Floor Statements

Mr. President, I thank our leader, the Senator from Maryland, Barbara Mikulski, for organizing this effort on the Senate floor this morning. I am pleased to join my sisters and colleagues in the Senate this morning to raise some specific and important issues relative to this reform debate that is moving forward. They are important facts as we press forward with our reforms.

I would like to begin, just briefly, with reminding all of us that we began--as the President called for us to do--to focus on health care reform and to reduce cost--cost to our Nation, cost to our States, cost to individual businesses as they continue to see these premiums skyrocketing beyond their ability to either afford or to control, and cost to individuals.

The Baucus mark in the Senate Finance Committee, which is pending, goes a significant step forward in terms of the cost issue. That is very encouraging to those of us who believe that health care reform is essential for several reasons. But one of the important reasons is to get cost under control and to begin to help balance the Federal budget and get us back on a sure financial footing, which--as has been stated by many experts, Mr. President--is impossible without fundamental insurance reform. So that is point 1.

Point 2, the benefit of moving forward with reform will significantly improve outcomes for women, as the Senator from California, Mrs. Boxer, stated. It is going to help all Americans, but it is going to be particularly helpful for women of childbearing age, who are often discriminated against with insurance rates because they have to see doctors more often just by the very nature of pregnancy and the care they require. Because they have to see their doctors more often, their insurance is sometimes significantly higher.

In fact, the records show that the cost of an insurance plan for a 40-year-old woman can be up to 38 percent more than a 40-year-old man in the same circumstance--same health, same geographic location. Our reform efforts will eliminate that bias and make health care more affordable for everyone but particularly for women.

I wanted to take my last minute to talk about a letter I received from Denelle Walker, a 25-year-old woman living in Baton Rouge, who just graduated from school and went on to get a job.

Mr. President, 20 percent of Denelle's modest paycheck--20 percent-- is going toward insurance. This bill will help young women such as Denelle, middle-aged women, and older women on the issue of affordability.

Mr. President, I am proud to honor a group of 90 World War II veterans from all over Louisiana who traveled to Washington, DC, on September 26 to visit the various memorials and monuments that recognize the sacrifices of our Nation's invaluable service members.

Louisiana HonorAir, a group based in Lafayette, LA, sponsored this trip to the Nation's Capital. The organization is honoring surviving World War II Louisiana veterans by giving them an opportunity to see the memorials dedicated to their service. The veterans visited the World War II, Korea, Vietnam, and Iwo Jima Memorials. They also traveled to Arlington National Cemetery.

This was the first of three flights Louisiana HonorAir made to Washington, DC, this fall. It is the 18th flight to depart from Louisiana, which has sent more HonorAir flights than any other State to the Nation's Capital.

World War II was one of America's greatest triumphs but was also a conflict rife with individual sacrifice and tragedy. More than 60 million people worldwide were killed, including 40 million civilians, and more than 400,000 American service members were slain during the long war. The ultimate victory over enemies in the Pacific and in Europe is a testament to the valor of American soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines. The years 1941 to 1945 also witnessed an unprecedented mobilization of domestic industry, which supplied our military on two distant fronts.

In Louisiana, there remain today about 30,000 living WWII veterans, and each one has a heroic tale of achieving the noble victory of freedom over tyranny. This group had 25 veterans who served in the U.S. Army, 19 in the Army Air Corps, 29 in the Navy, 11 in the Marine Corps, 2 in the Merchant Marines, 2 in the Coast Guard, and 2 were Army nurses.

Our heroes, many of them from South Louisiana, trekked the world for their country. They fought in Germany, Holland, France, Italy, Africa, Guam, Bougainville, Guadalcanal, Iwo Jima, Okinawa, the Philippines, New Guinea, Japan and Saipan. Their journeys included the invasions of North Africa, Sicily, and Normandy.

One of our Army Air Corps veterans was declared missing in action for 58 days in Yugoslavia after bailing out of his aircraft. Another Army veteran fought bravely in the Battle of the Bulge, while an Army Air Corps veteran made the Bataan Death March and spent 5 years in prison camps before being liberated on August 17, 1946.

One Navy veteran earned a Gold star, Bronze star, and Hazardous Award for his service in the Pacific. An Army Air Corps veteran fought in Europe, Africa, and the Middle East where he received an Air Medal, three oak leaf clusters, and a Distinguished Unit Badge for his outstanding service.

A Navy veteran earned seven campaign stars and was in Tokyo Bay the morning of the Japanese surrender. Another veteran served as part of the 101st Airborne, fighting in Holland, Bastogne, Alsace, Ruhr, and Berchesgarten.

I am also proud to acknowledge that of the 90 veterans who visited Washington this past weekend, 5 were women who served our country with honor and distinction during World War II. Three brothers also made the trip together.

I ask the Senate to join me in honoring these 90 veterans, all Louisiana heroes, who visited Washington, and Louisiana HonorAir for making these trips a reality.

I move to reconsider the vote, and I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Madam President, I understand there are several colleagues wishing to speak on the underlying bill. I am going to speak for a minute on an event that happened last night to honor many of our constituents who were here in Washington for a special event. But before I do, and before the Senator from Minnesota leaves the floor, I want to thank him for bringing the amendment he just brought to the bill and to ask that my name be added as a cosponsor.

Madam President, I sincerely appreciate the work that has gone into that amendment and hope it will see a significant vote on the Senate floor and that it will help not only the individual he spoke of but perhaps hundreds, if not thousands, of other people who might find themselves in similar situations.

Congressional Coalition on Adoption

Madam President, I see my good friend, Senator Inhofe, on the Senate floor today. He and I have the privilege and honor of cochairing the adoption caucus, and I wanted to speak briefly and to thank the 43 Senators who participated in this annual event by honoring individuals in their States--and, Madam President, you participated as well--for something special they had done on behalf of adoption or foster care in the United States or abroad.

This event is in its eleventh year. Collectively, the Members of Congress--Democrats and Republicans--have honored over 1,500 Americans--

some judges, some social workers, parents, advocates, lawyers in the system--who are helping to find permanent homes for orphans in America and around the world. We have approximately 500,000 children in foster care. That is a large number, but actually a small percentage if you think about all the children in our country--about 100 million. This represents less than one-half of 1 percent. But these children are in the custody of the government. Governments don't, by their nature, love children, human beings do, and parents particularly. So our job as Senators and Congressmen is to try to break down barriers, legal and otherwise, so we can find these orphans permanent homes.

