Floor Statements

Mr. President, I come to the floor to speak against Coburn amendment No. 596, not the amendment Senator McCain was speaking to, and also to put some personal remarks in the Record in a few minutes. I understand some of my colleagues are here to speak as well, but since I am on the floor, I would like to make a comment about PMA.

I do not know PMA. I don't know the organization. But the Senator from Arizona certainly knows there are processes and ways to get at this other than amending this bill, which has a very tight deadline and is very important to all of the agencies of this Government.

He raises some legitimate points. He is angry. Many of us are angry about this process that has gone too far. But may I remind my colleague from Arizona that this Democratic-led Congress has reduced the number of earmarks by 50 percent, has made every single one transparent, has gone through an open and public process, and none, to my knowledge--on the testimony of the chairman of the committee who is on the floor now--has been put in at any time in a closed-door conference session, which was done routinely when the other side was in charge. While it is not perfect, while investigations must continue to go on and people must be held accountable, the Senator from Arizona knows he is not the only one angry, he is not the only one helping to lead this reform effort. President Obama himself has done a great deal of work on this subject, and we will continue to.

The second point I would like to make as an appropriator and one who does have directed spending in this bill is that since when did every authorizing committee turn out to be perfect in their authorization language? Since when did every bill that goes through every committee come out to a perfect end? We have a long list of bills and authorization programs that did not work, that were ineffective. So since when is it appropriate to come and say every authorization is perfect, but those things that were debated openly in the appropriations committee--testimony given, evidence in support of some of these programs--are all put in sort of a subcategory? I resent that.

This is a balance between authorizers and appropriators. It always has been and probably always will be. What we need to do is get back to a balance, which was completely out of whack when the Republicans were in charge of the budget process. As Democrats are trying, with some of our colleagues' support, to get a handle on this situation, I think the public is at least pleased that we are moving in that direction. We do have a ways to go. I certainly will admit that. With the leadership of Senator Inouye, I think we are making some progress.

Amendment No. 596

On the Coburn amendment No. 596, I rise in opposition to it. It is a difficult amendment to oppose because on its face it seems as if it makes a great deal of sense. In fact, there was a strong vote for it on another bill. But I rise in opposition on this point alone: The amendment calls for everything in the bill to be competitively bid. On its face, it sounds like the right thing to do. Most people do put contracts out for competitive bid in the private sector. But there are any number of times the private sector does not do that. In the public sector, there are any number of reasons--whether it is special intelligence procurement; whether it is in the small business sector; whether it is programs that reach out especially to veterans where there are certain new technologies that have to be sole-sourced and not competitively bid--there are any number. The Senator from Oklahoma knows that very well. He is actually on the Homeland Security Committee and, I believe, the subcommittee that has jurisdiction. Mr. President, you and I serve on that committee with him. There is a way to go about narrowing or making sure that most of the Federal procurement is done through competitive bid. Not on this bill. Not this day. Not at this time.

It is not as if there are not some good arguments, but that is the problem with these amendments. They are not here to try to change and reform, contrary to what the others talk about. They are here to stop, to delay, to derail, to cause something to fail. They are not here in a constructive way.

That is why I am urging my colleagues to oppose Coburn amendment No. 596, to vote down the McCain and others amendments that have been offered--not because they do not have some kernels of truth in what they are trying to do, but this is not the time to do it and this is not the bill.

Finally, because I know my colleague from Missouri is here to speak, and others, I wish to take a moment, if I may, to pay tribute to a young man who worked for me for many years--actually, for 12 years.

(The remarks of Ms. LANDRIEU are printed in today's Record under ``Morning Business.'')

Madam President, I wish to pay tribute to a young man who worked for me for many years--actually, for 12 years. He has been a very vital part of the Landrieu staff. He is retired. He left our office after 12 years of wonderful service.

Jason Matthews started out with me as an assistant in my first campaign for the Senate as literally a young kid right out of college. He worked his way up. He had no real political connections other than just a passion for the work, a heart for people, and a good mind. He came to Washington with me 12 years ago and started out, maybe even answering the phones some days, and worked his way up as military LA and then as legislative director and then general counsel and then left our office with the title chief of staff.

Besides serving with such great humor and a great mind for policy and, as I said, a great heart for people, he served with great cheer through very difficult times that our office and many of my colleagues from Louisiana have been through considering the storms of the past recent years and the extra work our staffs have had to go through because of them. Jason led that effort with good humor. Because of him, many wonderful accomplishments in our office have been achieved. One I will mention, and I will share the rest for the record, is Louisiana's longstanding effort to achieve some balance and fairness in the distribution of oil and gas royalties and revenues which interior States have enjoyed since 1927 and coastal States have not because of the peculiarity in the law. Jason helped us fight a 10-year battle and finally was successful.

The people of all of Louisiana will be grateful for many years for his service. He has led the people of Louisiana to great achievements. He has served the people of our country well. I wanted to pay tribute to him today and to wish him the best as he goes on to future endeavors here in the Washington, DC, area.

Madam President, I rise to speak on the underlying bill just for a moment. I know some of my colleagues are on the floor of the Senate, and I will be very brief.

I come to the floor to support the underlying bill and also to give a few brief remarks about the legislative branch, which I chair, for the record. The legislative branch in this bill is funded at $4.4 billion-- not an insignificant amount of money but very small relative to the overall bill. There is a $43 million increase over last year, which is an 11-percent increase, which would seem on the face of it rather significant, so I thought I would like to explain.

It is more than the cost of living, more than inflation, but there are three very good reasons we thought--both Republican and Democrat on our committee--that this was the right thing to do. First of all, building up Congress's oversight responsibilities at this time is critical. We have seen much of the scandal and corruption and unregulated situations that have led us to the place we are. Congress needs to make sure we are doing a better job with our inspector general offices, with our general oversight, particularly because we are stepping up so much additional spending for stimulus and investment. Our committee thought that was the responsible thing to do, to actually invest in greater oversight. So about 38 percent of this increase is related to that.

Second, there is a backlog of life safety issues related to this great Capitol complex. Trust me, there is no money in here for carpet or fancy lighting or extra offices for anyone. This is for basically asbestos removal--which can be life threatening, as you know, and cause serious harm to those people who work in this Capitol, both our staffs and the workforce. That is an unmet need. There is over $1 billion of unmet needs. This bill attempts to just deal with some immediate situations.

Finally, now that the Capitol Visitor Center is open, there are some additional security requirements of our Capitol Police. This project was started many years ago. It was supported by both Democrats and Republicans. It is now open, was dedicated recently, but we have to operate it appropriately. We have to make sure it is secure, not just for ourselves and our staff, but for the millions of visitors who come. There is some increased funding for Capitol Police that reflects that this Capitol Visitor Center is the greatest expansion of this building in over 100 years. It was not just a small addition, it was quite a large addition, and we need that extra security.

