Floor Statements

Mr. President, I rise today to reintroduce two bills that I originally sponsored in the 107th Congress. As our Nation prepares to go to war with Iraq and continues the war against terrorism, my bills will give additional tax relief to military families. One will give tax relief to a small group of men and women in our armed services stationed on the island of Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean, supporting the war on terrorism in Afghanistan. The second bill will exclude from gross income child care benefits paid to members of our armed forces. These are small measures, but both will be of great benefit to the men and women serving our country.

Diego Garcia is a British Territory lying seven degrees South Latitude off the coast of India, in the middle of the Indian Ocean. The island is 40 miles around and encompasses an area of 6,720 acres, most of it dominated by a large lagoon. The land mass is actually very small. It is home to a joint British--United States Naval Support Facility, and while there are only a small handful of British Royal Navy personnel on the island, there is a larger, tight-knit team of American Air Force, Navy, Marine Corps and Army personnel there. These men and women serving on Diego Garcia have been supporting B-52 bombing missions and other operations over Afghanistan. They will be called into service in the event of war with Iraq, they served this purpose in the previous Gulf War.

As a Nation, we provide members of our armed forces with a variety of benefits, all of them deserved. They receive hardship duty pay of $150 per month for serving in austere regions of the World. They get imminent danger pay of $150 per month as compensation for being in physical danger. One of the most generous benefits for those serving in the war on terrorism is the combat zone tax exclusion. Enlisted members of the armed services do not pay Federal taxes on their compensation for any month of service inside a combat zone. Officers pay tax on any amount of income over the highest salary for enlisted personnel. Both officers and enlisted personnel have to serve one day in the combat zone to get this benefit for the entire month. The exclusion only applies to personnel who receive imminent danger pay.

On Diego Garcia, the pilots and flight crews who fly the missions over Afghanistan are eligible for the combat zone income tax exclusion because they receive imminent danger pay. Many of them are from the 2nd Bomb Wing and the 917th Wing. Both units call Barksdale Air Force Base in Louisiana their home. But the men and women who load the bombers, fuel them, and maintain them are not eligible because they do not enter the combat zone. Barksdale is also their home base. My office was contacted by some of the Barksdale officers who fly the bombing missions about this discrepancy. They asked me to help out their support crews, a gesture of selflessness that I seek to honor today.

I recognize that the support crews may not receive imminent danger pay, but their situation is not too different from Naval personnel performing the

same tasks on ships in the Arabian Sea. Naval support crews receive imminent danger pay and are eligible for the tax exclusion, but they do not enter Afghanistan.

Diego Garcia is a beautiful place, but is a long way from home. The least we could do is treat everyone who has served on the island the same. That is what my bill will do.

My second bill will correct an omission in the Tax Reform Act of 1986. That Act contained a provision consolidating the laws regarding the tax treatment of certain military benefits. The Conference Report to that Act contains a long list of benefits to be excluded from gross income of military personnel. According to the report, this list was to be exhaustive. The problem is that child care benefits are not on that list.

I do not know if this omission was intentional. Perhaps at that time, child care benefits were relatively unknown in the military. The Conference Report gives the Treasury Secretary the authority to expand the list of eligible benefits, but so far no Secretary has chosen to provide any guidance to the Department of Defense as to how these benefits should be treated for tax purposes. While military families are not currently being taxed for child care benefits, the Department of Defense has indicated that it would like Congress to clarify that child care benefits are not subject to tax. My bill will give our military families and the Department of Defense a greater degree of certainty.

I am pleased that my dependent care provision has been included in S. 19, the Veterans and Military Personnel Fairness Act of 2003. The same provision had been included in a similar package in the last Congress. I urge the Finance Committee to consider this package very soon and to include my Diego Garcia bill in the final package.

Throughout our history, in time of war we have worked to make sure that our armed forces have everything they need and we have spared no expense in meeting that need. But the men and women on the ground often have families back at home. We should make sure that we support them as well. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

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

I call up amendment No. 137 by Senator Lieberman and myself.

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

Mr. President, I thank the managers for working with us on this amendment. I believe it has been accepted now on both sides. I ask for 2 minutes to explain the amendment, and I think we are prepared to accept it.

Mr. President, as you may know, as the Chairman knows, there is currently a very important program--it is not a large program, but it is a very important program to historically Black colleges and universities within the parameters of our Historic Preservation Fund. It helps these universities, as they come up with private sector dollars, to match the authorization that our program creates. It gives them an opportunity to preserve these historic buildings, which are of tremendous significance to this Nation, for our heritage, our culture, and the current educational needs of over 300,000 students who attend these fine institutions.

