necessary, to protect the Constitution for every American. More importantly, they volunteer to do so. They are well- trained and ready to defend our way of life and improve the lives of Iraqis. Along with the people of Louisiana, I will be praying for our troops and their families. I wish our men and women safety in their missions and a quick return home.

Barksdale--B-52s and A-10s from the 2d Bomb Wing and 917th Air Wing are making great contributions in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Guam. I am so proud of Barksdale's leadership, pilots, flight crews, and their families.

Fort Polk is the premiere light armored training center in the world. Our Army will succeed in Iraq because it trained for victory at Fort Polk. Currently, 4,000 men and women of the 2d Armored Cavalry are working to liberate Iraq, and I could not be more proud. Their families should also be proud.

Louisiana has 14,000 Air and Army National Guardsmen; 2,400 are currently deployed, and many are in Iraq and Afghanistan. Many Guardsmen have been activated three times since September 11. In the last 18 months, they have seen little of their families, but they have done much for their country. These proud warriors have served above and beyond the call of duty.

Belle Chasse is the premiere Joint Reserve Base for the Marine Reserve, Navy Reserve, Air Force Reserve, and Air National Guard. Belle Chasse has contributed A-10s, Cobras, F-15s, and F-18s; pilots and crews to the war on terrorism. These men and women, too, have been called up a number of times. They have served valiantly and with distinction.

In closing, I want to thank our allies who have joined us to defend our shores, bring liberty to the people of Iraq, and root out terrorism. British Prime Minister Tony Blair risked his political career to do what is right for world security. I want to tell him that the American people appreciate his courage. Australia is committing forces, and we are grateful. Additionally, Eastern European countries like Romania, Bulgaria, and Poland have been staunch supporters of disarming Saddam Hussein. They have done so because not long ago they lived under dictators. They have recently experienced the sweet breaths of freedom, and they want the Iraqi people to experience the same. God bless our troops.

I yield the floor.

I wish to offer an amendment.

I thank the Chair. Mr. President, I rise to discuss an amendment I plan to offer. First, I thank the leadership, particularly the Senator from Oklahoma for his gracious yielding because the time is getting very late tonight and there are other colleagues on the floor who wish to speak briefly on some amendments about which they feel strongly. As we try to offer these amendments and state our case, we realize these votes will take place tomorrow. I thank my colleague from Oklahoma for his leadership and my colleague from North Dakota.

First, I have somewhat mixed feelings about offering this amendment or any amendment tonight. I was in the minority of Senators who believed we should have taken a break from this discussion at least for the next couple of days as this war is raging in Iraq. Literally, as we speak, all, I would venture to say, of the television sets in this Nation and many around the world and radios and Internet communication are focused on this extraordinary undertaking that is underway as we speak and 250,000 of our finest citizens are mobilized and en route-- land forces, air forces--in the battle. I was hoping we could take some time and come back to this early next week when we had a better sense. But as the Senate, in its will, decided to move forward, I wanted to come forward and at least offer one amendment, not that all the others are not significant and relevant and most certainly part of this debate, but this particular amendment actually affects the lives, safety, equipment, and strategy of the war we are fighting.

The amendment I hope to have voted on tomorrow and will discuss just briefly is very simple. It will add $1 billion to the underlying budget resolution providing an extra billion dollars of the $400 billion that is in the budget for defense. So it is a minor increase in the scheme of things but very important to the beneficiaries of this amendment.

Those beneficiaries, of course, are all the citizens of the United States, the citizens of Iraq, and the citizens of our coalition, as well as the people it directly affects, which are the Guard and Reserve, Guard and Reserve members who have been called up to stand alongside the Active Duty.

I ask unanimous consent to have several letters printed in the Record.

It is shocking what has come to my attention as a former member of the Armed Services Committee and now as a member of the Appropriations Committee: The lack of equipment, the lack of money in this budget to fund their current operations.

This amendment asks to take a billion dollars away from a tax cut that I think could give an extra billion dollars and transfer that room in this budget to add a billion dollars for the Guard and the Reserves.

I have a couple of facts that might help people understand why this is so critical and why I really believe we should--and hope we can do this in a bipartisan way--take this positive step. In 1990, there were 2.5 million men and women in the Active Forces of the United States. Today, there are only 1.4 million. The Reserve and Guard make up a larger portion of our fighting force than ever before in the history of the world. There are 860,000 men and women in the Guard and Reserve. They are from the States of my colleagues, as well as my own State. We all know and have people on our staffs, in our families, our neighbors, who signed up basically to be weekend soldiers and weekend warriors, but they have ended up being regular warriors because of the transformation that is occurring. The transformation is that the Active and Reserve units of this Nation are playing a vital role in our protection, not just on the weekends, not just in training but in the real-life battles. They are as much a part of this war that is underway tonight as our actives.

As a member of the Armed Services Committee, I am mindful that we are going through a great transformation in our military. It is something that is supported in a bipartisan way and that this country supports. It is like trying to turn a large aircraft carrier around. It cannot be done right away. It cannot be done quickly, but if directions need to be changed, that directional change needs to be ratcheted so you can go in a different direction. We are trying to move our forces in a different direction because we are no longer fighting World War II. We have done that. We have been there. We did it and we won. We are now fighting an international war on terrorism and it takes quick mobility, lethal action, smart bombs, strategic guidance missile systems, stealth, unmanned vehicles. It takes a different makeup of our Armed Forces.

When we fought World War II, we had months to get ready to fight. We had months to build up. Today, we do not know where the attack is going to come. It came to New York City on September 11. It might come to Washington, DC, tomorrow morning. It might come to San Francisco next week. We have to move immediately. So we do not have the luxury of building up for 12 months or 18 months as we did in New Orleans when for 2 years we built the best boats that were built that won World War II, the Higgins boats. We do not have that luxury.

So we are restructuring our force in a wise and smart way, which is to say that we will count on our Reserve units. They are not in the Active, so it is a cost-effective way to keep our strength up. We have to give them helmets and rifles. We have to give them helicopters that fly. We have to give them training dollars.