Finally, there is a full request, that was met, by the Library of Congress to provide new modern technology for the visually impaired. It is something that was a high priority for the community of the blind and the visually impaired, millions of Americans who have no access to books as we normally read them but need these digital talking

books. Not only does it help the Library of Congress but ensures every library in America, including school libraries, has access, so children who do not have their sight, and adults, can read and remain part of this economy.

Those are the reasons this bill has been expanded by 11 percent. I hope my colleagues understand. We have gotten pretty much broad-based support.

As I said Madam President, 38 percent of the total increase goes towards increased staffing for the Government Accountability Office and the Congressional Budget Office to allow for greater oversight of the Federal Government. The help of these agencies is more critical than ever during this time of economic uncertainty and national crisis. GAO and CBO intend to beef up their staffing levels to meet Congress's needs as we tackle the many critical issues facing us today.

Nearly 23 percent of the overall fiscal year 2009 increase goes to the Architect of the Capitol for fire and life safety projects in the Capitol Complex--including $56 million for asbestos removal and structural repairs in the utility tunnels which provide steam and chilled water throughout the entire complex.

Congress is facing a tremendous backlog of structural problems in our aging infrastructure here on Capitol Hill which has grown to over $1.4 billion. This bill provides a small but much-needed step towards addressing this backlog. Many of our buildings in the Capitol Complex lack the adequate fire and life safety requirements to keep Congress in compliance with health and safety regulations. As I said, I am proud of the funding included in this bill which will address these inadequacies and help make the Capitol safer for our staff and for our visitors. It would be irresponsible not to tackle these problems now--we will just be kicking them down the road where they will be more expensive and more difficult to repair.

The bill includes funding for the United States Capitol Police to hire and train additional personnel to provide security for the now open Capitol Visitor Center. The CVC which opened December 5 is a huge success and a much-needed addition to our Complex providing security, educational opportunities, restaurant facilities and many other amenities to the millions of visitors who arrive on our doorsteps each year. The bill also provides funding to fully implement the merger of the Library of Congress Police force with the Capitol Police. This long-awaited merger is essential to maintaining streamlined security throughout the Capitol Complex. Quite simply, this bill will provide the resources needed to the Capitol Police to effectively perform their required missions without putting more on their plate than they can do.

This bill fully funds the Library of Congress, including the Library's request for the Books for the Blind and Physically Handicapped. The Library's fiscal year 2009 budget includes $29 million to move forward on the Digital Talking Book for the blind project. This project is a high priority for this Congress and for the blind community. It is vital that the blind receive uninterrupted access to something the rest of us take for granted--books and other reading materials that allow us to work and learn. This bill supports that important goal allowing this project to proceed on schedule and provide more titles than originally anticipated. This is a key issue of fairness which we can and must address now.

The funding in this bill puts the Legislative Branch on solid footing for the future and invests in the right priorities. We should strongly support it.

Mr. President, Senate Standing Rule XXVI requires each committee to adopt rules to govern the procedures of the committee and to publish those rules in the Congressional Record not later than March 1 of the first year of each Congress. Today, February 12, 2009, the Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship held a business meeting during which the members of the committee unanimously adopted rules to govern the procedures of the committee. Consistent with Standing Rule XXVI, I am submitting for printing in the Congressional Record a copy of the rules of the Senate Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship for the 111th Congress.

Mr. President, this month America reflects on a series of notable birthdays and anniversaries, including President Abraham Lincoln turning 200, and the NAACP celebrating its centennial.

In Louisiana, we are honoring a special birthday that is unique to our State. The famous Zulu Social Aid & Pleasure Club will enjoy its 100th year.

The Zulus have a special place in Louisiana's history, which is as colorful as the signature Zulu decorative coconuts. For 100 years they have been an integral part of our Mardi Gras festivities and New Orleans culture. Dubbing themselves ``the everyman club,'' the Zulu Social Aid & Pleasure club is composed of African-American men from all walks of life.

While there are several stories about how the Zulus first came about, we know they made their first appearance in the Mardi Gras parade in 1909 when William Story led the Zulus as King.

That year the group wore raggedy pants and had a Jubilee-singing quartet in front of and behind King Story.

Just 6 years later, the Zulus used their first float. It was rather modestly decorated with palmetto leaves and moss. Of course, this first float gave rise to the more lavishly decorated Zulu floats that we are accustomed to seeing today.

Since 1916, the Zulus have given the first official Mardi Gras toast to King and Queen Zulu at the Geddes and Moss Funeral Home on Washington Avenue.

Since 1910, the Zulus have been famous for the Zulu Coconut, often called the ``Golden Nugget,'' which they throw from floats during Mardi Gras parades. The tradition developed, and they began scraping and painting the coconuts--now an indelible part of New Orleans Mardi Gras culture.

In January, I was honored to receive from Zulu president Charles Hamilton, Jr., a special Zulu coconut as gift for President Obama. Mr. Hamilton traveled to Washington by train to hand deliver the gift, which I hope to present to the President very soon. It was hand-painted by Gretna artist Keith Eccles and incorporates Mardi Gras colors and themes with the distinctive red, white and blue of Washington, DC. Mr. Hamilton has said that he wanted to give President Obama a piece of New Orleans and Zulu history. I can't think of a better representation.

In addition to the Zulu coconut, the Zulus' contribution to New Orleans is well-documented. The group proudly participates in the Adopt-A-School program and contributes to Southern University's scholarship fund. The Zulus also give Christmas baskets to needy families each holiday season.

Over the years, many famous Louisianians have taken part in the Zulu tradition. In 1949, Louis Armstrong was King Zulu. And in 1988, New Orleans native Desiree Rogers--now the White House social secretary for President Obama--served as Zulu Queen.

This year, that proud tradition will be carried on by Zulu King Tyrone Mathieu, Sr., and Zulu Queen Sheila Barnes Mathieu.

I congratulate the many generations of Zulus who have left their mark on Mardi Gras and our great city of New Orleans. I ask the Senate to join me in wishing the Zulus a happy 100th birthday--and all the best in the next 100 years.

Mr. President, I come to the floor today to pay tribute to a great American who we lost earlier this month.

Millard Fuller, the founder and former president of Habitat for Humanity, was a personal friend to me and many Members of Congress. Many of us worked closely with Millard Fuller, particularly in the last 15 years of his extraordinary leadership.

I wish to take a minute today to pay tribute to Millard and his family--his wife Linda, his son Christopher, his daughters Kim, Faith and Georgia and his nine grandchildren. He has left behind these loved ones who will carry on his important work. Linda was a cofounder of Habitat for Humanity, and a driving force in the creation of this organization that has touched the lives of literally millions of people around the world.

When I think of where Millard Fuller died unexpectedly earlier this month, near the small town of Americus, GA, I cannot help but be reminded of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, one of the most inspiring documents ever written. This declaration reminds us that when we speak about human rights, we must remember that the recognition of these rights begins in small places close to home, places so small that they can't necessarily be seen on maps. It is in these small places that people long for dignity and respect.