In the last 20 seconds that I have, I want to submit for the Record the names of the 43 Senators and their angels from a variety of States in the Union. I want to acknowledge the three national angels: Judge Michael Nash of California, nominated by the Senators from that State and from all of us who started National Adoption Day, where judges such as Judge Nash took the liberty to hold adoptions on Saturdays so we could move a backlog of children. Because of his action, 350 communities now hold adoptions on Saturday.

Al Roker, who greets most Americans in the morning, an adoptive father, is now using his position of power to advocate on behalf of orphans.

And Sean and Leanne Toohey, who adopted a young man at 16 years old, are a couple who had raised two biological children, then adopted a young man who was going nowhere, on a dead-end street. Because of their love and because of their mutual support, he now is the No. 1 draft choice and is going to play for the Baltimore Ravens--a young man with a great deal of potential who just simply didn't have any parents who believed in him. Now he does.

That is the work we do. We honor all of our angels who were here for many days, understanding they are not alone in this fight to find homes for orphans.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the 2009 Congressional Coalition on Adoption Institute Angels in Adoption.

Madam President, I thank my colleagues for the opportunity to speak briefly and to take the time from this important bill.

I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor.

Ten minutes.

I appreciate the leadership of the Senators from California and Tennessee, trying to move this important appropriations bill through the process. As we heard this morning, there are lots of important issues pending. I came to speak for a few minutes not about a pending amendment but about an issue bubbling up and brewing in a fairly significant way that we will have to address sometime soon, not necessarily on this bill today, not necessarily through an amendment process to the Interior appropriations, but a program that is in the Interior appropriations bill that is screaming for attention. That is the program having to do with the management of wild horses. It is not a major issue in all 50 States, but it is a big issue to a handful of western States and of interest to several of us in this body.

Let me thank Senator Feinstein and her staff for the leadership they are providing in helping us shape policy. She has been extremely attentive over the last several months. I thank her. I acknowledge the interest of former Senator Salazar, now Secretary of Interior, and his top leadership. They have a tremendous amount of issues before them, issues that will take a lot of their time. For them to make this a priority because some of us have asked them to, I acknowledge that and thank them, all the assistant secretaries and staff from the Interior Department who are working on this.

There are two aspects to this important issue. One involves the fiscal element which taxpayers are alarmed about. The wild horse program, because of its mismanagement and poor, old-fashioned way of operating, is chewing up or taking up about three-quarters of the budget of the Bureau of Land Management. From a fiscal perspective and a financial management perspective, it is crying out for reform.

On the other hand, there is the view of the inhumaneness of some of the practices going on that also cries out for attention. I come to speak briefly about both.

As to the big picture, at the turn of the century, we had about a million wild horses in the territory of the United States. It is sad, from the perspective of most people, that we are now down to 66,000 wild horses and burros basically forced, through policies developed in the 1970s, to stay in relatively small places, grouped in a few States, most notably the States of Nevada, Wyoming, and California, and a few other western States. We also are down to a few herds of horses. The reason I believe this is important not only to western States or ranchers or landowners or humane societies and others is because for the American people generally, the idea of wild spaces with wild horses is something that is part of our heritage. We want to make sure that heritage is not lost, that we are being responsible in terms of the way the land is being used for multiple purposes and, from the perspective of horse advocates, that the horses themselves are being treated well.

None of that is now being done in the way that most people would appreciate or would be satisfied with. There have been any number of studies I will submit for the record. Most recently, the Congressional Research Service, as well as the Government Accounting Office, suggested major changes to the program. I am going to go through a few possible options. One is the creation of several public/private sanctuaries. This has been suggested by a few fairly high-profile individuals. The idea has merit. We are working with a variety of groups, along with the Department, to think about the possibility of creating public/private partnerships, large sanctuaries, maybe 500,000 or a million acres, where thousands of wild horses could not only roam freely in a healthy way but could potentially become ecotourist opportunities for some of the States and communities, as it would be an attraction that could potentially make money and attract people to some of the western areas or, for that matter, rural areas in other parts of the country.

There is the possibility of making some smart investments to step up some of the adoption programs that might work. There are any number of scientific and new technologies that can be brought to bear in terms of breed management, reproductive issues that could help us to get a much more cost-effective, sane, and humane approach to this problem.

I wanted to let the managers of this legislation know that while we will not have an amendment at this time on the Interior bill, I am looking forward to working with members of the Energy Committee who have jurisdiction over this matter to review in detail a bill that has come over from the House, the ROAM Act, by the chairman of that subcommittee, whom I commend for taking the committee's time, Congressman Rahall, who sent the bill over here to the Senate. As we begin to discuss the ways that bill could potentially be modified, working with the Department of Interior to find a long-term solution, one that is cost effective, one that is humane, and one that honors the great history of wild horses, not just pleasant to look at but helped us to settle the West, helped us to open transport and commerce for the Nation, have carried us into war, into battle, helped to feed and clothe this Nation in our history, needs a bit more attention than what they are getting right now.

In conclusion, there was a disturbing roundup conducted not too long ago--just a few weeks ago--and I thank the advocates who brought this to my attention and commit to them to continue to work until we find a better way forward; again, a way that is good for the wild horses, that honors our heritage but is also very respectful of these Western lands and the ranchers who have multiple uses of this property.

I am certain in the Nation God has bequeathed to us we can find enough space for everyone if we keep an open mind. I know the Senator from Tennessee would agree with that; that if we work hard enough, we can find some common ground solutions to this issue.

I thank the Chair and yield the time. I understand my colleague from California is here to speak on a different issue.

Madam President, I appreciate the chairman allowing me the opportunity to offer this amendment, and also working with Senator Bond, who I understand supports this amendment as well.

I offer this amendment on behalf not only of myself but Senator Harkin, Senator Hutchison, Senator Grassley, and Senator Cornyn. So we have a strong bipartisan group of Senators who are coming to the floor to ask our colleagues to approve an amendment that has to do with a change and modification in the Community Development Block Grant Program that has been put in place to help communities prepare for and recover from disasters. This amendment is going to affect all communities in a positive way across the country that received community development block grant funding and in a very significant way. If this amendment is passed by this body today and continues in this bill, the communities that have received special allocations of community development block grant money will be able to use those funds to match other Federal funds available.

This is the way the normal Community Development Block Grant Program has operated, I understand, since its inception. As my colleagues can see from this chart, in every single situation, except for two, in the last 17 years, that has been the case. So my amendment is basically allowing the floods and natural disasters of 2008 to be included in this effort; in other words, to say, if you received community development block grant funding, you can use those funds as a local and State match for other Federal funding.