We are underfunding our Guard and Reserve. In fact, there are two units that are actually in transit tonight, a Virginia unit and a Georgia unit, and I ask unanimous consent to have this printed in the Record.

There is an EC-2 squadron out of Virginia that is in transit, and an F-18 squadron out of Georgia in transit. In the current budget, they have been decommissioned because there is no money in the current budget for these troops that are en route to fight the battle that is being waged.

There is something wrong, and what is wrong is we are underfunding our Guard and Reserve. Perhaps we are putting too much of an emphasis on tax cuts and not enough of an emphasis on the strength that this country needs at this time, and sharing those resources with the Guard and Reserve and plussing them up.

In addition, when the Guard and Reserve members go, they leave their jobs behind, they take a cut in pay, and unfortunately they do not get the same benefits that many of our Active do. This has to change if we are going to ask them to serve not just on the weekends, not just once every couple of years, these units have been out there--some of them are on their fourth rotation.

I just want to discuss my amendment, to vote on it at the appropriate time, whenever the leadership thinks we can take a few minutes. I hope we can take quite a long time to discuss this, but I know there are other important amendments. I do not know what could be more important than trying to make a few tweaks to this major budget resolution that might send not only a positive signal, but it would actually back up in real meaningful terms the resolution that we voted on 99 to 0 a few hours ago that said we love our troops, we support our troops, our prayers are with our troops. Then let us send some money to our troops, particularly to our Guard and Reserve. This billion dollars would go a long way.

We went through the unfunded list. This is a list that the Guard and Reserve say, look, we desperately need this money. We have listed it in a priority. This is not luxury. These are things we actually need. To upgrade the Air Force Reserve, let me give an example. This is a $48 million item to provide the Reserve tactical fight territories, the fighters that we see in the battle as we are watching the televisions, they need the same radar upgrades as the Active Forces. The fighter planes for Active have one kind of radar, and then the Reserve fighters do not have the same radar. So when we say let's keep our troops out of harm's way, one thing that would help is to have the same sophisticated radar that our Reserve and our National Guardsmen are using as are the Actives. That would be one smart way to keep them out of harm's way.

If we were talking about $100 billion, if we were talking about $50 billion, if we were talking about a lot of money, I would say maybe we do not have it. But, most certainly, if we are talking about trillions of dollars of tax cuts, we could find $1 billion to make a slight adjustment to pay and put some money up for our Guard and Reserve.

I know the leadership is probably going to come back and say we have plans, we are going to put this money in the supplemental. I realize there are other times that we could potentially do this, but I would make two arguments: One, in the past, the rule has been that we do not put new items in the supplemental. This is sort of ongoing items that are funded. You run out of them so you are sort of supplementing it because you are not going to make it through the end of the year. While we anticipate a very large supplemental, I think it would be very meaningful if we would think about making an adjustment right now for the thousands of Guard and Reserve that need this help and support.

I finish by asking my colleagues to look at this chart. These are two of our young men. In this list I am holding up of things that are unfunded, some of our units need helmets. Some of our units need biological and chemical covering. Because of the way we have designed a lot of these suits, if they are used once they have to be thrown away. Then they need a new one.

If they get attacked and one is contaminated, they are going to have to come home because we cannot leave them out there without suits. So this is not only about doing what is right and fair, this is about keeping our strength in the battlefield, funding the items that help protect them and keep our forces safe and being true to the amendments that we speak about on the floor.

For too long, the Guard and Reserve have received hand-me-downs from the Active component. Maybe there was a time that was appropriate because they served as supplemental, but now they are carrying a big weight, and they are doing it magnificently and at great personal sacrifice to their businesses, to their communities, and to their families, because in many instances their pay goes down.

Let us invest in our Guard and Reserves and make sure we are giving them what they need and to honor our commitment to them and to win future battles. We need the Guard and Reserve. Let's give them their rifles, their helmets, and their tactical equipment so we can, as we know we will, win this war.

Let's remember that when the fighting is over in Iraq and Afghanistan, the Guard and Reserve will be there for us, protecting us. Let's give them the tools they need to succeed.

Before I yield the floor, let me spend 1 minute supporting my colleague who will be coming up next, the Senator from Delaware, who is about to offer what I think might be the best amendment of all in terms of balancing the needs to boost our economy, to restrain spending, as well as to give the people of this Nation the tax relief that will help get this economy moving again. The Senator from Delaware will offer an amendment. I am proud to add my name as a cosponsor. The Concord Coalition has looked at all the proposals--the President's proposal, this proposal, that proposal, the leadership proposal--and today they came out and supported Senator Carper's amendment. I think he should be very proud of that. They said this would put us on the path back to economic development, restraint on spending, fiscal discipline, and hopefully prosper, giving us the strength we need to win the wars ahead.

This may not be the only one we have to fight and win in the next few months and years ahead. We should reserve our financial strength to be able to make sure we win the war first and then do that which is necessary to protect our freedoms and give us strength.

I yield the floor and I add my name as a cosponsor to the next amendment.

Mr. President, I rise today to submit a Concurrent Resolution to condemn executions by stoning.

Death by stoning is an exceptionally cruel form of execution. It violates internationally accepted standards of human rights, including the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the UN Convention Against Torture. Amnesty International has noted that stoning is ``a method specifically designed to increase the victim's suffering.'' Unfortunately, the laws of Iran, Pakistan, Malaysia, Nigeria, and several other countries permit this cruel and unusual punishment. It must be eliminated from every corner of the globe.

As those who work on women's issues have learned all too well, women around the world are subjected disproportionately to cruel, discriminatory, and inhuman punishments. Frequently their governments cannot or will not provide equal protection of the law to all their citizens--especially women and girls. In several countries, women can be sentenced to execution by stoning for ``adultery,'' even in cases of coerced prostitution or rape. In some places, stoning has been invoked as punishment for ``blasphemy,'' suppressing religious freedom and stifling political dissent.