Sometimes in the Senate, we get carried away with grand visions of universal rights and broad, sweeping policies to protect these rights. But when you get right down to it, our visions are carried out in our own neighborhoods, in our own courthouses and in very small places like Americus, GA.

By the age of 29, Millard Fuller had made his first million dollars. He was a man with a great mind and extraordinary leadership abilities, who could have made a great fortune for his wife, his children and himself. But instead, with his wife's urging, Millard Fuller and Linda decided to take the multiple talents God had given them and refocus their lives on Christian service. They set their hearts on making a difference in the world, and the result was an organization that is one of the greatest nonprofits I have come to know.

In 1968, Millard Fuller and Linda began a Christian ministry on a farm in southwest Georgia where they built decent housing for low- income families using volunteer labor and donations. This concept was expanded into what is now Habitat for Humanity International and the Fuller Center for Housing. By 1981, Habitat had affiliates in 14 States, and was carrying out its mission to build homes with volunteer labor, ensuring that these homes were affordable to the poor and those of modest means.

Many Senators have commented privately and publicly about his extraordinary organization, and President Carter once remarked that Millard Fuller was one of the greatest talents he had ever known-- serious words coming from a President. President Carter was a personal friend of Millard Fuller, and in 1984, he became a Habitat volunteer, giving his name and resources to Millard Fuller's organization. President and Mrs. Carter became the faces of Habitat for Humanity, and would attract thousands of people to volunteer during the Jimmy Carter Work Project, an annual week-long effort to build Habitat homes all over the world. By 1992, Habitat had a presence in 92 nations.

I was very fortunate to have met Millard Fuller. He was an inspiration to me and, as I have said, to many Senators. Many of us come into our young adulthood and say we want to make a difference in the world, and we all try in our various ways. Many of us never quite accomplish that. But Millard Fuller did. He had an impact on the world, and the world will remember his life and his vision. The world will remember that in this great land of wealth and opportunity, Millard Fuller thought it was shameful that people were living without decency and respect.

He said it is not what Jesus would want. It is not what the Bible teaches. It is not what those of the Christian faith believe. He built Habitat on a simple principle that the poor are not lazy, but very industrious--that if the poor were given a chance, they could accomplish a great deal.

In order to occupy a Habitat house, the family who is going to live there gets to build the home with their neighbors, with the kind of old-fashioned, rock-ribbed community values of pitching in, building a home, and building upon that solid foundation.

Not only was it Millard Fuller's vision to give families a decent place to live, he wanted to give them something to own. Owning a home paves the way for being able to finance against the equity in that home to build a business, to send children to college, and to establish a future.

I want people to know that paying tribute to Millard Fuller is about more than just building homes. Millard Fuller's life was about building hope, building a future and literally changing the course of life-- creating an upward trajectory for people around the world.

I don't believe that Millard Fuller knew what an impact he had. I only hope we will remember him often. And when we do, as leaders in the Senate and the House, as Governors, and in the White House, we will recommit ourselves to realizing the simple principles that Millard Fuller lived every day.

After Hurricanes Katrina and Rita and the devastation that hit the gulf coast, Habitat was one of the first organizations on the ground. Millard and his wife Linda came to Louisiana and helped us to start building on higher ground. They built not just in the New Orleans area and along the gulf coast of Mississippi, but also in Shreveport, LA, where they joined with a group of local leaders to start new organizations that built homes for people in northwest Louisiana.

I would like to read one personal testimony from Cherie Ashley, who is the executive director of Habitat for Humanity in Northwest Louisiana. She and her family were beneficiaries of this work. Cherie was originally from New Orleans, but the flood waters of Katrina forced her out. She fled to Shreveport with her family. She said:

I was blessed with one of the first of the three homes that

was built in Allendale, in Northwest Louisiana. Mr. Fuller

was passionate about the work he did and he was passionate

about eliminating poverty across this nation. The Fuller

Center for Housing and Habitat for Humanity of Northwest

Louisiana have provided me and my children the opportunity to

regain stability and normalcy after such a life altering

event--Hurricane Katrina. I am not just the Executive

Director for Habitat for Humanity of Northwest Louisiana,

most importantly, I am a proud Habitat homeowner, and that's

what God--through Millard Fuller--did for me.

He most certainly was a man who lived up to God's calling. I believe we would do ourselves well to remember him often, to thank Linda and his family for the tremendous sacrifice they made, and to honor him by continuing his work.

I ask unanimous consent that his obituaries from the New York Times and the Atlanta Journal-Constitution be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I would like to inform Members that the Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship will meet in the Reception room, immediately off the Floor to conduct a vote on the Committee's budget and rules for the 111th Congress. The Committee will meet immediately after the first roll call vote occurring on Thursday, February 12, 2009.

Madam President, reserving the right to object----

Would the majority leader allow me to speak for up to 5 minutes after Senator Grassley?

Mr. President, I have a great deal of respect for the Senator from Iowa. He has served with such distinction in this body. However, I have to rise to say that while he is sincere in his opinion, I am very proud that 61 Senators cast a vote for the opposite view; that view being that the failed policies of the past were just that, failed, and have left America wanting.

We have a very serious economic crisis that is not going to be solved by the same old tired, failed, bankrupt policies as part of what the Senator expressed continues to want to carry out--policies that give untargeted tax cuts to those at the top of the tax bracket and hope and pray that it trickles down to everyone else; policies that empower the individual at the expense of the collective effort, and other policies that have left this country wanting. That is why 61 Senators came to the floor of the Senate and rejected those old notions and set a new course. Our President, with his election and now his leadership since that election, is leading us to adopt new strategies; a collective energy, recognizing that individuals alone cannot, no matter how individually empowered, build the highways and infrastructure necessary or transform the economy in a new way that can be invigorating and hopeful to the American people who are in desperate need of a new course.

So I wished to come to the floor, though, to briefly speak about some of the things that are in the underlying bill we voted on to invoke cloture that have to do with small business: expanding it, highlighting it, focusing on small business. Before I do that with my colleague, Senator Snowe, my good friend from Maine, let me also mention it is my hope, as this bill moves through the process of conference, that the House Members and the Senate Members, along with the President and the administration, can give a bit more focus on the infrastructure portions of this bill. It is something I think the Presiding Officer, Democrats, and Republicans have said: If the bill was light in anything, it may be light on the infrastructure piece. That is not to say that not a lot of good effort has gone into that, but perhaps we could make the bill stronger, which it has gotten, in my view, stronger at every step. Whether it is highways, waterways, high-speed rail, flood control, wetlands, coastal restoration, help with sewer and water, broadband, transformation of our electric grid, and, yes, investing in the infrastructure of science and technology in this country, we are woefully behind.

So I am hoping--one final point on that and then I will get to our colloquy on small businesses in a minute--I am hoping our Governors, Republican and Democratic alike, will take this as it is intended: an opportunity to help them balance their ships of State as we move through these rocky and rough waters over the next 12 to 18 months; that they take this money in the spirit it was given: to be a partner with them and the mayors and county commissioners, and in my State, parish officials, to help keep people employed, to help target this effort to where we can create the kind of jobs people most certainly need.