This is important for two reasons. One, it has been done in that way the

last 17 years for good reason. For good reason because these communities, you could argue, have even greater challenges than normal, considering that in any time it is tough to provide housing or to build roads or to help their small businesses get back on their feet, but after a catastrophic disaster it is sometimes 5, if not 10, times harder. So why restrict their money at a time when they need the greatest flexibility? That is all this amendment does.

Again, this is the way it has been done in general community development block grants since the beginning of the program. It is the way it was done with disaster community development in every case. Our amendment would simply make that uniform policy for the States affected by the 2008 disasters.

This will be a great help to Texas that is still recovering from the storms of Ike. I will be visiting and having a field hearing through my Committee on Small Business as well as Disaster. Senator Hutchison will be attending that field hearing to visit Galveston just on Friday. So approval of this amendment would bring a lot of hope and encouragement to the people on the Gulf Coast, not just in Louisiana but, as I said, in Texas as well. California will be benefited as well as Iowa and some of the States that were affected by the floods.

So, again, this is amendment No. 2365. I think my explanation is sufficient about what this amendment does and what a great help it will be to mayors and parish officials and county officials struggling to rebuild and what a smart way to use and to leverage moneys to get these communities rebuilt quickly in these very difficult economic times.

I ask unanimous consent that the CDBG allocation chart to which I referred to be printed in the Record at this time.

Madam President, I see my good friend, Senator Gregg. I yield the floor.

Yes, I believe I have, but if I have not, let me submit it at this time. It is amendment No. 2365.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with. I suggest we don't have to read the whole amendment and we will leave it lying until we can vote on it later today.

Madam President, I come to the floor to speak about three amendments to the Transportation-HUD appropriations bill. I do wish to comment on the Afghan discussion and thank my colleagues who just spoke so eloquently. All three have been leaders on the issue of international engagements. I hope the Senators, particularly Senator McCain and Senator Graham, as we contemplate the right moves forward, will think about and be willing to fund nonmilitary programs as well. Many such programs have been shown, in front of the Armed Services Committee and the Appropriations Committee, through testimony given by Secretary Gates himself, as well as many military leaders, to actually help reduce violence by supporting development in Afghan villages, empowering individuals, particularly women in Afghanistan who, with a little bit of help and a little bit of support, can be the strength and cement that holds communities together. Educating girls is an important strategy.

One thing we have learned from the failed policies of the previous administration is that we have to use both hard and soft power combined, to make it smarter so we can actually win some of these battles. That is probably what President Obama and his team are thinking about: How do we unite the Congress, get past partisan rhetoric, and come up with a smart strategy to win in Afghanistan. In that way we might not only protect our troops, but we might be able to get them home a little bit sooner. I am sure that is what the President is thinking about. I look forward to working with Senators Lieberman, McCain, and Graham as we move forward, hopefully, in a bipartisan fashion, to protect our troops and to win in a place that we most certainly need to and keep the Taliban at bay.

I came to talk about three amendments. One is an amendment I have pending. It is amendment No. 2365. I see my colleague, Senator Hutchison, is in the Chamber. She is a cosponsor of the amendment. Although we are not going to vote on it tonight, I wished to speak for a moment about the amendment. Unfortunately, I will be away from the Senate tomorrow for a longstanding commitment. Tomorrow I will deliver a speech that I promised to give on behalf of Senator Domenici in New Mexico, so I will not be here for the vote. But I know my colleagues who are supporting this amendment will stand in and carry the torch.

My amendment will help disaster-stricken communities in Texas, Louisiana, Iowa, Indiana, Illinois, Wisconsin, Missouri, Arkansas, Tennessee, Florida and California. Congress appropriated $6.5 billion in a Community Development Block Grant for the series of disasters that afflicted these states in 2008. The problem was, that in this particular allocation, we prohibited these communities from using that money to match other Federal moneys that might be available, which makes no sense. Congress has appropriated funds using the Community Development Block Grant to respond to 19 other disasters, and virtually never resorted to adding such a prohibition.

What my amendment will do is revert to the regular language so that communities, such as Galveston--I see my colleague Senator Hutchison here. She and I will be together in Galveston on Friday to monitor recovery efforts there and she has been such a leader in this effort. However, there are still many communities in New Orleans and in southwest Louisiana and other parts of south Louisiana for which this amendment is crucial. It doesn't add money to the bill. It just allows us to use money more intelligently.

For communities that are struggling not just because of disasters but because of the atmosphere of tough economic times, it gives local and State leaders a little bit more flexibility to pull down some of the Federal money that has already been allocated to communities that need it the most. It is amendment No. 2365. Senator Grassley is supportive, as are Senator Murray and Senator Bond. I thank them so much. We will consider that amendment tomorrow.

Now I want to turn to a new topic and I wish to speak against an amendment offered by my colleague from Louisiana, Senator Vitter, that will be considered tomorrow. I will not be here to vote against this amendment but will submit a statement for the Record. I strongly oppose that amendment--amendment number 2359, which will be voted on tomorrow.

This is an amendment I oppose for two reasons. No. 1, it is bad policy. The other reason I am against it is because this amendment only deals with public housing residents and other HUD-housing assistance recipients in the city of New Orleans. It doesn't address the problems of public housing residents right here in the District of Columbia, nor public housing residents in Chicago or New York, nor Baton Rouge, nor Lafayette. Only in New Orleans.

That is perplexing to me, that it is focused on only one city in our State and only one city in the whole country. That is one reason to vote against the amendment, no matter what it says, because it does not include other communities.

But the real reason to vote against the amendment is because it is mean-spirited and counterproductive. What this amendment basically says is that you can be evicted from public housing if anyone in your family commits a crime or gets in trouble with the law.

I understand family members. I am one of nine siblings. I am married and now have two children. I have many brothers and sisters and 38 cousins in our extended family and two wonderful parents. The Presiding Officer has met many members of my family. I like to try to take responsibility for everyone in my family. But parents, no matter how hard they try, sometimes somebody in your family does something that is wrong. Should the entire family become homeless? That is what the Vitter amendment will do. It is such poor policy. It is so mean- spirited. It is so counterproductive. It will mean an increase in homelessness for a city that has already seen our homeless population quadruple.

More than that, the nature of this amendment is so punitive. It penalizes grandmothers or great aunts or moms and dads, or siblings who are trying to do the best they can with very little. Children sometimes do very bad things. Sometimes you will have a family of five children. Four are wonderful and straight-A students. Then you have one child who gets in trouble with drugs or becomes an alcoholic, and causes trouble for the family. Senator Vitter has put in an amendment which he will ask this body to support that would do this: when one member of the family gets in trouble with the law, the whole family gets thrown out on the street.