This amendment by Senator Lieberman and myself and many others on both sides of the aisle basically reauthorizes the program. It expands it from $5 million a year to $10 million a year, an authorization for 5 years to $50 million, reduces the match from 50 percent to 30 percent, without adding any money to the current bill. It is strictly an authorization.

This amendment reflects two bills that passed both the House and the Senate that reflect this language. It has broad-based support and would be very helpful to these universities.

I thank the managers for working this out. I urge adoption of the amendment.

Mr. President, on July 24, 2003, the Senate Appropriations Committee unanimously approved the fiscal year 2003 Energy and Water Appropriations bill, which included $55 million for the Southeast Louisiana Flood Control Project. However, the current omnibus bill that we are debating regarding fiscal year 2003 appropriations only provides $40 million for this worthy project. Accordingly, Senator Breaux and I have offered an amendment which will restore funding to $55 million for this critical flood control project in the New Orleans metropolitan area.

Although Senator Breaux and I have decided to withdraw our amendment from consideration by the full Senate at this time, we wish to inform the Senate of this project and emphasize its importance.

The Southeast Louisiana Flood Control Project is commonly referred to as SELA. Its purpose is to provide flood protection to handle a 10-year rainfall event and reduce damages arising from larger rainfall events in the New Orleans metropolitan area. In 1996, Congress authorized construction of this project.

The SELA project is currently under construction and essentially involves adding pumps and increasing the number and size of drainage channels in the New Orleans metropolitan area. The total cost of this project is $647 million with a non-federal cost share of approximately 25 percent or $166 million. To date, $308 million in Federal funds have already been expended on SELA.

Mr. President, the SELA flood control project is a smart investment. By investing in these flood control projects, we could prevent the expenditures of hundreds of millions of dollars that will otherwise be spent in Federal flood insurance claims and other disaster assistance programs.

Mr. President, as Abigail Scott Duniway, a leader in the women's suffrage movement, once said, ``the young women of today, free to study, to speak, to write, to choose their occupation, should remember that every inch of this freedom was bought for them at a great price. It is for them to show their gratitude by helping onward the reforms of their own times, by spreading the light of freedom and of truth still wider. The debt that each generation owes to the past it must pay to the future.'' If I think about my own life and the many blessings and freedoms that have been bestowed on me by my foremothers, I am mindful of the awesome responsibility I bear to ``onward the reform of my times.'' It occurs to me that when Ms. Duniway made this statement she did not mean to infer that this responsibility went only as far as the American border, but rather to the women of the world.

With this in mind, I rise in support of an amendment offered by Senator Snowe and myself which attempts to help ensure that the women of Afghanistan go to sleep at night covered by the same security blanket of freedom and democracy that the women of America enjoy. As you well know, Mr. President, it has been a long time since the people of Afghanistan have enjoyed such freedoms. For years, they suffered under one of the most brutal regimes in modern history. Instead of listing for my colleagues the rules imposed and the rights denied to women, I would like to read two excerpts from an article by Jan Goodwin published in 1998, entitled, ``Buried Alive: Afghan Women Under the Taliban.''

Thirty thousand men and boys poured into the dilapidated

Olympic sports stadium in Kabul. Street hawkers peddled nuts,

biscuits and tea to the waiting crowd. The scheduled

entertainment? They were waiting to see a young woman,

Sohaila, receive 100 lashes for walking with a man who was

not a relative . . . Since she was single it was punishable

by flogging; had she been married, she would have been stoned

to death.

Not so long ago, a young mother, Torpeka, was shot

repeatedly by the Taliban while rushing her seriously ill

toddler to the doctor. Veiled as the law requires, she was

spotted by a teenage Taliban guard, authorized to use weapons

against women if they decide they are breaking the law, tried

to stop her because women are not supposed to leave their

homes. Afraid her child would die if she were delayed, she

continued. The guard aimed his machine gun and fired several

rounds.

Now, one may think that was yesterday and this is today. Yet, I am here to tell you that while the Taliban may no longer be in power, their legacy remains. For instance, a September 26, 2002 Washington Post article detailed what it is like for a woman to give birth to a baby in a ``Taliban-free'' Afghanistan. Even now, women continue to be banned by their husbands and fathers from giving birth in hospitals or receiving medical care during labor. Even if they are able to access care, there is often no care to be had. As a result, women are forced to have babies on a dirt floor with no help from anyone but their untrained female relatives.

Young girls traveling to schools on country roads are systematically beaten and raped by roadside bandits. Only 11 percent of girls can read and write and only 16 percent of women over 16 years old are literate and yet young girls are prevented by violence from getting the education they need. This cannot continue. If we hope to see the roots of democracy take hold and flourish in Afghanistan, then we must be willing to make a long term commitment to restoring justice and equality for all.