One of the best parts of the debate this weekend and one of the most moving was when Barbara Boxer, and then again today Byron Dorgan, put the picture of the 1,000 people in line for 35 firefighter jobs. I wish to remind my friends on the other side that people don't want speeches, they want jobs. If 1,000 people line up for 35 firefighter jobs, that is what this bill is intended to do.

It leads me to the colloquy Senator Snowe and I wished to come to the floor to engage in about the underlying bill and some of the advantages and provisions this bill has for small business.

First, let me thank the Senator for her leadership over the years as a chair and ranking member of this important committee. Let me also acknowledge the great leadership in recent years of Senator John Kerry, the chairman of the Small Business Committee. Particularly in regards to this particular bill, working out some bipartisan provisions that we could include, I wish to thank Senator Durbin and his staff who worked closely with us.

I wish to begin my brief colloquy with a statement that might be surprising to some who are listening, that 40 percent of all the capital in the country for small business, basically, comes through or touches the Small Business Administration. That is how important this small department of only 2,000--it used to have 3,000 people--it was terribly, and unjustifiably, in my view, cut under the previous administration. I wish to acknowledge that Senator Snowe has been a fierce and effective advocate. In the case of those cuts, she argued, sometimes successfully and sometimes not, those cuts shouldn't take place. Nonetheless, the Presiding Officer has started a small business that turned into a large business, and he knows that one of the great challenges right now is access to capital and affordable capital. We are not talking about access to being able to use a credit card at 21 percent or 15 percent. That is not affordable capital. We are not talking about mortgaging your house only to watch the value fall by 50 percent. We are talking about things that could really spur the flowing of the capital markets in this country.

Briefly, in the underlying bill we voted cloture on, we have eliminated the fees associated with the 504 economic development program, the 7(a) program, and the 504 program.

Lending is down by 40 to 60 percent, depending on the State. In Louisiana, we are down 60 percent. We think by eliminating these fees, it may spur banks to lend money and borrowers to come forward for this access to capital.

For over 50 years, the SBA's lending programs provided critical financing to small business owners who could not get affordable loans in the conventional market. In the wake of the financial crisis and this recession/depression, the SBA loan programs have not filled the void left by increasingly tight markets for conventional bank loans. We hope some of the provisions in this bill will help reduce that trend.

The fee waivers supported by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and other business groups are very encouraging by the results when we did this the last time, after the 9/11 attacks--what that might mean to spur economic growth in this country in the next few months and years to come.

Let me also mention that in the underlying bill, we specifically targeted microloans. This might also be surprising to many, but the microloan program provides very small loans--on average about $13,000 per loan. That seems to be very small, but sometimes I think we get caught up in billions and billions and we forget that sometimes $5,000, or $10,000, or $20,000 is all it takes to get a good idea off the ground and to help create jobs in America.

I want to say, since so many Government programs get a bad rap and a black eye, this program--in large measure, my colleague from Maine helped to start it in 1992--the microloan program has been one of the most successful programs to date, having just one loss in its 18-year history, just one loss. Microloans are made to the smallest of businesses, typically home-based businesses, startups, newly established or small businesses. The program has always also been a great way to meet the needs of minority women and rural small business owners.

The final part of this bill I want to mention before turning it over to my colleague is the venture capital funds that will also stimulate the flow of venture capital to emerging small businesses by providing flexibility for participants in the SBA's Small Business Investment Company programs, SBIC programs, which have been successful. The language in the underlying bill will give them the flexibility to even be more successful. The occupant of the chair knows, Virginia's economy is growing and being spurred by new investment in small business. The Chair has had, as Governor of that State, a

front-row seat. These are some of the things we have put in the underlying bill.

I will mention one final item. The good Senator from Maryland, Ben Cardin, secured on the floor of the Senate, in addition to the work we had done originally on this proposal, a surety bond amendment, which was passed by a pretty overwhelming vote in the Senate, which will help small businesses secure--particularly in the areas of construction-- those surety bonds that will enable them to be part of this new stimulus package.

I am proud of the work we have done. Again, if it can be improved in conference, I would be open to that.

I would like to turn the final part of this presentation over to the good Senator from Maine for comments about the financing portion, as well as some other portions I spoke about.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, if my colleague will yield for a moment, I want to mention as we close, I am so happy and excited about the President's nominee for the Small Business Administration. I had the opportunity to meet her for the first time today.

I ask my colleague from Maine, who is actually very familiar with this nominee, and she is from Maine, if the Senator would share a word or two about the particular qualifications of this nominee as we get ready to start this process. Through the Chair to my friend from Maine, it is indicative of the President's focus and his interest and his understanding by giving us such a quality nominee to consider.

Mr. President, I thank the Senator for her testimony in regard to Karen Mills and will commit as the new chair of this committee to move her nomination through with dispatch.

I will say before I give closing remarks, a word to banks and credit unions, particularly community banks, that I am intent in a leadership position on this committee to have the SBA be a better partner to community banks and credit unions as we really leverage the power of the SBA. Too often in the past, it has been seen as a problem or too complicated or too bureaucratic. I am looking forward to making that a much smoother, more powerful, muscular partnership so that our small businesses in America can have a model, the best in the world. It is going to be exciting to work on.

I thank the Senator from Maine and look forward to having a very strong partnership with her in the months ahead.

Is there any further business?

Mr. President, I agree with the Senator from Maine. I was happy to join with her in a letter to the President urging him to take this step. Hopefully, he will consider that request and give it every consideration.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that following the votes on Tuesday, February 10, in relation to H.R. 1, the American Recovery and Investment Act, the Senate recess until 2:15 p.m. for the weekly party conference lunches.

While we had a lull in the offering of amendments, I thought I would come to the floor and speak about two amendments I would like to have considered later on this evening as we continue with this debate on this important bill. First let me say that there are some really exciting opportunities in this bill to move our country forward, to give people hope and confidence that this Government finally, after many years of inaction and negligence, is ready to act and try to be as focused as possible on creating and sustaining jobs, strengthening our financial sector, and thawing the capital markets, not just for what it means to Americans but for the world.

A group of us have been trying through the week to reach out to Members on the other side and to live up to the call of the new President to try to build this bill from the center, to try to build common ground, to open dialog, to try to reach some accommodation so we can do this together. I have found in my time in the Senate that some of the best things that have been accomplished have been accomplished in that way.

I wanted to speak for a minute and publicly thank Senator Nelson for his leadership, the Senator from Nebraska, who has worked so very hard on this. I would like to also mention others who have been part of this effort--Senator Bayh and Senator Tester, Senator Lincoln, Senator Webb, some of the new Senators who have joined us, Senators who have now several terms of experience, Senator Carper, Senator Begich from Alaska, and others, Senator McCaskill. I have been part of this group as well, working to try to forge some common ground.