If this amendment passes, I would like for him to have to go to the sister in fourth grade, because, let's say, the teenage son who is 17 is the one who is causing the problems. I don't want people to think I just pick on boys, but I think people understand we have lots of trouble with this age group of all genders. I would like maybe for my colleague to be the one who has to knock on the front door and tell the mother and the fourth grade little girl, who got an A on her test, performed in the band and has straight A's, that she can pack her bags and spend the night on the street. If I could modify this amendment to make him have to do that, I would. This is not compassionate conservatism. This is mean, and it is nonsense. It needs to be voted down.

To repeat the number, for my colleagues, both Democrats and Republicans, it is amendment No. 2359, only for New Orleans and only for people in public housing. I hope Members will vote no.

Let me say one other thing about this. Unfortunately, my colleague and some people supported tearing down all the public housing units in New Orleans after the storm because some of them were destroyed. Some people took this as an opportunity to say: We never liked them anyway. They

weren't run very well. Which was often true. So let's knock them all down and too bad for the people who used to live there, even though most of those people worked. I am going to remind my colleague and others, they don't live there for free. Under the law, they pay 30 percent of their income to live in that housing. He wanted to knock them all down.

Some of us fought back and said: OK, we want to reform them. We want to build better communities. We will work with you here. So because I stepped in and a bunch of others stepped in, Catholic Charities and many activists from all walks of life, including the business community, we said: We are going to rebuild these communities. Well here is the most amazing thing about it: it is working. Shawn Donovan, our Housing Secretary, was just there. We had standing room only, with people from every different race and walk of life. We are patting ourselves on the back saying: It was bad 10 years ago. It was bad 5 years ago. But now we are all working together in the spirit of unity in a city that has been absolutely brought to its knees by flooding and by political bickering and bomb throwing. And we made things better. Then this amendment has to hit the floor. It is a disgrace. I urge my colleagues to vote no on amendment 2359.

While I am here, I will say a word about another amendment that has been agreed to this afternoon by 73 votes, unfortunately. It was another Vitter amendment. It was amendment No. 2376. I voted no. There were 26 of us who voted no, but 73 Senators voted yes. I know I am in the minority, but that is what the Senate is about, giving the minority a voice. I wish to say something about this. This amendment reinstated a law that says that if you live in public housing, you have to do 8 hours of community service. That sounds pretty good. People think, we are providing housing for people. They should be grateful. The least they can do is community service.

I am a big supporter of community service. I try to do it when I can. I support community service and I support calling all of our citizens to community service. What I don't support is making poor people and mostly minorities do community service, while other people sit on the sideline and never are required to do it, even though the largesse they receive from our government is much greater than a resident of public housing could ever hope to get even if they lived there for 50 years.

If you lived in public housing for 50 years, you could not possibly benefit as much from the General Treasury as if you would if you were the executive of AIG to whom we gave a gazillion dollars. Did we ask them to do 8 hours of community service? We didn't even ask him to pay the money back. Somebody has to wake up in this Chamber.

I am not fussing at my colleagues because I know people have a different view about this. But if we want to require law students to do 8 hours of community service for the loans they get, fine. But don't just pick on the poor because they can't fight back, and they don't have any lobbyists up here for them.

Those are the two amendments my colleague could come up with today. I can't wait to see what he comes up with tomorrow.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, today the Senate Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship favorably reported out the President's nominations of Dr. Winslow Lorenzo Sargeant to serve as chief counsel for advocacy and Ms. Peggy Elizabeth Gustafson to serve as inspector general of the Small Business Administration.

I am pleased that President Obama nominated such talented individuals to top positions at the SBA. Their confirmation will make the SBA much closer to having an exceptional leadership team in place.

As chief counsel for advocacy, Dr. Winslow Sargeant will bring a unique background to this very important position. With a Ph.D. from the University of Wisconsin-Madison in electrical engineering and a background as a very successful small business owner, he is not only well-educated, but well-educated about the challenges facing small businesses today.

He is currently the managing director of Venture Investors, a Midwest venture capital company with a concentration on starting up health care and technology companies. From 2001 to 2005, he served as a program manager for SBIR in electronics at the National Science Foundation. He has also worked at IBM as a staff engineer, at AT&T as technical staff, and as an associate adjunct professor at the University of Pennsylvania.

As the current general counsel for Senator Claire McCaskill, whose interest in and knowledge of oversight issues is well known and respected in the Senate, Ms. Peggy Gustafson is an excellent nominee for inspector general of the SBA. She received her J.D. at Northwestern University and, before working as general counsel for Senator McCaskill here in Washington, Ms. Gustafson worked for her when the Senator was the prosecutor for Jackson County, MO, as well as when she was the Missouri State Auditor.

With capable leaders like Dr. Sargeant and Ms. Gustafson at the helm, we are hopeful the agency will be more ready than ever to play an important role in assisting small businesses as they continue to lead this country to an economic recovery. We look forward to working with them and to a new era for the SBA and American small businesses.

Mr. President, as we focus on improving the workplace and enhancing benefits for employees throughout the Nation, I would like to take this opportunity to highlight an outstanding group of law enforcement officers from Louisiana.

For the last 8 years, our country has been at war. Thousands of Americans left their usual workplace to honor their commitment to the armed services. America's employers have done an outstanding job of supporting our National Guard and Reserve members both in and outside the workplace. Currently, almost one-half of the U.S. military is comprised of National Guard and Reserve members. This support for our ``Citizen Soldiers'' allows them to continue their invaluable service to our country.

Each year Guard and Reserve members and their families nominate employers who have gone above and beyond in their support of military employees. This year, Sheriff Andy Brown and the Jackson Parish Sheriff's Department in Jonesboro, LA, have been selected as one of the 15 employers to receive the 2009 Secretary of Defense Employer Support Freedom Award. This award is the highest recognition given by the U.S. Government to employers for their outstanding support of employees who serve in the National Guard and Reserve. As an added honor, Sheriff Brown has been selected as one of the attendees to speak on behalf of these 15 recipients at the 14th Annual Awards Ceremony on September 17.

The Jackson Parish Sheriff's Department led by Sheriff Andy Brown was selected out of more than 3,200 nominees from across the Nation. Sheriff Brown and his employees went beyond the call of duty to extend employment support to employees who have volunteered to serve in our Nation's Armed Forces.