I am sad to report that a lot has been said about our level of commitment to the Afghan people, but so far, there has been more talk than action. On October 4, 2001, President Bush pledged that ``America will stand strong and oppose the sponsors of terror. And America will stand strong and help those who are hurt by those regimes.'' Three months later, he confirmed this commitment in saying, ``Thanks to our military and our allies and the brave fighters of Afghanistan, the Taliban regime has come to an end. Yet our responsibilities to the people of Afghanistan have not ended.'' Two months later, he sent a budget to Congress that did not have one red penny for aid to Afghanistan.

I am glad that my colleagues in the Senate, on both sides of the aisle, understand that actions speak louder than words. In July, the Senate Appropriations Committee passed a bill that included $150 million in military and humanitarian aid to Afghanistan. The bill before us now goes even farther, including a total of $220 million in aid. I would like to thank the Chair and ranking member of the subcommittee, Senators McConnell and Leahy for their leadership in this regard. In offering this amendment, Senator Snowe and I propose that we go even one step further. What it does is proposes that while the amount of money appropriated is, of course, important to the overall success of our efforts in Afghanistan, so is the way in which it is spent.

Its purpose is twofold. First, it reserves $8 million, approximately 10 percent of the total funds appropriated for humanitarian aid, for programs to support women's development in Afghanistan, including girls' and women's education, health, legal and social rights, economic opportunities, and political participation. These programs should be long term in nature and invest in infrastructure development in Afghanistan. What I mean by this is, there are two ways to address the lack of women's health in this country, you can set up temporary immunization and nutrition centers or you can help build a women's health center and train physicians to work there. I am certain that USAID is doing the former, but I would like to suggest that we need to do more of the latter. This amendment is designed to move us in that direction.

Secondly, this amendment is structured in such a way to ensure that these funds are channeled through

women-focused, women-run governmental and nongovernmental organizations. As you can imagine, the women of Afghanistan are more likely to access the services and support necessary to ensure their long-term economic independence and health if they trust that the person providing the service is not the enemy. Even during the Taliban regime, it was women's organizations, run by extremely brave Afghani women, who were fighting to protect women from violence and death. It will take time before the women there are able to trust in their government to protect and provide for their needs.

I am proud of this amendment. It is the first step in a road with many steps. I thank the Chair and the ranking member for their leadership and foresight in agreeing to accept it. I look forward to working with committee and with USAID to ensure that we use this money to ``onward the reform of our times.''

Mr. President, I thank the Senator for the accommodation for me to make a few brief comments about the District of Columbia appropriations portion of this appropriations bill.

I have no amendment to offer, but I will make a few general comments about a very small portion of this underlying bill, and I am mindful that we are about to vote on Senator McCain's very important amendment.

Obviously, there are pros and cons, but I wish to take this moment to talk about a $512 million budget out of a $750 billion bill. It is not a lot of money--well, obviously, it is a lot of money; $512 million is not small change, but it is such a small percentage of the total amount of the appropriations bill. But for the 500,000-plus people who are residents of the District, for the citizens of our Nation who look to the District as truly what it is--their capital, our Nation's capital, and for the many hundreds of thousands and millions of people who travel to this District every year--adults, senior citizens, children, people of all ages, I thought I would take a moment to say a few brief words.

I want to begin by thanking our chairman, now ranking member, of the Appropriations Committee for his help in crafting this important portion of this bill. The good Senator from West Virginia spent many years as chairman of this subcommittee, and he knows well the issues about which I am speaking.

I thank the chairman, Senator Mike DeWine from Ohio, for his leadership. We work very closely as chairman and ranking member. I thank him and his staff, Mary Dietrich, for all of their hard work in pulling this portion of the appropriations bill together.

First, I wish to speak about a couple of big points. The District's budget is in fairly good shape. It has taken effort on the part of Congress, Democrats and Republicans, as well as the mayor and his partners on the council, a lot of work by the business community and civic organizations that have given suggestions and comments, as well as a structure that was put in place after the reform board moved on, to put in place a financial infrastructure that helps the District stay on strong financial footing.

Are there challenges? Yes. Is every city in America challenged? Yes. Every State, as the Senator most certainly knows from his State of Tennessee, is challenged with budget constraints. But the District, just as every city in America, struggles with chronic problems of losing a tax base and having to provide services for hundreds of thousands of people who come into the District each day yet do not pay that full share of the tax and the political difficulty of finding an appropriate political solution.

Nonetheless, with all those challenges, this mayor and the city council have gotten the District close to a balanced budget position, and because of that, a lot of the initiatives about which we have talked in Congress are going to hopefully be brought to the forefront.

No. 1, in this budget, there is additional security for the District of Columbia. As our Nation's Capital, we should, as Members of Congress, along with the mayor and council, make sure we set as much money in place as we can to secure the many beautiful monuments and buildings. Unfortunately, this is a target-rich district and needs extra money for security. Some, not all of what we need, but some of that money is in the bill.