The Concurrent Resolution which I have introduced would condemn execution by stoning, appeal for an end to the practice, and request the President to urge other nations' governments to terminate that cruel form of execution. If adopted by the Senate, this measure, together with Concurrent Resolution 26 just passed unanimously by the House, would put both houses of Congress on the record as firmly opposing stonings.

I urge my colleagues to join the eight original co-sponsors and me in supporting this humanitarian measure.

Mr. President, I rise to speak to this important issue for a few moments and begin by saying that the event the Senator from Ohio described is indeed extremely troubling and would be classified as horrific by most people. If the Durbin amendment were adopted, that would not happen again unless the mother's life, through the determination of the physician, was in jeopardy, or her grievous physical health.

I argue with the Senator from Ohio and the Senator from Pennsylvania that if they were indeed--and I respect both Senators--serious about stopping what Senator DeWine just described, the Durbin amendment has the best chance of stopping that from ever happening again than the pending bill by the Senator from Pennsylvania.

That is why I support the Durbin amendment. That is why I am a cosponsor of the Durbin amendment. Many of us come to the floor with very good intentions, to try to work to help fashion some compromises that would end what was just described, but also allowing for the Constitution to provide a framework according to Roe v. Wade, which does not represent--although it has been characterized inappropriately, and not clearly by both sides, because this debate, unfortunately, for 30 years or more, has been held hostage by the extremes on both sides.

I want to review, for the purpose of this debate, some writings from Roe v. Wade. To my friends on the pro-choice side, let me remind them of a paragraph in Roe v. Wade, written by Justice Blackmun:

Some argue that a women's right is absolute and that she is

entitled to terminate her pregnancy at whatever time, in

whatever way, and for whatever reasons she alone chooses.

With this we do not agree.

Roe v. Wade does not support that proposition. Let me read, for the pro-life community, from this decision, which was delicately crafted to address a very complex constitutional provision that was framed initially in the Bill of Rights, supported by the Constitution, and those principles are the principles of life, liberty, and happiness, not just for the fetus, for the unborn, for young children, but life, liberty, and happiness for people of all ages and all conditions in life, male and female, slave and free.

For the pro-life community, let me read what the Justices said:

A State criminal abortion statute of the current Texas

type, that excepts from criminality only a lifesaving

procedure on behalf of the mother, without regard to

pregnancy stage and without recognition of the other

interests involved [obviously], is violative of the Due

Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

I suggest unless there are a majority of Senators willing to change the Constitution and remove the 14th amendment, this debate is going nowhere. The fact is that the Constitution supports a framework in which life and liberty for everyone, including the unborn, have to be taken into consideration.

I argue that the Senator from Illinois puts forth a very good amendment on the floor because we want to attempt, as a society, to outlaw late-term abortions, which violates our sense of decency and morality, within the framework of the Constitution, unless the woman's life is at risk or unless the woman is in grave physical health.

The American people do not agree with the extremes on both sides. The fact is, with all due respect to the Senators from Pennsylvania and Ohio, this is not an amendment that anybody could put on the floor that they would agree to, because they are opposed to abortion in every case, under every circumstance. They believe it should be outlawed. They are entitled to that position, to represent it, and they are entitled to run on it, which they have, and they have gotten elected. But I say that the majority of people in the country believe that in some situations abortion should be legal and safe, and we are attempting to make it more rare. But without the support of either the right or the left, the Senator from Illinois puts forth this amendment in good faith, and I support him, and so do some Republican Senators.

The country is very torn. In reading this decision, as I just reviewed portions of it, you can understand that the Justices themselves thought it was a very delicate compromise that had to be put together based on the Constitution and the laws and views of the American public.

According to recent polling, only 33 percent, or less, of the population would ban all abortions under all circumstances; 29 percent would allow unfettered abortions; and the vast majority of Americans fall in the middle, which is understandable.

Late-term abortions are one of those positions we can actually do something about. While people have mixed views about it, this amendment would in fact outlaw all late-term abortions, all procedures.

The Santorum amendment only attempts to outlaw one procedure. I argue that once the Court is faced with it, it is not going to uphold it. So the end result of this debate is going to be not stopping one late-term abortion, when Senator Durbin's amendment would actually accomplish that end.

The Durbin amendment draws a line at a place that--well, it is not crystal clear, but I ask you, what could possibly be crystal clear about this debate? Is anything crystal clear about it? Even though we think we are the smartest 100 people around, I think we can argue that we could not even make this debate crystal clear. There is no clarity about it. All you can do is do your very best. The Durbin amendment attempts to draw the line of viability. I argue that somebody else could put up another line. But at least viability has some clarity in medical terms. It is understandable, and I think acceptable, to the American people.

Viability is a line that was recognized by the Supreme Court as part of the original decision. As medical research gets clearer--not perfectly crystal clear, but as it brings forth new information, it is something we can use in terms of the measurement.

The State has still another important and legitimate

interest in protecting the potentiality of human life. These

interests are separate and distinct. Each grows in

substantiality as the woman approaches term and, at a point

during pregnancy, each becomes compelling.

That was also written by the Court.

The Durbin amendment says that when we reach the point of viability, the interest in the potential of human life is compelling; it cannot be ended without serious cause. This amendment raises the standards for late-term abortions from its current just general health to physical health, which is why many on the left cannot support it.

I think given the urgency of the Court and the Congress to protect viable life, perhaps raising the standard is necessary and I hope will be upheld by the Court.

If my colleagues are interested in actually banning late-term abortion--which I most certainly support, and the vast majority of people in Louisiana support--we should not engage in the politics of division but try to reach common ground to do this. I believe the Durbin amendment offers us that very opportunity.

I urge my colleagues to look beyond the rhetoric and to leave the fringe and move to the middle. Is this the answer to this whole question? No. But is it a step in the right direction to minimize abortions in this country? Yes. Is it something that would meet the constitutional test? Yes. Is it something that could be perfected over time? Yes. It is something that could have a direct impact on building the kind of compromise of which I think we could be proud. So I strongly urge my colleagues to support the Durbin amendment based on all that I have outlined.