When this bill came out of the Senate Appropriations Committee--and I am a member of that committee--we were told that there could be some work done on the floor to improve it. Our group took that to heart and said: Could we trim out some of the fat, add in some muscle, add in some focus, and reach out to the other side?

There were Republicans who voted for the bill in committee. The ranking member, Thad Cochran, gave support to the chairman, Senator Inouye, and said: I am moving this bill forward in an effort to see if we can improve it.

We have made some significant improvements on the floor over the last week. It has been tough--late nights, early mornings--but we are going to continue that work. I am proud of the work of this centrist group, which is getting larger, not smaller, Members who come from the east coast and the west, the South and the Midwest, across geographic bounds, working with Members on the other side. The Senators from Maine have been particularly helpful, both on Appropriations and Finance. There have been other Senators I have enjoyed working with on many issues, whether it is coastal issues or Corps of Engineers issues. Hopefully, this centrist group will come together.

Unfortunately, there are a few Members--and maybe a few too many on this floor--who, no matter what showed up, no matter if it was the perfect bill, would still say no because they don't want to move forward. I hope that a majority of us would heed the President's call and pull together and try our very best to move this debate forward.

In the last minute and a half I have, I want to mention two things that could slightly improve. Again, there are some good things in this underlying bill, but I still think we need to cut out a great deal. Hopefully, we can come to some arrangement. It needs to be a substantial adjustment so that we can take out some fat and add some muscle. As we are adding some muscle, I suggest that we add some infrastructure funding in a broader array.

We all think highways are a great way to get people back to work, invest in brick and mortar and highways. But we also think that about revolving-loan funds, particularly for smaller cities and parishes and counties in other States, parishes in Louisiana--we have a huge backlog--waterways. And this is what I want to stress for the last minute or so.

I realize when you poll, highways always poll very high because we are always on them, roads and highways. In some parts of the country, mass transit and high-speed rail will poll well, particularly on the northeast corridor, because a lot of people ride trains.

But I come from a place where there is a lot of water. Where I come from, there are levees. Sometimes they hold and sometimes they don't. But not many people get on the other side of those levees, so they don't always see these waterways that make our commerce move, that support the manufacturing base and the business base of this country. Sometimes we forget that we need to invest in not just highways and not just rail, which is very important, but also our waterways. That is why I have an amendment pending that will add a billion dollars to the Corps of Engineers for restoration and water projects. I hope we can take that up.

I commend Byron Dorgan, the chairman of our committee, for adding $4.6 billion because there was nothing in the bill when it started, and not just for Louisiana but for Illinois, for Washington State, for Florida. These ports, inland waterways, are very important. There is a backlog of $61 billion. I know there is about $15 to $20 billion in the pipeline, but there is $61 billion in backlog. I think adding a little bit more for the Corps of Engineers and restoration projects for the Great Lakes, for the Gulf of Mexico, and for other areas would be important.

I also think it is not just hiring welders and carpenters and construction managers that is important, but some of our Members have said we should invest in the National Science Foundation because hiring a scientist is a good thing to build a new experiment or to build a new way. It is not just building brick and mortar. So the National Science Foundation, in my view, is very much part of the new infrastructure of America because it is not just about steel and concrete and shipbuilding and fabrication. The new infrastructure is also about intellectual property, and it is also about strengthening our scientific investments.

Our group feels that a broader infrastructure piece that would not only be about highways but about waterways, about high-speed rail, about investing in the scientific base of our country would be an important investment to make.

I know my 5 minutes has passed. I know we have a vote at about 5 o'clock. I look forward to working with my colleagues in a team spirit to see if, as we progress, one or two of these amendments could be offered.

I thank the Chair and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I come to the floor today to speak on behalf of a program which I believe has been extremely helpful in helping

rural/urban communities in my state of Louisiana. I would also like to discuss a commonsense improvement to the program which I believe will allow these and other communities nationwide to be at the cutting edge of 21st century innovation and research. In particular, to help spur economic development in distressed communities, the Congress enacted the Empowerment Zone and Enterprise Community, EZ and EC, Program in 1993. In 2000, the Community Renewal Tax Relief Act further expanded this initiative by authorizing 40 Renewal Communities, RCs, and 9 more EZs. Overall, the RC/EZ/EC Initiative provides these designated communities with tax incentives, grants, loans, and technical assistance to encourage investment in communities that have experienced severe economic decline. According to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, HUD, which oversees the RC and EZ program, RC tax incentives are worth approximately $5.6 billion to eligible businesses of all sizes in Renewal Communities. EZ tax incentives are worth approximately $5.3 billion to small and large businesses in Empowerment Zones. In general, the tax incentives encourage businesses to open, expand, and to hire local residents. The administrative leaders of each Renewal Community and Empowerment Zone work closely with the Federal Government, business, and local community representatives to implement strategic plans to improve social/economic conditions throughout the designated areas.

As I mentioned, this program is of particular interest to Louisiana as we have two Urban Renewal Communities, in New Orleans and Ouachita Parish, and also have two Rural Renewal Communities, in central Louisiana and in northern Louisiana. These designations have been extremely helpful in attracting businesses to these areas of my state and in encouraging existing businesses to expand their operations. However, the designations are set to terminate in December 31, 2009. I remain committed to work with my Senate colleagues next year to update and reauthorize such programs as this program. That is because this program helps distressed communities nationwide and is a key engine to spur public-private partnerships in rural/urban areas.

While we often think of technology companies locating in areas such as Silicon Valley, California or the Research Triangle in North Carolina, Congress should not forget the role that rural small businesses and universities play in fostering innovation and development. In Louisiana, we have multiple universities participating in these cutting edge research programs and collaborating with local small businesses. Louisiana Technical University in Ruston, Louisiana, for example has grown into a leader in scientific research at a crucial time for the region. This is because the Barksdale Air Force base located in Shreveport, which is 70 miles from Ruston, is looking to secure the permanent Cyber Command. This command would protect the United States from cyber warfare. All of the universities, colleges, and parishes in this area, including the University of Louisiana-- Monroe, Grambling State University, and Louisiana State University-- Shreveport are collaborating on securing this command, which could mean thousands of jobs for the region. So big cities are not the only areas in the country that have growing technology sectors--rural communities also have these industries and would benefit from this commonsense correction to the program. Many of these rural communities are located in RC areas so it is important to support this program.