No. 2, the District has put forward a great and ambitious agenda for improving their schools. I am proud to say there is $20 million to create, not for the first time, to expand a revolving fund for charter schools. As the schools improve, we are able to help create the kind of physical environment that rewards excellence, and that is in this bill.

We have also created the first ever family court in the District to try to cut down on child abuse and neglect, to help strengthen our families and our neighborhoods, to create special judges who will pay attention to these very serious challenges and then support them in their efforts. I thank Senator Durbin particularly for his work in that regard. There are other provisions worth noting.

I am proud to submit a bill that works with the mayor and with the council in a bipartisan way to help this city, which is so special to the people who live here and so special to all of us, fulfill the dreams of how we want to see this city flourish and grow in the years ahead.

Again, I thank my colleagues on the Appropriations Committee for putting forth efforts to create this bill.

Mr. President, I rise to support the compelling notion that we need to as a Congress and as a Senate and, hopefully, with this administration, find a way to fully fund the Leave No Child Behind Act.

It is imperative for any number of reasons. I would like to speak to a few of those reasons for a few minutes and join my colleagues who have so eloquently expressed in their own ways and in their own words why this is so important.

Let me give you just three reasons why I think it is very important, critical, and essential that we have this amendment, or something similar to it, and continue to fight for full funding.

No. 1, it is important that this Senate and this Congress in a bipartisan way continue to push for reform. We must not fail in that effort or we will not be able to reform our schools, whether the schools are in Louisiana, Mississippi, Massachusetts, Vermont, or California. We cannot continue to encourage them and push them to reform in excellence and greatness if we don't help fund them.

No. 2, I think it is important that as an adult, as a citizen, as a mother, and as a Senator we keep promises when we make them. We are, unfortunately, in the process, with this administration leading us, to cause us to break a promise. We shouldn't be breaking our promises to anyone, let alone the children, the schoolchildren and the students and their parents and families at a time such as this. We simply shouldn't break our promises.

The President is wrong to break his promise to the schoolchildren and to the families and to the Americans when he did not sign the act that those of us on both sides of the aisle helped to craft. He just simply should do that. He doesn't have to do it because there is money enough to fund it. It is a matter of priority.

A third good reason why we shouldn't go down this path is that if we want to promote long-term stimulus, which I actually believe we should--I believe in short-term stimulus, and there are a number of things that would do that--the tax cut for dividends is not one of them, but there are many ways that we could do that.

But one of the things that is clear to me and should be crystal clear to everyone in this Chamber is that a college graduate makes 50 percent more over a lifetime than a person without a degree.

In a country where we have 260 million-plus people--maybe close to 300 million now--it would be very important for us to make investments today that help our children, teenagers, citizens, and citizens of all ages, to get that college degree by preparing them before they even hit the kindergarten door, and then promoting their lifelong learning.

Why? Not only is it good for them personally and their personal growth and development as a human being, and their immediate family, but for a nation, for long-term economic stimulus it brings wealth to America. When America has wealth, and when America spends its wealth correctly, we help to lift the world to a higher place, including ourselves. Those are just three reasons why this amendment is worth considering and just three reasons why we

should respond in the Senate, and in Congress, to what the American people are asking us, imploring us, and telling us how they would like to have their money spent.

Let me just begin by giving a very brief history of how we got here. About 30 years ago or more, 35 years, the Federal Government decided that States alone should not have to fund the education of its citizens. While the bulk of that has to be picked up at the State and local level, the Federal Government decided it was in the Federal Government's interest to make sure every child was getting a quality education. Regardless of whether a child was born or grew up in a very poor, small town, with limited resources, and a limited tax base, or whether a child was born in a very wealthy part of the country, it was in the country's interest to have a school system that was strong in educating the citizens of the future.

So the Federal Government enacted, 35 years ago, a way for us to supplement in a small way, but in an important way, money for education, and we went along that road for over 35 years. Every 5 years we would reauthorize the elementary and secondary account, adding program after program, trying to get money to places that needed it, trying to help promote and urge and encourage States to, at first, help all students, and then we helped disabled students, and then there have been many early reading programs. I could go on--arts in education. We tried it, and many of these programs worked. Some of them did not work, but many of them worked.

But then, just a few years ago--2 years ago--after 35 years of this general framework, we said: That is not enough. Because the public isn't just asking us to spend more money, the public wants results for the money we spend. Why are we continuing to fund schools that fail? Why is it every time there is a problem, we just add a new program? So some of us said: It doesn't make sense. We have been doing it for 35 years. Let's do something differently. And we did.