The Jackson Parish Sheriff's department employs seven part-time servicemembers. Among the benefits that the Jackson Parish Sheriff's department provides its National Guard and Reserve employees is full pay for servicemembers called away on duty for more than 12 months. The department also provides continuous health care, dental, and life insurance benefits to ensure coverage and support for servicemembers' families while the member is on active duty.

Sheriff Brown has fostered a supportive work environment for servicemembers by requiring every supervisor and employee in his department to thoroughly understand and implement the servicemember rights outlined in the Uniform Services Employment and Reemployment Act. His positive attitude and accommodation for our citizen soldiers demonstrates an unwavering support that exemplifies the spirit of the Employer Support Freedom Award.

I offer my heartfelt thanks and congratulations to Sheriff Brown and the entire Jackson Parish Sherriff's Department. The Employer Support Freedom Award is a tremendous honor and a fitting recognition of Sheriff Brown's commitment to our troops and his service to Louisiana and our Nation.

Mr. President, this year we are celebrating the 98th birthday of Kappa Alpha Psi Fraternity Incorporated. This week, thousands of members and guests from all over the world have come to Washington, DC, to participate in a week-long program of forums and seminars with a focus on leadership, brotherhood and service, known as the 79th Grand Chapter Meeting. The theme of this week's celebration is ``A Call to Service: The Journey Home Continues.''

The week's events commenced with a public meeting where members from the nine African-American Greek fraternities and sororities will gather in the spirit of unity. In addition, during this gathering, I was honored that Kappa Alpha Psi bestowed upon me their prestigious Humanitarian Award. This particular award is the highest honor awarded to an individual that is not a member of the organization. I am excited to be joining the ranks of previous honorees including: Congresswoman Maxine Waters; Mrs. Lyndon Baines ``Lady Bird'' Johnson; Mr. Harry Belafonte; Mrs. Rosa Parks; and Drs. Bill and Camille Cosby, just to name a few.

I also would like to take this opportunity to commend Attorney Dwayne Murray. Dwayne currently serves as the 31st Grand Polemarch of Kappa Alpha Psi Fraternity, Incorporated, and is a resident of the great State of Louisiana. Under Dwayne's extraordinary leadership, the organization has initiated several community service projects, including ``Sunday of Hope.'' Through this effort, Kappa Alpha Psi has raised well over $500,000 for St. Jude Children's Research Hospital during the past 2 years. In addition, Dwayne has also spearheaded the ``Greeks Learning to Avoid Debt''--GLAD--Program throughout the Nation. This program will ensure that college students receive the necessary training to use credit wisely and remain financially stable through college and beyond. His administration is committed to the theme of ``One Kappa, Creating Inspiration: A Call to Service''.

Kappa Alpha Psi was founded on January 5, 1911, on the campus of Indiana University in Bloomington, IN. Led by the vision of Elder Watson Diggs, it was founded by 10 God-fearing, serious-minded young men who possessed the imagination, ambition, courage, and determination to defy custom in pursuit of college educations and careers during an oppressive time in American history for African Americans.

Now, the membership has grown to more than 360 undergraduate chapters and 347 alumni chapters located throughout the United States and five foreign countries. Today, the fraternity boasts a membership of more than 150,000 college-trained young men. Among the famous Kappas are Wilt Chamberlain, Adrian Fenty, Cedric ``The Entertainer'' Kyles, and Tavis Smiley; and Members of the House of Representatives include Sanford Bishop of Georgia, William Clay of Missouri, John Conyers of Michigan, Alcee Hastings of Florida and Bennie Thompson of Mississippi. Additionally, there are many more prominent and influential men across America that represent the Kappa Alpha Psi brotherhood. Furthermore, both current and former members of my staff are proud to be members of this noble and prestigious fraternity: my former legislative director Ben Cannon, former regional manager Terrence Lockett, and my current capital regional manager Jason Wynne Hughes.

Kappa Alpha Psi has been an instrumental group in raising the profile of African-American men and has worked tirelessly to knock down barriers to advancement in our society. The brotherhood has consistently encouraged achievement in every field of human endeavor.

Members remain active for their whole lives and are encouraged to contribute to their communities. Each chapter has its own community service focus. The Baton Rouge Alumni Chapter, for example, raises money through its annual Walter Banks Golf Classic for scholarships for high school seniors and also sponsors several kids to attend Kappa Kamp--a rigorous leadership institute for elementary and middle school aged young men. Chapters all over Louisiana are similarly committed to their communities.

In the aftermath of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita in 2005, Kappas from all over the country came to the aid of hurricane survivors along the gulf coast and helped with our recovery effort.

It is with great pride that we welcome all members of Kappa Alpha Psi to our Nation's Capital as they kick off the countdown to their centennial celebration in 2011.

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

Madam President, I understand we have up to 10 minutes each?

Madam President, I wish to speak for a moment about another bill Senator Inhofe and I introduced earlier: the Foreign Adopted Children Equality Act. This would make a small but important change in the way orphans are identified or classified when they are adopted overseas so that they can become automatic citizens.

I was very proud to work with Senator Kennedy on this issue, with Senator Don Nickles from Oklahoma when he served in the body. We worked very hard to find a way, when families go overseas to adopt, once that adoption is final--we believe the active adoption itself puts that child in automatic custody of that parent. That parent, being an American citizen, should automatically be able to transfer that citizenship to that adopted child just as if you are born in the United States to an American citizen or you are born in the United States, you are an automatic American citizen; and most certainly if you are born overseas, but if your parents are citizens, you are an automatic citizen of the United States. You don't need any extra paperwork done on your behalf because we believe the act of adoption should be treated the same way as the act of birth. We believe this right should be transferred to orphan children adopted overseas.

Right now, there is a little bit of a glitch in the law that is not allowing this. This act would correct that.

I will finally end with one of my most wonderful memories of my time in the Senate, which was in Faneuil Hall in Boston with Senator Kennedy and with Congressman Delahunt, when we, on one special day, were able to swear in as citizens of the United States thousands of children who had been waiting to become citizens, having been adopted by American families. That was a very proud moment of mine and something many of us worked on. But this bill will take that to a new level. When families travel overseas to adopt, as my sister and many relatives and friends of Members of Congress took the opportunity to do, at the time the adoption is official in that country, the child becomes an automatic citizen of the United States, which is a great benefit.

As I grow older in my life, I realize what an extraordinary privilege it is to be a citizen of the United States of America. So as our families adopt, that citizenship will be automatically transferred to their adopted children.

So I thank you. Again, it is the Foreign Adopted Children Equality Act I am speaking about this morning and introducing for consideration of the body the Families for Orphans Act.