In the next Congress, as I mentioned, we will work to reauthorize the RC/EZ program. As we do this, I believe that, among other corrections, we must address one glaring problem with these programs. That is the reason why I am filing this legislation today as it makes an important correction to this program. I am pleased that my colleague, Congressman Rodney Alexander is introducing the companion bill in the House of Representatives. All three programs share the definition for a ``qualified business'' used for an EZ Business, which is Section 1397C of the Internal Revenue Code. For the EC and RC programs, this was legislated by Congress by the use of a substitution of ``Renewal Community'' or ``Enterprise Community'' for ``Empowerment Zone'' in the relevant section of the Internal Revenue Code, which is Section 1394(b)(2)(A) for the EC program and Section 1400G for the RC program. Under this definition, generally any trade or business can be a qualified business; however, there is an exception for a business that consists primarily to develop or hold intangibles for sale or license. This clear distinction between businesses that trade ``tangibles'' versus those that trade in ``intangibles'' seems to be made as the intent was to encourage quality, high-wage manufacturing jobs in these areas. Businesses that trade in ``intangibles'' include companies that develop such things as patents, formulas, processes, copyrights, literary/musical works. However, businesses which manufacture computer software and computer or peripheral equipment are also included in this group of category of businesses which trade in ``intangible'' products. I feel that this excludes an industry that provides high-wage, highly skilled jobs in communities which could most benefit from these types of employers. This apparent oversight from Congress seems to discourage software/technology companies from locating in these distressed communities and does not reflect the fact that many of our rural/urban have excellent infrastructure to support them. Lastly, as an original cosponsor of the America COMPETES Act of 2007, I know how essential it is to promote U.S. technology competitiveness and innovation. By allowing software/technology companies to locate or expand operations in RC/EZ/EC communities, this would promote U.S. competitiveness and fully realize the intent of the program--to spur economic development in these distressed areas.

To address this issue, the bill I am introducing today would clarify that companies which manufacture technology/software development are eligible for these RC/EZ incentives in taxable years after enactment of the bill, provided they meet other requirements for the RC/EZ program. In particular, Section 1397C(d)(4) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended to specify that businesses that trade in ``intangibles'' are excluded, with the exception of computer and software development companies. I would highlight that we are not creating a new definition from scratch or making new rules for the Internal Revenue Code, instead the bill uses the definition for computer and software companies that already exists elsewhere in the Internal Revenue Code. This definition, Section 170(e)(6)(F)(i) of the Internal Revenue Code, includes the following industries: computer software (as defined in section 197(e)(3)(B)), computer or peripheral equipment (as defined by section 168(i)(2)(B)), and fiber optic cable related to computer use.

Furthermore, my staff has reviewed the Congressional Record and committee testimony since 1985 and could not find a clear Congressional intent to exclude software or technology development companies from the definition of a ``qualified business'' for this program. On the other hand, Congress specifically prohibited the following businesses: private or commercial golf courses, country clubs, massage parlors, hot tub facilities, suntan facilities, racetracks or other facilities used for gambling, and liquor stores. Despite this specificity in relation to what industries may/may not qualify, the law is silent on software/ technology development companies. As I mentioned, this industry is simply caught up in an effort to not include companies that deal strictly in intellectual property, such as copyrights or patents. I believe that this warrants correction as we should not exclude industries that are key drivers of economic development and those which are also essential to U.S. competitiveness.

Let me give you another example of how the current setup of this program is really discouraging further job creation and economic development. As currently structured, the renewal community employment credit provides a 15 percent credit for the first $10,000 of wages per year paid to each renewal community employee. So a bar in a RC/EZ community would receive a tax credit for hiring another bartender but a software development company would currently not receive any incentive to hire another engineer. Not only

does this discourage technology companies from locating in these areas but it is a disincentive for students graduating from universities or colleges in RC/EZ areas. I do not have a specific problem with including bars or restaurants in this program as the hospitality sector is also important to Louisiana's economy. However, I believe that computer/software companies should be given the opportunity to take advantage of these benefits that are already available to other industries, provided they meet the other requirements for qualified businesses.

In closing, I would like to note that while I understand that this would allow businesses currently not eligible for the program to receive benefits moving forward, it is my sincere belief that this correction would follow congressional intent with the program. This is because, in my view, the bill would further improve the ability of the RC/EZ program to spur economic development in distressed areas. It would accomplish this goal by ensuring that high-wage, high technology industries are eligible to participate in the program. I urge my colleagues to support this commonsense legislation.

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

Mr. President, I come to the floor today to speak on behalf of a program which I believe has been extremely helpful in helping

rural/urban communities in my state of Louisiana. I would also like to discuss a commonsense improvement to the program which I believe will allow these and other communities nationwide to be at the cutting edge of 21st century innovation and research. In particular, to help spur economic development in distressed communities, the Congress enacted the Empowerment Zone and Enterprise Community, EZ and EC, Program in 1993. In 2000, the Community Renewal Tax Relief Act further expanded this initiative by authorizing 40 Renewal Communities, RCs, and 9 more EZs. Overall, the RC/EZ/EC Initiative provides these designated communities with tax incentives, grants, loans, and technical assistance to encourage investment in communities that have experienced severe economic decline. According to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, HUD, which oversees the RC and EZ program, RC tax incentives are worth approximately $5.6 billion to eligible businesses of all sizes in Renewal Communities. EZ tax incentives are worth approximately $5.3 billion to small and large businesses in Empowerment Zones. In general, the tax incentives encourage businesses to open, expand, and to hire local residents. The administrative leaders of each Renewal Community and Empowerment Zone work closely with the Federal Government, business, and local community representatives to implement strategic plans to improve social/economic conditions throughout the designated areas.

As I mentioned, this program is of particular interest to Louisiana as we have two Urban Renewal Communities, in New Orleans and Ouachita Parish, and also have two Rural Renewal Communities, in central Louisiana and in northern Louisiana. These designations have been extremely helpful in attracting businesses to these areas of my state and in encouraging existing businesses to expand their operations. However, the designations are set to terminate in December 31, 2009. I remain committed to work with my Senate colleagues next year to update and reauthorize such programs as this program. That is because this program helps distressed communities nationwide and is a key engine to spur public-private partnerships in rural/urban areas.

While we often think of technology companies locating in areas such as Silicon Valley, California or the Research Triangle in North Carolina, Congress should not forget the role that rural small businesses and universities play in fostering innovation and development. In Louisiana, we have multiple universities participating in these cutting edge research programs and collaborating with local small businesses. Louisiana Technical University in Ruston, Louisiana, for example has grown into a leader in scientific research at a crucial time for the region. This is because the Barksdale Air Force base located in Shreveport, which is 70 miles from Ruston, is looking to secure the permanent Cyber Command. This command would protect the United States from cyber warfare. All of the universities, colleges, and parishes in this area, including the University of Louisiana-- Monroe, Grambling State University, and Louisiana State University-- Shreveport are collaborating on securing this command, which could mean thousands of jobs for the region. So big cities are not the only areas in the country that have growing technology sectors--rural communities also have these industries and would benefit from this commonsense correction to the program. Many of these rural communities are located in RC areas so it is important to support this program.