We joined forces, Republicans and Democrats, and we said: No, we are not going to abandon the public school system and come up with a system of vouchers. We said no to a group of people who only wanted to send more money. And do you know what? We won that battle, and the President helped to lead that battle. We said: No, we are not going to abandon the public school system, but we are also not going to keep funding just yet one more program and throwing money at it. We are going to reform the schools.

So we raised standards. We instituted pretty rigorous tests. We put on deadlines, to tell our schools--and in Louisiana this is a big deadline for us to meet--no longer can you have unqualified or uncertified teachers. You have to have completely certified teachers. I am happy with that. I helped to initiate that as one of the major reforms. But it is going to be a heavy lift in Louisiana and in other States, even with alternative certification, even with recruiting, even with raising the teachers' salaries, even with improving their benefits, to get a qualified, certified teacher in every classroom in America. But we did that. We put that deadline in the bill.

We also, besides the testing, besides the qualification, increased standards. Then we turned around and pulled the plug on funding. So we have set our students up and our system up, made them a real big promise, and then are just about getting ready to walk away. And it should not happen. I am going to fight, along with many Senators in this Chamber, to make sure it does not happen because it is not right, it is not smart, and it is not fair.

So we did not just throw more money. We said: Investment in education without accountability is a waste of resources. I do not believe in wasting resources. Why? Because we have a couple of wars we might have to fund. We cannot waste a penny. We are fighting in Iraq. We are helping rebuild Afghanistan, holding off a potential conflict in Korea. We do not have time in this Chamber to waste any money.

So we have reformed the system, retooled the system, and said: We don't want you to just continue funding failure. So the States all over this Union--and there are a lot of people engaged in this effort--are depending on us to deliver the funding to help them. And what do we do, at the first chance? This administration backs down from its commitment to fund it.

I am hoping we can reverse this decision, move some money into this area, so we can eventually increase the share of Federal funds to education, maybe yet, to a percentage of somewhere between 10 and 20 percent. We were at 7 percent. We got up to 12 percent. I would like to see us get up to 20 percent.

Why? There is no magic number, but if we want to be honest with ourselves, and we want to say, as a Federal Government, what portion we have to contribute so we can pretty much guarantee that even if you were born in a poor little town, with very little tax revenue to support your school, or you graduated, like Harry Reid did, from Searchlight, NV--he had eight people in his graduating class; I don't know how rich Searchlight is, but probably it is not a very rich town-- or a small town in Louisiana, such as Dulac--whether you come from a small town or whether you happen to be born in a very wealthy place, because you are an American, and because we think it is important for a democracy to be educated in order for it to exist, the Federal Government thinks we should contribute at least 20 percent to the education of our children.

We are not even anywhere near there, and the Senator from New Hampshire understands this. We need to be moving, not in the direction we are going but in a different direction, even if it means cutting down on some tax cuts we would like to give.

If the President would fund this, I don't care if he would give every millionaire in the country a big tax cut. I don't have a problem with that. What I do have a problem with is suggesting tax cuts before he lives up to his promises he made, with our support, to the children of this country.

Let me also say, this is pretty much of a crisis. I will tell you why. Everybody says everything is a crisis on this floor, but let me try to give you some hard numbers.

The States have a shortfall. Maybe it is because they do not manage their money well. Some people think that: They have a shortfall because they cannot run any good programs and Government is bad and Government does not do anything good. But, for whatever the reason, the States are going to be short $17.5 billion.

As you will recall, what I just said is that the States pick up the most important part of funding for schools. In my State, it is a great percentage because we rely less on property taxes at the local level and more at the State level. So my State government contributes between 60 and 70 percent of the total education budget for all of the schoolchildren in Louisiana.

Maybe in other States the local governments pick up more of that funding. But as States have crises in their budgets, they are going to pass that headache of the shortfall on to their cities and on to their counties, and, in our State, on to their parishes.

So the States are going to have to probably cut their education budgets unless they are in some kind of trust fund. While our State has something like that, we cannot completely protect our education dollars.

So if we do not step to the plate and live up to our promise, they are going to get a double whammy. We have said--and basically did not tell the truth about funding this new reform act: You raise your standards, you put in these goals and objectives, and we will be there with you, buddy, every step of the way. And the first chance we get, we walk away. Then, on top of that, you could argue that policies conducted by this Congress, and things that are out of our control-- such as 9/11 and terrorist attacks, which we, of course, are doing everything we can to fight against--have caused the economy to turn sour in many ways. But they find themselves $17.5 billion short.

Where are the States going to go to get their money? To their education budgets, which will make the situation worse. I know the Senator from Massachusetts wants to engage others in the debate. I want him to know the reason I would like to stay on the floor for a couple of hours is that this isn't a little change to Louisiana, this is $122 million that is going to be short in my State, on top of which they are going

to have to probably cut the education budget to balance their budget. Why? Because States can't deficit spend like we do--sometimes in a more haughty fashion than we should. They can't deficit spend. They have to balance the budget.