I yield back the remainder of my time.

Mr. President, today I am happy to join my colleagues in the House of Representatives, Congressman Moran and Congressman McGovern, in re-introducing the Product Safety Notification and Recall Effectiveness Act. As my colleagues may recall, this legislation makes it easier for parents to learn when a product they bought may harm their children, so that they might take steps to return the item or have it repaired.

On January 6 of this year, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration released a study that contained a lot of good news for parents. In its study, NHTSA found that its child safety seat registration program has been incredibly successful. NHTSA implemented this program in March of 1993, and the information that is starting to come in shows that nine times more child safety seats are now registered than before the program was launched. In fact, in 1993 only 3 percent of seats were registered; now 27 percent are. And this is significant, because this has directly led to more effective recalls of defective child seats--the recall repair rate has increased by more than half since 1993, from 13.8 percent to 21.5 percent.

The reason I mention this study to my colleagues is because NHTSA's program is very much like the one that this bill would establish. This legislation would require the Consumer Product Safety Commission to issue a rule requiring manufacturers to establish and maintain a system for notifying consumers of the recall of certain products that may cause harm to children. The database could be assembled through the use of shortened product registration cards, Internet registration, or other alternate means of encouraging consumers to provide vital contact information.

There is a very clear reason why such a database is necessary. As we all know, these products come with registration cards. The intent of these cards should be that customers will fill them out and send them in, which gives the companies a way to contact purchasers. Unfortunately, many times consumers do not return these cards, and there is a good reason behind this. These cards sometimes contain 40 to 50, or even more, different questions or boxes to fill out. They ask about marital status, salary information, and about what kind of products a person buys. Either a person does not wish to

reveal that much personal information, or they simply do not have time to fill out the card. In fact, the intent seems to be more to get personal marketing information from consumers than anything else. That is why its such a good idea to shorten the card and just ask for the basic information, like a customer's name, address, phone number, and e-mail address. Not only have studies done by companies like Mattel and BrandStamp shown that these methods increase the number of consumers who respond, NHTSA--working on almost ten years of real data--has clearly proven a dramatic increase in registration and, as a result, in the number of products successfully recalled.

But a card is not the only way to compile this information. For instance, many companies are now using online registration, where customers can log on to their website and quickly enter the information. For Americans with Internet connections, this is often much less of a hassle than filling out a card, attaching a stamp, and mailing it in. It's quick and easy. And this legislation allows for the use of alternate methods such as this in compiling this database.

I am sure that some of my colleagues might be concerned about the cost of setting up such a program. I say to my colleagues that I also have no desire to pass along more costs to the companies that make these products and, ultimately, to the consumer. However, let me again point to the NHTSA study. The indirect cost of consumers for the car seat program is 43 cents per seat sold. Forty-three cents. I do not know of a single parent who would not pay an extra forty-three cents to ensure the safety of their child. But I would say to my colleagues, don't take my word for it--ask the thousands of parents who have returned recalled car seats since 1993. I'm sure they would tell you that was the best 43 cents they had ever spent.

The need for this legislation is only highlighted by the CPSC's refusal to consider such a rule last Friday, despite intense efforts by consumer groups like the Consumer Federation of America and SAFE to highlight the importance of this change to the way recalls work. I world urge my colleagues to join me in sponsoring this important bill, and I hope that we can pass this legislation into law as soon as possible.

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

Mr. President, today I am happy to join my colleagues in the House of Representatives, Congressman Moran and Congressman McGovern, in re-introducing the Product Safety Notification and Recall Effectiveness Act. As my colleagues may recall, this legislation makes it easier for parents to learn when a product they bought may harm their children, so that they might take steps to return the item or have it repaired.

On January 6 of this year, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration released a study that contained a lot of good news for parents. In its study, NHTSA found that its child safety seat registration program has been incredibly successful. NHTSA implemented this program in March of 1993, and the information that is starting to come in shows that nine times more child safety seats are now registered than before the program was launched. In fact, in 1993 only 3 percent of seats were registered; now 27 percent are. And this is significant, because this has directly led to more effective recalls of defective child seats--the recall repair rate has increased by more than half since 1993, from 13.8 percent to 21.5 percent.

The reason I mention this study to my colleagues is because NHTSA's program is very much like the one that this bill would establish. This legislation would require the Consumer Product Safety Commission to issue a rule requiring manufacturers to establish and maintain a system for notifying consumers of the recall of certain products that may cause harm to children. The database could be assembled through the use of shortened product registration cards, Internet registration, or other alternate means of encouraging consumers to provide vital contact information.

There is a very clear reason why such a database is necessary. As we all know, these products come with registration cards. The intent of these cards should be that customers will fill them out and send them in, which gives the companies a way to contact purchasers. Unfortunately, many times consumers do not return these cards, and there is a good reason behind this. These cards sometimes contain 40 to 50, or even more, different questions or boxes to fill out. They ask about marital status, salary information, and about what kind of products a person buys. Either a person does not wish to

reveal that much personal information, or they simply do not have time to fill out the card. In fact, the intent seems to be more to get personal marketing information from consumers than anything else. That is why its such a good idea to shorten the card and just ask for the basic information, like a customer's name, address, phone number, and e-mail address. Not only have studies done by companies like Mattel and BrandStamp shown that these methods increase the number of consumers who respond, NHTSA--working on almost ten years of real data--has clearly proven a dramatic increase in registration and, as a result, in the number of products successfully recalled.

But a card is not the only way to compile this information. For instance, many companies are now using online registration, where customers can log on to their website and quickly enter the information. For Americans with Internet connections, this is often much less of a hassle than filling out a card, attaching a stamp, and mailing it in. It's quick and easy. And this legislation allows for the use of alternate methods such as this in compiling this database.