In the next Congress, as I mentioned, we will work to reauthorize the RC/EZ program. As we do this, I believe that, among other corrections, we must address one glaring problem with these programs. That is the reason why I am filing this legislation today as it makes an important correction to this program. I am pleased that my colleague, Congressman Rodney Alexander is introducing the companion bill in the House of Representatives. All three programs share the definition for a ``qualified business'' used for an EZ Business, which is Section 1397C of the Internal Revenue Code. For the EC and RC programs, this was legislated by Congress by the use of a substitution of ``Renewal Community'' or ``Enterprise Community'' for ``Empowerment Zone'' in the relevant section of the Internal Revenue Code, which is Section 1394(b)(2)(A) for the EC program and Section 1400G for the RC program. Under this definition, generally any trade or business can be a qualified business; however, there is an exception for a business that consists primarily to develop or hold intangibles for sale or license. This clear distinction between businesses that trade ``tangibles'' versus those that trade in ``intangibles'' seems to be made as the intent was to encourage quality, high-wage manufacturing jobs in these areas. Businesses that trade in ``intangibles'' include companies that develop such things as patents, formulas, processes, copyrights, literary/musical works. However, businesses which manufacture computer software and computer or peripheral equipment are also included in this group of category of businesses which trade in ``intangible'' products. I feel that this excludes an industry that provides high-wage, highly skilled jobs in communities which could most benefit from these types of employers. This apparent oversight from Congress seems to discourage software/technology companies from locating in these distressed communities and does not reflect the fact that many of our rural/urban have excellent infrastructure to support them. Lastly, as an original cosponsor of the America COMPETES Act of 2007, I know how essential it is to promote U.S. technology competitiveness and innovation. By allowing software/technology companies to locate or expand operations in RC/EZ/EC communities, this would promote U.S. competitiveness and fully realize the intent of the program--to spur economic development in these distressed areas.

To address this issue, the bill I am introducing today would clarify that companies which manufacture technology/software development are eligible for these RC/EZ incentives in taxable years after enactment of the bill, provided they meet other requirements for the RC/EZ program. In particular, Section 1397C(d)(4) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended to specify that businesses that trade in ``intangibles'' are excluded, with the exception of computer and software development companies. I would highlight that we are not creating a new definition from scratch or making new rules for the Internal Revenue Code, instead the bill uses the definition for computer and software companies that already exists elsewhere in the Internal Revenue Code. This definition, Section 170(e)(6)(F)(i) of the Internal Revenue Code, includes the following industries: computer software (as defined in section 197(e)(3)(B)), computer or peripheral equipment (as defined by section 168(i)(2)(B)), and fiber optic cable related to computer use.

Furthermore, my staff has reviewed the Congressional Record and committee testimony since 1985 and could not find a clear Congressional intent to exclude software or technology development companies from the definition of a ``qualified business'' for this program. On the other hand, Congress specifically prohibited the following businesses: private or commercial golf courses, country clubs, massage parlors, hot tub facilities, suntan facilities, racetracks or other facilities used for gambling, and liquor stores. Despite this specificity in relation to what industries may/may not qualify, the law is silent on software/ technology development companies. As I mentioned, this industry is simply caught up in an effort to not include companies that deal strictly in intellectual property, such as copyrights or patents. I believe that this warrants correction as we should not exclude industries that are key drivers of economic development and those which are also essential to U.S. competitiveness.

Let me give you another example of how the current setup of this program is really discouraging further job creation and economic development. As currently structured, the renewal community employment credit provides a 15 percent credit for the first $10,000 of wages per year paid to each renewal community employee. So a bar in a RC/EZ community would receive a tax credit for hiring another bartender but a software development company would currently not receive any incentive to hire another engineer. Not only

does this discourage technology companies from locating in these areas but it is a disincentive for students graduating from universities or colleges in RC/EZ areas. I do not have a specific problem with including bars or restaurants in this program as the hospitality sector is also important to Louisiana's economy. However, I believe that computer/software companies should be given the opportunity to take advantage of these benefits that are already available to other industries, provided they meet the other requirements for qualified businesses.

In closing, I would like to note that while I understand that this would allow businesses currently not eligible for the program to receive benefits moving forward, it is my sincere belief that this correction would follow congressional intent with the program. This is because, in my view, the bill would further improve the ability of the RC/EZ program to spur economic development in distressed areas. It would accomplish this goal by ensuring that high-wage, high technology industries are eligible to participate in the program. I urge my colleagues to support this commonsense legislation.

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

Mr. President, on September 27, the Senate passed the Duncan Hunter National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009, which the President signed into law on October 14. The legislation includes critical provisions that will directly improve the quality of life for our men and women in uniform, support needed reforms in the operations of the Department of Defense and provide our soldiers, sailors, Air Force personnel and marines with the tools they need to defend our freedom. I thank and commend Senator Levin and our colleagues on the Armed Services Committee for the thorough work on this detailed legislation and their perseverance in crafting the legislation in a difficult and at times uncertain process.

There were a number of filed floor amendments to the bill that were not

able to be considered because of the procedural situation on the floor in September. The managers of the bill, Senator Levin and Senator Warner, stated that they had prepared a set of over 90 cleared amendments in a managers' package for which they believed they had unanimous consent to include in the bill. It is my understanding that one of those amendments was the provision I had filed to expand the existing pilot authority in section 2881a of title 10, to authorize the Army to carry out a pilot program using the private sector for the acquisition or construction of military unaccompanied housing for all ranks in an arrangement similar to what we have carried successfully with the privatization of family housing and senior unaccompanied soldiers. While I was very disappointed that the amendment could not be adopted because of the procedural situation, I want to thank Senator Levin and the other members of the committee for their willingness to support inclusion of the public-private sector partnership approach for ensuring improved housing for all ranks of our single soldiers.

The Army already has five similar privatization projects underway for senior unaccompanied enlisted personnel or officers. The business case for these projects shows that they are not only less costly than traditional government-funded construction and sustainment, but more importantly, the living conditions are vastly improved as soldiers have access to larger, modern apartments on post. The living conditions for these soldiers and officers will be enhanced to the same level as that of military members with families.

Given our Nation's current financial crisis, defense spending is likely to come under great stress over the next few years. Historically the Army and the other services have had great challenges in maintaining even minimum levels of housing sustainment and revitalization funding to keep our barracks fit for our soldiers. I can speak from personal experience about the serious deficiencies in the barracks at Fort Polk in Leesville. Despite the recent increase in Army funding for barracks revitalization there, I worry that needed long- term funding will be difficult to secure under the traditional model to prevent deterioration in the longer run. Improved quality of life, including housing, is critical to the retention of our enlisted soldiers, and critical to keeping our All Volunteer force strong. Partnerships between the Army and the private sector for this segment of our military housing will be needed as a fundamental long-term solution to providing the best housing for our soldiers.

Despite the procedural setback in September, I appreciate the support we received for our amendment and am committed to continue working with the Armed Services Committee to advance this issue in 2009. We are also hopeful that the Army will use its existing authorities to begin extending the successful privatization model to construction and revitalization of Barracks for all of our soldiers.