On whose backs are they going to balance the budget in the State? The backs of the children who are trying to learn to read but they can't learn to read because we won't put a qualified teacher in their classroom.

When you want to spread the responsibility for fighting a war and for other things, then put the responsibility at least on the backs of those physically strong enough to bear it. But no, we are about ready to put it on the backs of kids who can't bear the burden and should not have to bear the burden. It is wrong.

I hope we will find the wherewithal, from wherever we get the money, or, if we have to, put this on par with the tax cut. We are deficit spending for a tax cut. Why not deficit spend for education? What answer will the President give to the Senate? What will he say? I think it is OK to deficit spend for a tax cut but it is not OK to deficit spend for education? What is his answer? He doesn't have an answer.

I have a quote I keep in my office. I try to read it to myself to remind me of why I am here: If you want 1 year of prosperity, you grow grain. If you want 10 years of prosperity, you grow trees. And if you want 100 years of prosperity, you invest in people.

The best way we can invest in people is to invest in an education system. If we don't want to invest in it, then we should not be telling them every year what to do, what tests to give, how many teachers to hire. We should just keep our mouths shut and walk away and let them figure it out. But we dragged them to the deal. We dragged them to the table. Some of them came more happily than others. And we got a new act and a new approach. And then the first thing we do is walk away. I think it is a disgrace.

I know my colleagues are going to come down here and they are going to talk about the other side of the aisle: All the Democrats want to do is spend more money. I am not one of those Democrats. And I don't think Democrats generally want to. But I most certainly have shown on this issue I am not just willing to spend more money for education. I will fight the good fight for accountability, but I will be darned if I am going to fight the fight for accountability and then have the Republicans say they will deficit spend for everything--the military, tax cuts--but won't deficit spend for education, leaving the country vulnerable in the short term and in the long term because of it.

I rise to support the amendment. I would like to fund it in many different ways. It could be funded. It is a relatively small amount of money, $6 billion to live up to even a partial part of our promise, over 10 years $60 billion, one-tenth of what the President is suggesting for a tax cut.

For those reasons and others, I strongly suggest that we reverse course, that the public, the people in Louisiana, the viewing audience would let the President of the United States know how disappointed they are that his budget and his proposal fail to live up to the promises he made when he signed the bill for education. Let Democrats themselves recommit to make sure that we have our priorities in order and that we put the education of our children and their ability to grow and to become all that God intended for them to be when He created them, let us be part of that part of strengthening our Nation.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise today on behalf of myself, Senator Breaux, and the entire State of Louisiana to pay tribute to a real Louisiana legend, Guy Coates.

For the better part of 40 years, Guy Coates has reported on all aspects of Louisiana politics and State news. Guy Coates started his journalistic career as a reporter for KNOE-TV in Monroe and KSLA-TV in Shreveport. He joined the AP in 1968 in the New Orleans Bureau and moved to Baton Rouge in 1973. Guy became the bureau chief in Baton Rouge in 1991. He is currently the dean of Baton Rouge Press Corps.

Mr. Coates has a long and distinguished career as one of Louisiana's finest reporters. Guy covered his first governor, Jimmie Davis, in 1962 at a ground-breaking for Toledo Bend Lake. He covered his first legislative session in 1965 when John McKeithen was governor. For the AP, Coates has been involved in coverage of the New Orleans sniper; the 1973 constitutional convention; the Luling ferry disaster; various racial demonstrations; the big '73 flood; every statewide political campaign and election since 1968; GOP and Democratic National Conventions; Apollo 14; the Louisiana visit of Poe John Paul II; executions at Angola; the Oakdale prison riots; and he was the only reporter invited to the marriage of Edwin Edwards and Candy Picou. Guy served as a witness to history for all of us when he was the only AP reporter on the Gulf Coast during the landfall of Hurricane Camille in 1969.

Guy was perhaps best known for his alter ego, Jethro. As one reporter and colleague of Guy put it, Guy ``was unique among AP writers for his political column, which included the homespun, irreverent observation of his fictional friend, Jethro.'' In Guy's final column, today, he writes, ``So, it's time to join my old column soul mate, Jethro Rotheschild, who retired to our make believe world in the garage a few years ago.'' The entire State of Louisiana is going to miss the poignant insights into the political arena that made his opinion invaluable in any Louisiana political discourse.

I know that my colleague, Senator Breaux joins me in wishing Guy and his wife Jonica McDaniel many happy years together in whatever endeavors they choose to pursue. Louisiana is losing one of our finest reporters, and we are better off having had him report on our State, Nation and the world.