I am sure that some of my colleagues might be concerned about the cost of setting up such a program. I say to my colleagues that I also have no desire to pass along more costs to the companies that make these products and, ultimately, to the consumer. However, let me again point to the NHTSA study. The indirect cost of consumers for the car seat program is 43 cents per seat sold. Forty-three cents. I do not know of a single parent who would not pay an extra forty-three cents to ensure the safety of their child. But I would say to my colleagues, don't take my word for it--ask the thousands of parents who have returned recalled car seats since 1993. I'm sure they would tell you that was the best 43 cents they had ever spent.

The need for this legislation is only highlighted by the CPSC's refusal to consider such a rule last Friday, despite intense efforts by consumer groups like the Consumer Federation of America and SAFE to highlight the importance of this change to the way recalls work. I world urge my colleagues to join me in sponsoring this important bill, and I hope that we can pass this legislation into law as soon as possible.

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

Mr. President, today I rise to introduce the Emergency Communications and Competition Act, ECCA, along with my colleague from New Hampshire, Senator Sununu. We are joined by twelve of our colleagues, led by Senator Burns, the distinguished chairman of the Commerce Communications Subcommittee, as well as Senators Dodd, Gregg, Hutchison, Inouye, Jeffords, Lott, Kennedy, Leahy, Lieberman, Mikulski, and Miller.

The bill we introduce today is identical to S. 2922, the measure which Senator Burns and I co-authored in the 107th Congress. I was very pleased and grateful for the tremendous support this legislation received from local television broadcasters and a wide range of public interest groups that speak for consumers, minority groups, rural Americans, health care, public safety, and property rights.

This bill will ensure that consumers will soon be able to avail themselves of an innovative new wireless technology that has been approved by the Federal Communications Commission. It is called the Multichannel Video Distribution and Data Service, MVDDS, a title which accurately describes what this new service will provide consumers: cable competition and high speed access to the Internet.

As I indicated in my introductory remarks to S. 2922 last September, unless Congress enacts this legislation, it may be years before MVDDS is actually deployed to the public. That would be a lost opportunity for consumers. We need to improve our communications infrastructure, not only for greater access to cable and the Internet, but also for public safety purposes. MVDDS technology can address all of these needs, and we should remove unnecessary and counterproductive regulatory obstacles that prevent its swift deployment.

The Consumers Union, like many, has supported ECCA because it will help ensure that competition rapidly emerges for video programming as well as high speed Internet services. Earlier this year, the Consumers Union issued a report, ``Cable Mergers, Monopoly Power and Price Increases,'' which documents the most recent steep rate increases imposed by cable operators. The report noted, for instance, that cable rates in Baton Rouge soared 7 percent last November. This was typical of rate increases throughout the country.

According to the most recent data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, cable rates rose 11.4 percent in just the last two years. This compares to a 3.8 percent increase in the Consumer Price Index over the same period. According to the FCC, just one percent of cable communities enjoy ``effective competition.'' I submit that this startling lack of competition, more than anything else, explains why local cable rates have increased at three times the inflation rate.

If MVDDS can go head-to-head with incumbent cable systems in all parts of the country, I believe that this good old fashioned competition will result in lower prices and better service for consumers--even for those who don't choose to subscribe to MVDDS.

Rural organizations recognize the extraordinary opportunity this new wireless technology can offer rural Americans. They understand that the FCC's Order, which authorized MVDDS, will likely fail to ensure this new technology will indeed adequately serve rural America.

Local television broadcasters support this measure because it will ensure consumers in their markets can view all local television stations. Today, satellite operators DirecTV and EchoStar do not carry over 1,000 local TV channels--and no stations from ten States: Alaska, Arkansas, Idaho, Maine, Montana, Mississippi, North and South Dakota, West Virginia, and Wyoming. As you know, the satellite operators sought to merge so that they would have sufficient capacity to carry all local TV stations, but federal regulators rejected the merger on anticompetitive grounds.

The Emergency Communications and Competition Act, which we are re- introducing today, will restore fairness in the FCC licensing process, and in so doing, speed the deployment of MVDDS to applicants that are ready to launch service to the public now.

The bill provides that MVDDS applicants will be licensed in the same manner as satellite companies who applied on the same day to share the same spectrum. Currently, the FCC plans to subject only MVDDS applicants to an auction process. This would impose a discriminatory tax on an innovative new technology. Unfortunately, this is more of the same burdensome regulation that I believe has contributed to the collapse of the telecommunications sector. Government regulation is necessary, certainly, but we must be smart in how we regulate business. We must ensure that our laws and regulations are technologically neutral so

that government policies don't replace the role of the marketplace in determining the fate of consumer products and services.

In an Order released last month, the FCC recognized the need to prevent disparity in licensing when it authorized certain satellite spectrum to be re-used for mobile terrestrial service without requiring a spectrum auction. Similarly, the ECCA would prohibit the FCC from conducting an auction for licenses that re-use satellite spectrum for fixed terrrestrial operations.

Furthermore, an action would drastically delay the introduction of service to the public. Mr. President, this is quite the opposite of what spectrum auctions are supposed to do. In this case, industry incumbents can abuse the auction process to block the introduction of new competition. A company with vast resources available could easily trounce a small startup in an auction--and then, under the terms of the FCC's Order, it would not have to deploy service for 10 years. Consumers cannot and should not have to wait while this spectrum is ``shelved'' for an entire decade.

The ECCA solves this problem by ensuring that only qualified applicants will be licensed. That is, within six months of enactment, the FCC would issue licenses to any applicant that can demonstrate through independent testing that it will employ a technology that won't cause harmful interference to DBS operators with whom they would share spectrum. Then, to be sure that service is in fact deployed, the ECCA requires licensees to provide service to consumers within five rather than ten years.

This legislation also requires that parties who apply for licenses under this provision must assume specific public interest obligations in exchange for their prompt licensing. The bill requires full must- carry of local television stations, and an additional set aside of 4 percent of system capacity for other pubic interest purposes such as telemedicine and distance learning. I can assure my colleagues that these are issues particularly important in rural areas in states like Louisiana.