Thank you, Madam President. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I rise to introduce a bill called the Families for Orphans Act that Senator Inhofe and I are sponsoring.

We are very fortunate, indeed, to have a Secretary of State who is quite knowledgeable about this subject. The office we seek to create would be housed within the Department of State under the watchful eye of Secretary Hillary Clinton, who did so much work on this subject when she was a Member of the Senate and even prior to her service in the Senate as First Lady of both Arkansas and the United States. So I am particularly happy we would be recommending what is, I think, a very appropriate establishment of an office within the Office of the Secretary of State.

This bill has been discussed for several years here. We have had several opportunities for debate on the floor. But a great coalition has come together, representing advocates for orphans around the world, to come together in a unified way to make a strong argument that this kind of office should indeed be established. There are some very compelling reasons why this should be.

First of all, right now in our system, there is no coordination in the Office of the Secretary of State or in the Department of State for policies related to orphans. This is an alarming situation because the number of orphans is growing exponentially in the world due to an increase in conflicts in many parts of the world; severe droughts and natural disasters that are causing families to be separated, children from adults; and the AIDS epidemic. Some people have referred to it as a factory that produces orphans. And you can understand the nature of that disease.

So the actions we take relative to trying to get a more coordinated policy are very important, and that is what this bill seeks to do.

It is, I think, understood among all Members of this body--I do not even hear one dissenting voice--that the most appropriate place for children to grow up is in a family.

We think there are over 130 million orphans in the world who have been deprived for whatever reason--death or war or famine or disease-- of their right to belong to a family. It is our obligation as the leaders of the world to try to find the best possible substitute family for these children.

Children don't do a very good job of raising themselves. That is a virtual impossibility. Our efforts, unfortunately, dealing with children have been focused on their survival, on just getting medical care and health care and food and nutrition. I don't think we are doing enough as a government to focus on reuniting children with whatever extended family might be possible for them to be raised by, and then looking out somewhere beyond the extended family opportunity to domestic families who would take in that child and their siblings. We most certainly have not made the kind of effort I think is appropriate and is a ready source of loving arms in families in terms of the international community that would like to step up and adopt many children who are unable to find families in their own countries. That is basically what this office would do.

It would coordinate efforts by the aid and development community that, as I said, are currently focused on nutrition, housing, education, and medical care, and would refocus efforts on that, plus reunification of families and then adoption opportunities.

First, as I said, the U.S. programs are disconnected. Secondly, the United States, right now, in our opinion, does not engage in enough proactive diplomacy on this issue. Third, the United States should be able to advise and support other countries in the development of their own child welfare systems. We know we have made so many mistakes in the United States. We hate to see countries making similar mistakes. Some of those mistakes would be terminating parental rights, not being aggressive enough in seeking placement within extended families, separating siblings in placement, and then, the worst of all--if those things aren't bad enough--the worst of all, leaving children who have had their parental rights terminated basically stuck in limbo for 10 or 12 or 14, and in some extreme cases, 18 years in foster care where they never have a permanent parent or a permanent family to call their own.

I would remind my colleagues, because I continue to remind myself, that a child is never too old to need a parent. We all think of adoption as adopting infants or toddlers or school-aged children, but I would suggest to this body and to those listening that you are never too old to need a father or a mother. At the age of 54, I continue to talk to my parents regularly. They continue to give me advice and counsel. I have been blessed to have grandparents well into my adult life. The thought of a child growing up at any age--18, 20, 5, 12-- without any permanent attachment to a family is tragic. The fact is there are methods and resources we can bring to bear to change that outcome for the millions of orphans who are in the world in our own country and around the world. That is what this office does.

The primary functions will be to act as a primary adviser to the Secretary of State and to the President to provide diplomatic representation, to develop an evidence-based, comprehensive global strategy, to support foreign governments through sound policy and technical assistance, to develop best practices with cultural sensitivity, and to support in-country family preservation, reunification, and permanency as primary solutions, using domestic adoption and international adoption as basically the last possibilities.

One of the most important things in the bill is to conduct a census because we don't know how many orphans there are in the world and in what countries. Until we get a handle on the numbers, it is very hard to find appropriate solutions and to mobilize the world community to act.

I contend there are millions and millions and millions of families who are able and willing and ready to take in orphans, to build their family through adoption, to add to the blessing of biological children, children who have come to their families through adoption. I have had personal experience myself with that issue. I am excited about the possibility of coordinating this effort and can think of no better person than Secretary Hillary Clinton to provide the leadership to establish this office as the Congress seeks to fund it and provide the resources to make it work.

So that is a description of the Families for Orphans Act. It is a bipartisan bill. We are getting extremely exciting feedback from our colleagues in the House. Representative Diane Watson from California and Representative John Boozman from Arkansas have introduced an identical bill, so we are very encouraged by the work the House has done on this subject and look forward to a quick hearing and quick passage.

Mr. President, I rise to introduce a bill called the Families for Orphans Act that Senator Inhofe and I are sponsoring.

We are very fortunate, indeed, to have a Secretary of State who is quite knowledgeable about this subject. The office we seek to create would be housed within the Department of State under the watchful eye of Secretary Hillary Clinton, who did so much work on this subject when she was a Member of the Senate and even prior to her service in the Senate as First Lady of both Arkansas and the United States. So I am particularly happy we would be recommending what is, I think, a very appropriate establishment of an office within the Office of the Secretary of State.

This bill has been discussed for several years here. We have had several opportunities for debate on the floor. But a great coalition has come together, representing advocates for orphans around the world, to come together in a unified way to make a strong argument that this kind of office should indeed be established. There are some very compelling reasons why this should be.

First of all, right now in our system, there is no coordination in the Office of the Secretary of State or in the Department of State for policies related to orphans. This is an alarming situation because the number of orphans is growing exponentially in the world due to an increase in conflicts in many parts of the world; severe droughts and natural disasters that are causing families to be separated, children from adults; and the AIDS epidemic. Some people have referred to it as a factory that produces orphans. And you can understand the nature of that disease.

So the actions we take relative to trying to get a more coordinated policy are very important, and that is what this bill seeks to do.

It is, I think, understood among all Members of this body--I do not even hear one dissenting voice--that the most appropriate place for children to grow up is in a family.

We think there are over 130 million orphans in the world who have been deprived for whatever reason--death or war or famine or disease-- of their right to belong to a family. It is our obligation as the leaders of the world to try to find the best possible substitute family for these children.