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

Mr. President, I rise to spend a few minutes this afternoon commenting on the debate that is before the Senate, our challenge to shape an unemployment compensation package or relief package that will help workers and do what is right by them.

Before I do, I wish to take a moment to thank many people, many friends, many family members who are gathered in Washington and at home in Louisiana and around the country for their support, their prayers, and their help in the recent election cycle. I am back in the Senate at work in large part because of so many wonderful people who went beyond the call of duty, beyond what is expected and believed in what our campaign represented and what we spoke about and what I spoke about-- putting the interests of Louisiana first as it comes to representing that great State in this body, speaking about the issues people all over the Nation are concerned about, primarily the economy, keeping their families, their homes, their hearth together, protecting the Nation from the threat of terrorism, and shoring up our defenses against the great challenges before the Nation.

I said many times over those months that it was important for us to speak the truth, that what Washington needed was leaders, not labels; that while we were proud of our parties respectively, we should not follow them blindly but should try to, as our new leader from Tennessee spoke this morning, put the country first. I hope his words and agenda and the words and agendas that come out of the Senate, fashioned by the men and women now in this body, will put the country first, will think about the fathers and mothers, the children, the workers who make up America, who are attempting as a nation, together, unified, black and white, Hispanic, Asian, and many other nationalities from all over the world, to speak with one voice to help lead this world in a challenging time.

I thank particularly my husband and two children, the many members of my family, my parents, brothers and sisters and cousins. I joke often in Louisiana that one of the reasons I win is because if my family just votes for me, that is so many votes I always have a little advantage over my opponent. But truly, their votes, their work, and their prayers were noted in my heart today.

I couldn't think of a better way to thank the people of Louisiana and the Nation than to actually be on the floor of the Senate speaking about an issue important to them and taking a few minutes out of the festivities, as we all celebrate our return, our victories, large and small, to the Senate and to Washington, new assignments, et cetera, to spend a moment speaking about the unemployment insurance program and the desperate need of people in this country.

We have not seen unemployment rates this high in so many years. We have not seen a downturn in the economy such as this in so many years. I rise to speak for a moment about the great need, as we fashion a stimulus package, as we fashion an aid package, not a charity package, not a handout package, but a hand up package, a package not to people who are undeserving, a package not to people who don't work, a package not to people who don't want to work, but a stimulus package that honors the strength of America, the fact that people are working not just one job in many cases but two and three jobs, in this time of uncertainty, moving from job to job, people doing whatever it takes to keep that mortgage paid, to keep their car notes paid, to invest in the tools and resources they need to keep their families together and keep their net worth growing, not decreasing.

That has been a challenge for average Americans. It has been a challenge for everyone, as many people have seen their retirements shrink, not through any fault of their own. Every one realizes there is risk associated with investment. But I am sure the workers from Enron and WorldCom and others affected all over our country would have reason to stand on the floor of the Senate, if they could get here, and say, listen, some of this was out of my control or my ability to manage or regulate.

Some of it was done, as we know, fraudulently and without respect for the law. Frankly, maybe Congress didn't have as tight reins on some of these situations as we should have. So there are Americans who are angry and anxious and frustrated. I most certainly appreciate that. Having just come off a long and grueling campaign, I heard from many of these workers in Louisiana.

Here we are, the first day, trying to fashion a package. I have listened to people talking about the program. I want to explain the unemployment insurance program. First, there is $26 billion in the trust fund. It is a program, an enterprise established for the purposes of helping Americans when they need help. It is not a welfare or a charity program. There are certain times when welfare is good. And all the time, charity is good. But we are not talking about charity. We are talking about money that workers from their pockets put into a trust fund that grows with interest so when the economy turns down, they can, if the Members of Congress say it is OK, pull that money down, put it in their pocket, pay their car note, which makes the car dealer happy, pay their house note, which makes the banker happy, pay their loan to the credit card companies, which makes them happy, pay their money to the credit union that keeps the credit unions going, pay the grocery store, pay the gas bill, pay the cleaners to keep the small businesses going. Does anybody think these unemployment checks go in the bank just sitting there waiting to be invested?

I hope not, because people who have worked hard at a $50,000, $60,000, $70,000 job, who went to school sometimes late at night to get their skills, studied after putting their children to bed, way into the night, and worked hard to get those skills, now look to Washington to help.

We have people on this floor who talk about this as if it is a charity program. These people are due, number one, the money they put in the trust fund. Number two, it is not their fault that unemployment is 6, 7, or 8 percent. It is our fault, if it is anybody's fault, because we are not managing the situation well enough--not that it can be perfectly done, but it hasn't happened yet. It most certainly is not the fault of the workers who have been laid off. They came not to ask for money that belongs to somebody else, but to ask us to give them their money so they can get through this hard time.