The ECCA will also promote public safety, in two ways. First, it will require MVDDS licensees to air Emergency Alert System warnings, including AMBER alerts for missing children. EAS warnings are presently carried by cable systems and over-the-air broadcasters, but they are not seen by those who get their programming from DBS unless the viewer happens to be watching a local channel. Obviously, the need for greater dissemination of EAS warnings is particularly important for the ten states in which no local stations are carried via satellite.

Second, this legislation requires MVDDS licensees to make their transmission systems available to national security and emergency preparedness personnel on a top-priority basis in times of need. We all know that when emergencies strike, the need for public safety personnel to communicate with one another skyrockets. MVDDS wireless networks, which will be deployed ubiquitously throughout the country, can help alleviate this thirst for spectrum.

For these reasons, I believe that Congress should act on this matter as soon as possible. I urge my colleagues to support his bill and vote for enactment. I as, unanimous consent that the text of this bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, today I rise to introduce the Emergency Communications and Competition Act, ECCA, along with my colleague from New Hampshire, Senator Sununu. We are joined by twelve of our colleagues, led by Senator Burns, the distinguished chairman of the Commerce Communications Subcommittee, as well as Senators Dodd, Gregg, Hutchison, Inouye, Jeffords, Lott, Kennedy, Leahy, Lieberman, Mikulski, and Miller.

The bill we introduce today is identical to S. 2922, the measure which Senator Burns and I co-authored in the 107th Congress. I was very pleased and grateful for the tremendous support this legislation received from local television broadcasters and a wide range of public interest groups that speak for consumers, minority groups, rural Americans, health care, public safety, and property rights.

This bill will ensure that consumers will soon be able to avail themselves of an innovative new wireless technology that has been approved by the Federal Communications Commission. It is called the Multichannel Video Distribution and Data Service, MVDDS, a title which accurately describes what this new service will provide consumers: cable competition and high speed access to the Internet.

As I indicated in my introductory remarks to S. 2922 last September, unless Congress enacts this legislation, it may be years before MVDDS is actually deployed to the public. That would be a lost opportunity for consumers. We need to improve our communications infrastructure, not only for greater access to cable and the Internet, but also for public safety purposes. MVDDS technology can address all of these needs, and we should remove unnecessary and counterproductive regulatory obstacles that prevent its swift deployment.

The Consumers Union, like many, has supported ECCA because it will help ensure that competition rapidly emerges for video programming as well as high speed Internet services. Earlier this year, the Consumers Union issued a report, ``Cable Mergers, Monopoly Power and Price Increases,'' which documents the most recent steep rate increases imposed by cable operators. The report noted, for instance, that cable rates in Baton Rouge soared 7 percent last November. This was typical of rate increases throughout the country.

According to the most recent data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, cable rates rose 11.4 percent in just the last two years. This compares to a 3.8 percent increase in the Consumer Price Index over the same period. According to the FCC, just one percent of cable communities enjoy ``effective competition.'' I submit that this startling lack of competition, more than anything else, explains why local cable rates have increased at three times the inflation rate.

If MVDDS can go head-to-head with incumbent cable systems in all parts of the country, I believe that this good old fashioned competition will result in lower prices and better service for consumers--even for those who don't choose to subscribe to MVDDS.

Rural organizations recognize the extraordinary opportunity this new wireless technology can offer rural Americans. They understand that the FCC's Order, which authorized MVDDS, will likely fail to ensure this new technology will indeed adequately serve rural America.

Local television broadcasters support this measure because it will ensure consumers in their markets can view all local television stations. Today, satellite operators DirecTV and EchoStar do not carry over 1,000 local TV channels--and no stations from ten States: Alaska, Arkansas, Idaho, Maine, Montana, Mississippi, North and South Dakota, West Virginia, and Wyoming. As you know, the satellite operators sought to merge so that they would have sufficient capacity to carry all local TV stations, but federal regulators rejected the merger on anticompetitive grounds.

The Emergency Communications and Competition Act, which we are re- introducing today, will restore fairness in the FCC licensing process, and in so doing, speed the deployment of MVDDS to applicants that are ready to launch service to the public now.

The bill provides that MVDDS applicants will be licensed in the same manner as satellite companies who applied on the same day to share the same spectrum. Currently, the FCC plans to subject only MVDDS applicants to an auction process. This would impose a discriminatory tax on an innovative new technology. Unfortunately, this is more of the same burdensome regulation that I believe has contributed to the collapse of the telecommunications sector. Government regulation is necessary, certainly, but we must be smart in how we regulate business. We must ensure that our laws and regulations are technologically neutral so

that government policies don't replace the role of the marketplace in determining the fate of consumer products and services.

In an Order released last month, the FCC recognized the need to prevent disparity in licensing when it authorized certain satellite spectrum to be re-used for mobile terrestrial service without requiring a spectrum auction. Similarly, the ECCA would prohibit the FCC from conducting an auction for licenses that re-use satellite spectrum for fixed terrrestrial operations.

Furthermore, an action would drastically delay the introduction of service to the public. Mr. President, this is quite the opposite of what spectrum auctions are supposed to do. In this case, industry incumbents can abuse the auction process to block the introduction of new competition. A company with vast resources available could easily trounce a small startup in an auction--and then, under the terms of the FCC's Order, it would not have to deploy service for 10 years. Consumers cannot and should not have to wait while this spectrum is ``shelved'' for an entire decade.

The ECCA solves this problem by ensuring that only qualified applicants will be licensed. That is, within six months of enactment, the FCC would issue licenses to any applicant that can demonstrate through independent testing that it will employ a technology that won't cause harmful interference to DBS operators with whom they would share spectrum. Then, to be sure that service is in fact deployed, the ECCA requires licensees to provide service to consumers within five rather than ten years.

This legislation also requires that parties who apply for licenses under this provision must assume specific public interest obligations in exchange for their prompt licensing. The bill requires full must- carry of local television stations, and an additional set aside of 4 percent of system capacity for other pubic interest purposes such as telemedicine and distance learning. I can assure my colleagues that these are issues particularly important in rural areas in states like Louisiana.