Children don't do a very good job of raising themselves. That is a virtual impossibility. Our efforts, unfortunately, dealing with children have been focused on their survival, on just getting medical care and health care and food and nutrition. I don't think we are doing enough as a government to focus on reuniting children with whatever extended family might be possible for them to be raised by, and then looking out somewhere beyond the extended family opportunity to domestic families who would take in that child and their siblings. We most certainly have not made the kind of effort I think is appropriate and is a ready source of loving arms in families in terms of the international community that would like to step up and adopt many children who are unable to find families in their own countries. That is basically what this office would do.

It would coordinate efforts by the aid and development community that, as I said, are currently focused on nutrition, housing, education, and medical care, and would refocus efforts on that, plus reunification of families and then adoption opportunities.

First, as I said, the U.S. programs are disconnected. Secondly, the United States, right now, in our opinion, does not engage in enough proactive diplomacy on this issue. Third, the United States should be able to advise and support other countries in the development of their own child welfare systems. We know we have made so many mistakes in the United States. We hate to see countries making similar mistakes. Some of those mistakes would be terminating parental rights, not being aggressive enough in seeking placement within extended families, separating siblings in placement, and then, the worst of all--if those things aren't bad enough--the worst of all, leaving children who have had their parental rights terminated basically stuck in limbo for 10 or 12 or 14, and in some extreme cases, 18 years in foster care where they never have a permanent parent or a permanent family to call their own.

I would remind my colleagues, because I continue to remind myself, that a child is never too old to need a parent. We all think of adoption as adopting infants or toddlers or school-aged children, but I would suggest to this body and to those listening that you are never too old to need a father or a mother. At the age of 54, I continue to talk to my parents regularly. They continue to give me advice and counsel. I have been blessed to have grandparents well into my adult life. The thought of a child growing up at any age--18, 20, 5, 12-- without any permanent attachment to a family is tragic. The fact is there are methods and resources we can bring to bear to change that outcome for the millions of orphans who are in the world in our own country and around the world. That is what this office does.

The primary functions will be to act as a primary adviser to the Secretary of State and to the President to provide diplomatic representation, to develop an evidence-based, comprehensive global strategy, to support foreign governments through sound policy and technical assistance, to develop best practices with cultural sensitivity, and to support in-country family preservation, reunification, and permanency as primary solutions, using domestic adoption and international adoption as basically the last possibilities.

One of the most important things in the bill is to conduct a census because we don't know how many orphans there are in the world and in what countries. Until we get a handle on the numbers, it is very hard to find appropriate solutions and to mobilize the world community to act.

I contend there are millions and millions and millions of families who are able and willing and ready to take in orphans, to build their family through adoption, to add to the blessing of biological children, children who have come to their families through adoption. I have had personal experience myself with that issue. I am excited about the possibility of coordinating this effort and can think of no better person than Secretary Hillary Clinton to provide the leadership to establish this office as the Congress seeks to fund it and provide the resources to make it work.

So that is a description of the Families for Orphans Act. It is a bipartisan bill. We are getting extremely exciting feedback from our colleagues in the House. Representative Diane Watson from California and Representative John Boozman from Arkansas have introduced an identical bill, so we are very encouraged by the work the House has done on this subject and look forward to a quick hearing and quick passage.

Mr. President, I ask my colleagues to support passage of S. 1233, the SBIR/STTR Reauthorization Act of 2009, with an amendment from Dr. Coburn and Senator Feingold.

This legislation is important because it reauthorizes two extremely successful programs--the Small Business Innovation Research and Small Business Technology Transfer programs--otherwise known as SBIR and STTR. These programs foster partnerships between small businesses and the Federal Government to develop cutting-edge products and technologies important to our country. The bill makes improvements to these programs that will allow them to work better for small businesses, while contributing to our economy, fulfilling the priority research needs of the Nation, and expanding and diversifying our military's supply base.

The SBIR program expires on July 31, 2009, so time is of the essence for Congress to pass this legislation and get it to President Obama's desk. While we need to act fast, we have not acted in haste. We have given these programs full deliberation with numerous hearings, roundtables, and meetings since 2006, including a hearing on July 12, 2006, a roundtable on August 1, 2007, a roundtable on October 18, 2007, and a roundtable on June 4, 2009. We have also reviewed the nine studies by the National Research Council, and studies by the Government Accountability Office, on the SBIR program since it was last authorized in 2000 to help guide the committee in drafting not only this bill, S. 1233, but also the SBIR and STTR reauthorization bills that the committee adopted unanimously in the 109th Congress, S. 3778, and in the 110th Congress, S. 3362.

The SBIR and STTR programs are two of the very few Federal programs that tap into the scientific and technical community found in America's small businesses. As I noted earlier, these programs foster government- industry partnerships by making competitive awards to firms with the best scientific proposals in response to the research needs of our agencies and by helping to move technologies from the lab to the marketplace or from the lab to insertion in a government program or system.

The SBIR program was designed in 1982 to harness the innovative capacity of America's small businesses to meet the needs of our Federal agencies and

to help grow small, high-tech firms that, in turn, grow local economies all across the Nation. The STTR program was originally created as a pilot program in 1992 to stimulate partnerships between small businesses and nonprofit research institutions, such as universities like LSU and Louisiana Tech.

Since their inception, both programs have exceeded all expectations, playing an unprecedented role in stimulating technological innovation, in allowing small business to meet Federal research and development needs, and in providing seed capital for small business to develop ideas until they are able to attract outside investment.

The SBIR program has awarded more than $24 billion to more than 100,000 projects since it started. Recipients of SBIR and STTR awards have produced more than 85,000 patents and have generated millions of well-paying jobs across all 50 States. Both programs have garnered high praise from well-respected sources, and governments around the world are increasingly adopting SBIR-type programs to encourage innovation in their countries.

In drafting this bill, we had many policy goals and interests to balance. We wanted to improve the diversity of the programs, geographically and otherwise, so that more States and individuals could participate in Federal research and development for our country. We also wanted to maintain a fair playing field so true small businesses could continue to compete for this very small percent of the overall Federal R&D budget. We wanted to encourage exploration of high-risk, cutting-edge research. These goals, along with many others, were taken into consideration in forging this bill. We made a number of important compromises in this legislation--and the result is a fair bill that will maintain the strength of these programs.

To keep these innovation programs strong, the bill reauthorizes the programs for 8 years, as reflected in the amendment by Dr. Coburn, instead of 14 years as adopted by the committee; increases the SBIR program allocation by 1 percent, from 2.5 to 3.5 percent, at all agencies, including the NIH, spread out over 10 years; increases the STTR program allocation from .3 percent to .6 percent spread out over 6 years; makes firms majority owned and controlled by multiple venture capital firms eligible for up to 18 percent of the SBIR funds at NIH and up to 8 percent of the funds at the other agencies; and increases the award guidelines for SBIR and STTR awards from $100,000 to $150,000 for Phase I and from $750,000 to $1 million for Phase II.