Mr. President, I rise today in honor of National Adoption Day and National Adoption Month. Senator Coleman and I understand that the Senate passed our resolution recognizing National Adoption Day and National Adoption Month. I stand before you today and challenge every Member of Congress to take this opportunity to be the voice for children who do not necessarily have someone to speak for them.

As chair of the Congressional Coalition on Adoption, I strongly believe that ``there is no such thing as an unwanted child, just unfound families.'' The Hague Convention recognizes ``that the child, for the full and harmonious development of his or her personality, should grow up in a family environment, in an atmosphere of happiness, love and understanding.'' Unfortunately, not all children have a family of their own, but through adoption our children have the opportunity to find their ``forever family.''

Nearly half of all Americans have been touched by adoption, and last year more than 4,200 children became members of permanent loving families through adoption celebrations that were held in all 50 States, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico. I commend every State for its efforts, but we still have miles to go.

Between 2002 and 2007, approximately 4.8 million children were serviced by the U.S. foster care system, and only 310,000 of them were adopted by ``forever families.'' Children in foster care are some of the most vulnerable members of our society, and we must do everything in our power to make sure they have the necessary tools to live a normal healthy life. As Members of Congress we have taken a stance in helping children move from foster care to permanent, adoptive homes by passing the Fostering Connections to Success and Increasing Adoptions Act of 2008. However, National Adoption Day gives us the chance to experience firsthand the joys that adoption brings to the lives of our children and their families.

President Bush has recognized the importance of adoption to children and our Nation. That is why he declares November to be National Adoption Month. This year National Adoption Day occurs on November 15 as a part of National Adoption Month. National Adoption Day is an event to raise awareness of the 129,000 children in foster care who are waiting for permanent families. Since the first National Adoption Day in 2000, nearly 20,000 children have joined ``forever families'' on this special day. This year we hope to have events in all 50 States, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico.

I want you to picture what happens on this fall day, children running, laughing, and playing with their new parent. Think about a girl or boy planning their special outfit and joyously awaiting the family celebration. Imagine the excitement welling up inside of a child as she looks into her new parent's eyes and knows she is finally part of a family. She will never dread the sound of a car coming to take her away again or wonder where she will lay her head or which school she will be moved to.

Now picture the other dramatically different reality. There are approximately 513,000 current foster care children in the United States, and 114,000 of them are waiting for adoption. Since 1987, the number of children in foster care has nearly doubled, and the average time a child remains in foster care has lengthened to nearly 3 years. Each year, approximately 24,000 children in foster care will age out of the system without ever being placed with a permanent family.

According to a survey by the Dave Thomas Foundation for Adoption, many potential adoptive parents have considered foster care adoption, but ``a majority of Americans hold misperceptions about the foster care adoption process and the children who are eligible for adoption.'' For example, ``two-thirds of those considering foster care adoption are unnecessarily concerned that biological parents can return to claim their children and nearly half of all Americans mistakenly believe that foster care adoption is expensive, when in reality adopting from foster care is without substantial cost.''

Most foster children entered into State custody because their parents were either unable or unwilling to care for them. Not only are children separated from parents, but in many cases, siblings are separated when they are placed in foster care. Over half the children in foster care are 10 years of age or older and have more difficulty being adopted. These children are just waiting to flourish with the right parent's guidance.

In Louisiana there are 4,541 children in foster care and 1,162 of them are waiting to be adopted. I would like to share with you how foster care and adoption has affected some of our children in Louisiana.

Ian is 15 years old and first entered foster care at the age of 5 due to physical abuse and lack of supervision by his mother. Ian's mother surrendered her parental rights, and he and his three sisters were placed for adoption. Ian's younger sisters were adopted by their foster parents.

In November 2006, Ian was placed in a specialized foster home after completing a facility program. This family has worked very closely with Ian in learning to trust others, making appropriate choices, on becoming part of a family unit, and being able to ``attach'' to others in preparation of an adoptive family. Ian is working very hard to adjust to a ``traditional family lifestyle'' and is progressing well in this family setting. Ian states he wants an adoptive family that says, ``You are our child and we will not turn you away.''

Ian is very personable and is looking for acceptance in life. He is polite, affectionate, and very adventurous. Ian enjoys playing basketball, riding bikes, reading Harry Potter books, and playing video games. Numerous recruitment efforts for an adoptive home have been made since Ian was placed in the specialized foster home, but an adoptive family has not been found to date. One of the greatest barriers to adoption is a lack of resources of prospective adoptive families willing to adopt older children.

While Ian is still desperately searching for someone to love and care for him, Christopher, through all of his struggles, has found that sense of permanency. Christopher is 12 years old and first entered foster care at the age of 2 months. He was subject to abuse by his biological father that resulted in a skull fracture, subdural hematoma, bruises, bites, and burns. Christopher had many developmental delays and problematic behaviors requiring placement in specialized foster homes. Christopher's removal was requested by several foster placements because of behavioral issues. In June 2006, a foster parent who had provided respite for Christopher was asked to consider the fostering of Christopher as the child had formed a very strong bond to this foster parent and her children during his respite visits. Upon placement in this home, drastic improvements were noted in Christopher's behavior, socialization, academic achievements, and physical health. In all appearances, Christopher was now functioning in the normal range for his age and with minimal evidence of neurological impairment. Christopher's neurologist continued to marvel at Christopher's functioning considering the extensive injuries he had suffered as an infant.

One day while the adoption social worker was visiting with Christopher and his foster mother, Christopher said he wanted to change his name to ``Kantrell.'' The social worker responded ``Kantrell (and Christopher's last name), that does sound nice.'' Christopher replied no, ``Kantrell'' and the last name of his foster mother. The

social worker stated that she immediately noted a glistening in the eye of the foster mother who replied, ``Is that really what you want, Christopher?'' Christopher responded that was very much his desire. The adoption of Christopher was finalized in January 2008 with Christopher changing his name to ``Kantrell.'' Kantrell has continued to thrive in his adoptive home and is a delight to all who know him.

Each year, 79,000 children and youth who exit foster care leave without a permanent home or belonging to a family. I could stand here every day for the next month and talk about each child who needs to be adopted out of foster care. The bottom line is that each of these children, from 1 day old to 22 years old, needs permanency. They all need a loving, nurturing family that will help them to grow, bring out their unique personalities, and transform them into confident and happy adults.

On National Adoption Day, I have faith that we can be the catalyst to securing a permanent loving family for every child. The miracle of adoption cannot be explained, but the loving parents who are holding their children for the first time today are living examples of how dreams can be realized. As an adoptive mother myself, I find that words cannot adequately explain the miracle of adoption. I can only take a moment to offer my most humble thanks, gratitude, and appreciation to all those across the Nation who have given their Saturday to help find waiting children safe and loving homes.

Let us continue to remember that when National Adoption Month and Day end there are still thousands of children who need that sense of permanency. I challenge Congress to make these children their first priority and not another statistic to be studied. Please join us in supporting National Adoption Day and National Adoption Month by participating in events held across the country celebrating this most joyous, hopeful act.