The ECCA will also promote public safety, in two ways. First, it will require MVDDS licensees to air Emergency Alert System warnings, including AMBER alerts for missing children. EAS warnings are presently carried by cable systems and over-the-air broadcasters, but they are not seen by those who get their programming from DBS unless the viewer happens to be watching a local channel. Obviously, the need for greater dissemination of EAS warnings is particularly important for the ten states in which no local stations are carried via satellite.

Second, this legislation requires MVDDS licensees to make their transmission systems available to national security and emergency preparedness personnel on a top-priority basis in times of need. We all know that when emergencies strike, the need for public safety personnel to communicate with one another skyrockets. MVDDS wireless networks, which will be deployed ubiquitously throughout the country, can help alleviate this thirst for spectrum.

For these reasons, I believe that Congress should act on this matter as soon as possible. I urge my colleagues to support his bill and vote for enactment. I as, unanimous consent that the text of this bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, 137 years ago, before the term homeland

security was even coined, a group of men devoted themselves to securing the frontiers of this Nation. They protected Americans in their homes; they deterred hostile invaders, and they secured the blessings of liberty for a young country. Even more remarkable, they secured these blessings for others, while they could not fully enjoy them themselves.

I am referring to the Buffalo Soldiers. These brave men instituted a tradition of professional military service for African Americans that spans the greater part of American history. African American military service is as old as our Nation. There were black soldiers during the Revolution, a unit of free black men played a pivotal role in the Battle of New Orleans, and the exploits of African Americans during the Civil War have been captured in novels and on film. However, it was not until the Army Reorganization Act of 1866 that soldiering and service to country became a realistic option for African Americans seeking to improve their quality of life. In so doing, they raised the bar of freedom, and revealed the injustice of preventing the defenders of democracy from fully participating in it.

The city of New Orleans, and the State of Louisiana have a rich history. They have given more than their fair share of sons to the service of our Nation. Much of this history is commemorated throughout the State. Yet, these great sons of New Orleans remain unacknowledged in their home. For in Louisiana's great military tradition, surely two of its greatest military contributions were the 9th Cavalry Regiment and the 25th Infantry Regiment.

These two forces, recruited and organized in New Orleans, represent half of all the units of Buffalo Soldiers. The 9th Cavalry alone constituted 10 percent of all the American cavalry. Their list of adversaries reads like a who's who of the Old West--Geronimo, Sitting Bull, Pancho Villa. In movies, when settlers encounter Apaches, the cavalry always comes to the rescue. Yet how many times were the cavalry that rode over the horizon African American? Of course, the reality is that the Buffalo Soldiers comprised some of our Nation's most capable and loyal troops. Despite suffering the worst deprivations known to any American soldiers of the period, they had the lowest desertion rates in the Army. The 9th Cavalry was awarded 10 Congressional Medals of Honor, including a native Louisianan, SGT. Emanuel Stance--a farmer from Carrol Parish.

For these reasons, I am offering legislation that would authorize the creation of a suitable memorial in New Orleans for these gallant soldiers. There is an excellent statue to the Buffalo Soldiers at Fort Leavenworth, KS. It commemorates the 10th Cavalry Regiment stationed there. However, I believe that these men deserve to be recognized in their home city.

Furthermore, it should be in a location where thousands of visitors will have the opportunity to come to appreciate the legacy of the Buffalo Soldiers. I believe that the city of New Orleans is the perfect location.

Mr. President, we have made a number of changes to this legislation after consultations with the American Battle Monuments Commission. I believe these changes should address any concerns that they have expressed. Furthermore, we have an able and dedicated organization of individuals in the State who desperately want to see this project to completion. Last year, I had the pleasure of being in New Orleans with another of this Nation's great military heroes, Senator Daniel Inouye. We addressed a group of distinguished veterans from all around the State. Among them was George Jones, President of the Greater New Orleans Chapter of the Buffalo Soldiers Association. They have been working with Eddie Dixon, the artist for the beautiful Fort Leavenworth statue, to develop an appropriate memorial in the city of New Orleans for over a decade. This bill will fulfill that noble ambition.

Mr. President, this Nation has sadly found the need to say thank you to its service men and women after the fact on more than one occasion. Unfortunately, this is another. We are fortunate to have living memories of the 9th and 10th Cavalry Regiments today. The regiments were not disbanded until the conclusion of World War II, where they served with distinction. We should take this opportunity to honor these veterans, and in so doing, honor the principles of liberty, freedom and democracy for which they fought and sacrificed. They have given so much to their Nation, we owe them this public expression of gratitude.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that these remarks appear in the Record, contiguous to the introduced bill and that the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I was surprised and disappointed by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals' decision not to reconsider its ruling in the case of Newdow versus U.S. Congress. To remind my colleagues, in the Newdow case, a three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit held that the reference to God in the Pledge of Allegiance was unconstitutional. The Bush administration requested that the Ninth Circuit reconsider its ruling in the case. At the end of last week, the Ninth Circuit meeting en banc refused to reconsider its ruling. The case will likely go to the Supreme Court.

When the court first made its decision in Newdow last year, I introduced a proposed constitutional amendment that simply said that references to God in the Pledge of Allegiance and on our currency did not affect an establishment of religion under the first amendment. In light of the en banc Ninth Circuit's refusal to reconsider its ruling, I am reintroducing my proposed amendment today.

Mr. President, references to God are found in every one of our founding documents from the Declaration of Independence to the Constitution, as well as in the Pledge of Allegiance. The phrase ``In God We Trust'' appears on all of our currency and on many public buildings. Every day, we begin Senate sessions with a prayer and the pledge. I firmly believe that the Framers of the Constitution and the first amendment did not want to ban all references to God from public discourse when they wrote the establishment clause. What they wanted to prevent was the establishment of an official national religion and to keep the Government from getting intimately involved in the organization of one religion over another.

These references to God are ceremonial. Certainly, they do have meaning, but individuals are free to put whatever meaning on the word they choose. Indeed, I fully respect and support the rights of people not to participate in the pledge or in ceremonial prayer and my amendment will not coerce anyone to recite the Pledge of Allegiance in public or in school.