The bill also reauthorizes and enhances the Federal and State Technology Partnership Program, or FAST Program, that was created by Senator Bond in 2000, and the Rural Outreach Program, programs that have been very effective in States such as Louisiana and Missouri in increasing the participation of small business in Federal research and development and the start-up of high-tech firms; strengthens the Office of Technology at the SBA so that it has the authority and resources to carry out its duty to oversee the SBIR and STTR programs across the government; streamlines and improves data collection and reporting requirements for the SBIR and STTR programs, including developing metrics for annual evaluations by each participating agency, as reflected in the amendment by Dr. Coburn; helps SBIR and STTR companies move their technologies across the ``valley of death'' between the lab and the marketplace and into products and technologies for the agencies; and addresses ``jumbo'' awards, those awards that have greatly exceeded the $100,000 and $750,000 guidelines for Phase I and Phase II and cut out other businesses.

Reauthorizing these programs will ensure that small businesses continue to play a part in our Federal research and development. Currently, small businesses receive only about 4 percent of Federal research and development dollars despite the fact that they employ nearly 40 percent of America's scientists and engineers, produce more than 14 times more patents than large businesses and universities, and produce patents that are of higher quality and are more than twice as likely to be cited. This legislation will help maintain and improve the role of small businesses in our Federal research and development.

The SBIR and STTR programs have spurred so many amazing technologies. I would just like to share a few of them with you here today. Among the technologies pioneered by SBIR-funded small businesses are a machine that uses lasers and computer cameras to sort and inspect bullets at a much finer level than the human eye can manage, the technology that creates the ``invisible'' condensation trail of the B-2 bomber, a therapeutic drug to treat chronic inflammatory disease, and a nerve gas protection system.

With regard to the bullet sorting technology, developed by CyberNet Systems, a small, women-owned business located in Ann Arbor, MI, and currently in use in Iraq and Afghanistan, that SBIR technology is estimated to have saved taxpayers more than $300 million. Those are real cost savings and tangible technological improvement.

In Louisiana, one company that has had great success in recent years is Network Foundation Technologies, known as NiFTy. I visited this company in Ruston, LA, a rural part of the State, in August 2008 and was extremely impressed. NiFTy used an SBIR grant from the National Science Foundation to develop technology that permits live streaming video over the Internet without using large amounts of bandwidth. They have been particularly successful bringing sporting events live over the Internet. NiFTy has grown to more than 40 employees, many drawn from the ranks of the Louisiana Tech science and engineering programs. These are new, high-paying jobs that have been a strong asset to north Louisiana's economy.

SBIR is a program that helps spur technology research and innovation in areas you would not normally think of as high-tech corridors. Folks think of California or Massachusetts, but not our growing high-tech corridor in rural north Louisiana. LA Tech, UL-Monroe, Grambling University, LSU-Shreveport, and Centenary College are all in that corridor. For those who don't know, Ruston is between Monroe and Shreveport, and LA Tech helps attract good companies because we have good scientists and engineers. With SBIR and STTR, those entrepreneurs started a company.

It is stories such as these that make the SBIR and STTR programs so special to the economic and technological growth of this country. I want to once again thank all those involved for their hard work on this legislation, particularly our ranking member, Senator Snowe, and her staff, as well as Senator Levin and his staff on the Committee on Armed Services, Senator Durbin and his Appropriations staff, and Dr. Coburn and Senator Feingold on the final amendment to the bill. It is my hope that we can now pass this bill in the Senate and work expeditiously with the House to get a bill on President Obama's desk before July 31.

Mr. President, I am proud to honor a group of 92 World War II veterans from all over Louisiana who will travel to Washington, DC on May 16 to visit the various memorials and monuments that recognize the sacrifices of our Nation's invaluable servicemembers.

Louisiana HonorAir, a group based in Lafayette, LA, sponsored this trip to the Nation's Capital. The organization is honoring surviving World War II Louisiana veterans by giving them an opportunity to see the memorials dedicated to their service. The veterans will visit the World War II, Korea, Vietnam, and Iwo Jima memorials. They will also travel to Arlington National Cemetery.

This was the final of four flights Louisiana HonorAir made to Washington, DC, this spring. It is the 17th flight to depart from Louisiana, which has sent more HonorAir flights than any other State to the Nation's Capital.

World War II was one of America's greatest triumphs but was also a conflict rife with individual sacrifice and tragedy. More than 60 million people worldwide were killed, including 40 million civilians, and more than 400,000 American servicemembers were slain during the long war. The ultimate victory over enemies in the Pacific and in Europe is a testament to the valor of American soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines. The years 1941 to 1945 also witnessed an unprecedented mobilization of domestic industry, which supplied our military on two distant fronts.

In Louisiana, there remain today more than 30,000 living WWII veterans, and each one has a heroic tale of achieving the noble victory of freedom over tyranny. This group had 32 veterans who served in the U.S. Army, 16 in the U.S. Air Force, 37 in the Navy, 4 in the Coast Guard, 2 in the Marine Corps, and 1 in WAVES.

Our heroes, many of them from the Shreveport area, trekked the world for their country. They fought in Germany, France, Italy, Africa, Japan, Guam, Bougainville, Guadalcanal, China, Iwo Jima, Okinawa, the Philippines, Tarawa, New Guinea, Korea, Thailand, and Saipan. Their journeys included the invasions of North Africa, Sicily and Normandy, New Georgia, and the Battle of Midway. Their fight for freedom even extended to Iceland and the Marshall and Solomon Islands.

One of our Navy veterans received the Asiatic Pacific Purple Heart, and an Army veteran fought at Normandy and received EAME Campaign and Bronze Service Star medals. Yet another Army veteran fought five major battles of European theatre.

A USMC veteran was one of four brothers serving in the Marines and fought in Guadalcanal, Bougainville, Guam, Saipan, and Okinawa. He lost his twin brother in Guam.

A Navy veteran observed the atomic bomb test at Bikini and was in Tokyo Bay the morning of the Japanese surrender. Another veteran was awarded five naval battle stars for his service in the invasions of Bougainville, Saipan, Iwo Jima, and Okinawa.

I ask the Senate to join me in honoring these 92 veterans, all Louisiana heroes, who visited Washington, and Louisiana HonorAir for making these trips a reality.