We have to listen to House Republican leaders tell us that there is not enough money in the trust fund, when there is $26 billion in the trust fund, and we are arguing about whether we want something that costs $1 billion or $4 billion. And if we weren't spending the unemployment trust fund now, when would we spend it?

So for the 1.6 million full-time workers in Louisiana, for the 303,000 part-

time workers in Louisiana, for the 1.085 million workers in Louisiana who work on an hourly wage, and for the 42,000 workers in Louisiana who work at the minimum wage, $5.15--I will repeat that--$5.15--because this President and the Republican leadership refuse to increase the minimum wage, so these workers are working at $5.15 an hour because this President refuses to raise the minimum wage, or to support a raise in the minimum wage--we are going to tell these people that while there is $26 billion in the trust fund, we choose not to ``expand'' the program.

Let me register my strongest objection to that, and let me on behalf of the 4.5 million people in my State register their strong objection to that and say how disappointed they are that this administration and the House Republican leadership refuse to give them the money they put in the fund so when times went bad they would have it to keep paying their house note, so they didn't lose all the equity they have spent the last 20 years of their lives working for.

Let me also object to the sentiment expressed too often on this floor that we have to give people an incentive to work. I don't know too many people who don't want to work. I really don't. Whether they work for a paycheck or stay at home raising seven children, or nine children, or four children, they work very hard. I don't know too many Americans who don't want to work because with work comes dignity, with work comes self-satisfaction, with work comes thinking that you are doing something to help yourself and your family and your country. I know that a job or a small business is what most people aspire overwhelmingly to. But when that small business or that job slips out of their hands, not because they didn't do a great job or because they don't enjoy working, but because the company and because the policies that we are managing have come short, and we hand them that pink slip and we say, go for it, you have 13 weeks to find another job--a job having the same benefits and salary--and when it runs out, we might consider giving you another 13 weeks, we have to look people in the eye and say I am sorry, there is no more help--when there is $26 billion sitting in this account.

So I wanted to register my strongest objection to leaving out a portion of these workers and to say for the workers in my State that I am going to be here now for 6 years fighting for them, talking for them. I hope I can do it adequately to meet how worthy they are. I am going to do my very best to represent them in as forceful and effective way possible on this and many other issues.

Let me close with giving a few concrete suggestions. If we are going to have a stimulus package, let's be truthful and honest about the portions of it that will actually stimulate the economy and those that might stimulate our conference next election time. I ask the administration to relook at their package. Why don't we have the payroll tax holiday? The payroll tax holiday has been judged by conservative and liberal think tanks to be one of the most effective, immediate stimuli we can provide for the Nation. The money doesn't have to come out of the Social Security trust fund. It can come out of the general fund, based on payroll taxes. It is fair to every worker--the very wealthy, the middle income, and the poor. It rewards the idea of work. It is immediate and it is $1,500 per family. That $1,500 could be used immediately in this economy to give people confidence and to prime the pump, if you will.

The Social Security offset--again, putting money into the hands of workers, retirees, people who have worked hard now, instead of getting both their full retirement checks--teachers in many instances are offset by their Social Security benefits--what good does that do if we can provide both, which we have the money to do, which is less expensive than this package, and give them both of those checks.

Those people are in a time of their life when they are spending that money--not saving it, but spending it to live. That primes the pump in this Nation, as well as everything we can do to give depreciation for real estate, which would help in investments, and accelerating tax reductions for small business owners. But anything outside of that is actually nothing but stimulating some other special interests for other purposes, other than, in my opinion, strengthening this economy. That is wrong.

I hope Congress and this Senate will work hard to fashion a stimulus package that is truly stimulative, affordable, financially responsible, and something that really helps all people, and not just those at the very top, but those who count on us to do our part to help them do what they are trying to do for their families and their communities.

Mr. President, I am here giving my strongest support for moving forward with the unemployment compensation benefits, but very disappointed--extremely disappointed--that over a third to a half of workers in this Nation have been left out, and to say that we should include everyone, and we should focus on making the program better and more effective so that it is more helpful. I will tell you $182 a week, or $250 a week--the average payment in Louisiana--doesn't go far. You cannot even pay a grocery bill for a family with three or four children with $200 a week. I don't know where you get gas money, rent money, or mortgage payments on top of that. So this Congress has a lot to do when it comes to reforming, reshaping, revitalizing, and redesigning the unemployment insurance program for this Nation. I hope to be a part of that. But for today, extending that benefit--at least for all the workers who deserve it--again, it is not our money; it is theirs. They worked hard for it. There is $26 billion in the trust fund and we should give it to them.

I yield the floor and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. President, I ask that the time be equally charged to both sides.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.