Mr. President, I had hoped that the Ninth Circuit would reconsider its earlier holding. It has not. The Supreme Court may have the oppoortunity to hear arguments in this case. Should the Supreme Court ddcide not to hear the case or to overrule the lower court, then Congress should restore the appropriate balanced separation between church and state that I believe was the intent of the Framers.

I urge my colleagues to support this joint resolution.

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

Mr. President, 137 years ago, before the term homeland

security was even coined, a group of men devoted themselves to securing the frontiers of this Nation. They protected Americans in their homes; they deterred hostile invaders, and they secured the blessings of liberty for a young country. Even more remarkable, they secured these blessings for others, while they could not fully enjoy them themselves.

I am referring to the Buffalo Soldiers. These brave men instituted a tradition of professional military service for African Americans that spans the greater part of American history. African American military service is as old as our Nation. There were black soldiers during the Revolution, a unit of free black men played a pivotal role in the Battle of New Orleans, and the exploits of African Americans during the Civil War have been captured in novels and on film. However, it was not until the Army Reorganization Act of 1866 that soldiering and service to country became a realistic option for African Americans seeking to improve their quality of life. In so doing, they raised the bar of freedom, and revealed the injustice of preventing the defenders of democracy from fully participating in it.

The city of New Orleans, and the State of Louisiana have a rich history. They have given more than their fair share of sons to the service of our Nation. Much of this history is commemorated throughout the State. Yet, these great sons of New Orleans remain unacknowledged in their home. For in Louisiana's great military tradition, surely two of its greatest military contributions were the 9th Cavalry Regiment and the 25th Infantry Regiment.

These two forces, recruited and organized in New Orleans, represent half of all the units of Buffalo Soldiers. The 9th Cavalry alone constituted 10 percent of all the American cavalry. Their list of adversaries reads like a who's who of the Old West--Geronimo, Sitting Bull, Pancho Villa. In movies, when settlers encounter Apaches, the cavalry always comes to the rescue. Yet how many times were the cavalry that rode over the horizon African American? Of course, the reality is that the Buffalo Soldiers comprised some of our Nation's most capable and loyal troops. Despite suffering the worst deprivations known to any American soldiers of the period, they had the lowest desertion rates in the Army. The 9th Cavalry was awarded 10 Congressional Medals of Honor, including a native Louisianan, SGT. Emanuel Stance--a farmer from Carrol Parish.

For these reasons, I am offering legislation that would authorize the creation of a suitable memorial in New Orleans for these gallant soldiers. There is an excellent statue to the Buffalo Soldiers at Fort Leavenworth, KS. It commemorates the 10th Cavalry Regiment stationed there. However, I believe that these men deserve to be recognized in their home city.

Furthermore, it should be in a location where thousands of visitors will have the opportunity to come to appreciate the legacy of the Buffalo Soldiers. I believe that the city of New Orleans is the perfect location.

Mr. President, we have made a number of changes to this legislation after consultations with the American Battle Monuments Commission. I believe these changes should address any concerns that they have expressed. Furthermore, we have an able and dedicated organization of individuals in the State who desperately want to see this project to completion. Last year, I had the pleasure of being in New Orleans with another of this Nation's great military heroes, Senator Daniel Inouye. We addressed a group of distinguished veterans from all around the State. Among them was George Jones, President of the Greater New Orleans Chapter of the Buffalo Soldiers Association. They have been working with Eddie Dixon, the artist for the beautiful Fort Leavenworth statue, to develop an appropriate memorial in the city of New Orleans for over a decade. This bill will fulfill that noble ambition.

Mr. President, this Nation has sadly found the need to say thank you to its service men and women after the fact on more than one occasion. Unfortunately, this is another. We are fortunate to have living memories of the 9th and 10th Cavalry Regiments today. The regiments were not disbanded until the conclusion of World War II, where they served with distinction. We should take this opportunity to honor these veterans, and in so doing, honor the principles of liberty, freedom and democracy for which they fought and sacrificed. They have given so much to their Nation, we owe them this public expression of gratitude.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that these remarks appear in the Record, contiguous to the introduced bill and that the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I was surprised and disappointed by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals' decision not to reconsider its ruling in the case of Newdow versus U.S. Congress. To remind my colleagues, in the Newdow case, a three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit held that the reference to God in the Pledge of Allegiance was unconstitutional. The Bush administration requested that the Ninth Circuit reconsider its ruling in the case. At the end of last week, the Ninth Circuit meeting en banc refused to reconsider its ruling. The case will likely go to the Supreme Court.

When the court first made its decision in Newdow last year, I introduced a proposed constitutional amendment that simply said that references to God in the Pledge of Allegiance and on our currency did not affect an establishment of religion under the first amendment. In light of the en banc Ninth Circuit's refusal to reconsider its ruling, I am reintroducing my proposed amendment today.

Mr. President, references to God are found in every one of our founding documents from the Declaration of Independence to the Constitution, as well as in the Pledge of Allegiance. The phrase ``In God We Trust'' appears on all of our currency and on many public buildings. Every day, we begin Senate sessions with a prayer and the pledge. I firmly believe that the Framers of the Constitution and the first amendment did not want to ban all references to God from public discourse when they wrote the establishment clause. What they wanted to prevent was the establishment of an official national religion and to keep the Government from getting intimately involved in the organization of one religion over another.

These references to God are ceremonial. Certainly, they do have meaning, but individuals are free to put whatever meaning on the word they choose. Indeed, I fully respect and support the rights of people not to participate in the pledge or in ceremonial prayer and my amendment will not coerce anyone to recite the Pledge of Allegiance in public or in school.

Mr. President, I had hoped that the Ninth Circuit would reconsider its earlier holding. It has not. The Supreme Court may have the oppoortunity to hear arguments in this case. Should the Supreme Court ddcide not to hear the case or to overrule the lower court, then Congress should restore the appropriate balanced separation between church and state that I believe was the intent of the Framers.

I urge my colleagues to support this joint resolution.

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