Floor Statements

Mr. President, I rise today as the senior from Louisiana. But I was not born a Senator. I was born a Louisianian. I am a daughter of the Crescent City, raised by a family of places whose names may seem strange and exotic to people in Washington, DC, and around the Nation places like Plaquemines, Cocodrie, Kenner, Slidell, St. Tammany, St. Bernard and Bogalusa.

Most people refer to this region of the country--Mississippi, Louisiana and Alabama--as the energy coast the maritime coast, the gulf coast. The largest city in this area is the city of New Orleans, almost 500,000 people, my hometown. At one time or another every Member of this body has told me their own story about what they love about New Orleans and south Louisiana. For some, it is our music. For others it is Mardi Gras. And yet others, it is that special magic. Each one of you has come away from our State with a special memory, a singular moment that reflects the vibrant culture and personality of our State. And what all of my colleagues have mentioned to me over many years is the special, special spirit of the people.

Today, I stand before my colleagues, Democrats and Republicans, to report to the Senate that our people are hurting. Some are despairing and many are still crying. But our spirit is strong and it will be this spirit, along with the best work the Senate has ever done, that we will lift this region and rebuild it.

Thousands are dead, and only God knows how many. Hundreds and thousands are homeless, jobless, and without their businesses, large and small. But amidst water, death, destruction, anguish and anger, our spirit is strong.

And today, there are thousands of heroes. Those heroes may not be anybody in this Chamber, but I will tell you who the heroes are. They are the leaders of Plaquemines Parish and St. Bernard and Orleans and Jefferson and counties in Mississippi that kept their government functioning even as much of their parish laid under water. In St. Bernard and Plaquemines Parish, that water was 8 to 20 feet high in places. And in New Orleans, the water still stands 6 to 10 feet in some places on the east bank. The only thing out of the water the last time I left was Jackson Square, the Cathedral and the French Quarter. Because the people who settled the city were smart enough to put it on the highest ground they could find, and that high ground has been serving this Nation so well and so magnificently for over 300 years. And it is still there.

The heroes are the New Orleans sheriffs who secured and evacuated the city jail, not because they were trying to coddle the prisoners, but because there was a threatened jail break when the system failed and the electricity went off. So the deputies who had lost their own homes and had lost maybe members of their own family, swam through water to get the prisoners out of the prison, not to give them a warm meal but to secure them, so hardened rapists and murderers would not plague the city at its time of greatest distress.

Our local leaders never once flinched from their duty to protect their residents and save every man, woman or child, regardless of race or income.

It was so desperate that the law enforcement didn't have to triage. The people were triaging themselves. In other words, when the boat drove up, they would put the old people first in the boat. Then they would put the babies in the boat. And all the young, ``healthy'' people would just stay on the roof until the boat could come back. Sometimes it did and in some cases it was too late.

I flew back here after one plane that I got on had no fuel. I had to come back with the Commandant of the Coast Guard, and he told me himself yesterday the Coast Guard rescued 32,000 people either by boat or by helicopter. And that is not counting what Wildlife and Fisheries agents did in Louisiana, Mississippi, or Alabama. That is not counting what regular boat owners, once they could wade through water and turn their boats on went down and did themselves, of which the news media did not cover. Because the only thing the news media could focus on was the Convention Center and the Superdome because it made the best picture. We understand that as politicians. They need visuals. I am sorry I couldn't provide any more visuals for them, but there was a lot more going on than just at the Superdome and the Convention Center.

Across the State, perhaps the greatest heroes are those we don't know about the concerned and courageous friends who took care of elderly neighbors and ensured their safe evacuation. One brief story: An elderly African-American woman in a shelter came up to me. She was a retired teacher. Her feet were wrapped because she had cut up her feet in this episode. She said, ``Ms. Landrieu, please go back and tell those people in Washington we were fine after the hurricane hit. It wasn't the hurricane that put us under. It was that water that came up from the levee. Don't they know anything up there about the 17th Street Canal? Don't they know anything about the Florida Street Canal?''

I said, ``No, Ma'am, but we're going to tell them more about that.''

She said, ``I stood on my ladder for 2 days. I've never seen water like that. That water kept going up 6 inches and going down 6 inches.'' Do you know what she was experiencing with the water rising and receding? She was feeling the tide of Lake Ponchartrain. She said, ``It kept going up to my nose and going down to my chest.''

The Louisiana State flag depicts a pelican. The pelican takes from herself, her own breast to feed her young. Thousands of Louisianians this week brought that state symbol to life.

As brave and bold as my fellow Louisianians have been--and our heart goes out to the people in Mississippi and Alabama--we have been moved beyond measure by the generosity and selflessness of our fellow Americans. New York City itself sent 600 of its finest and bravest police officers and firefighters who were willing to run into a collapsing tower on September 11 knowing what we didn't know, knowing that the radios on their hips were not going to work. But they ran in the building anyway. Those police officers are on their way right now to help the city of New Orleans. And I want to thank the Senators from New York, the delegation from New York, for sending them.

Cities, suburbs, and States across the Nation have welcomed our citizens as their own. Senator Lincoln told me yesterday on the phone, ``Mary, send them north. As soon as they cross the borders, I've got them in my arms.'' I thank Senator Lincoln and thank all the Senators that have called.

And so, if it is possible that my heart is a little heavy today, I've seen more in the last 2 weeks than in my entire life, and I hope never to witness it again. But while my heart is heavy, my heart today is also lifted with gratitude for my fellow Americans.

Of course, already some in Washington are pointing fingers at State and local officials--officials who had little more than just the good sense that God gave them while trying to save everyone that they could, all amidst criticism that they have had to bear from other government officials.

In this Chamber alone, every one of you voted the other night to send billions of dollars of aid and assistance. As Harry Reid said earlier today, it will probably cost us a lot more. I am sorry I could not even report to you an accurate estimate of what that might be, but I predict it will be over $200 billion.

As I stand here today, Senator Vitter, my partner, remains in the State to continue assessing damage. He has been a steady voice through this, and I want to acknowledge him.

This unprecedented catastrophe will require unprecedented support. I am concerned today because our Nation, our national government failed in its greatest responsibility, and that is protecting the lives of Americans. I am not saying the military failed, or the Coast Guard failed and most certainly not the National Guard that was there before the storm hit and is still there.

Let me talk a minute about my National Guard. Eight thousand of them have already been to Iraq and back, not once but twice. Three thousand of them are scheduled to come home in September. The Governor and I and Senator Vitter were planning a homecoming for them. They are going to get quite a homecoming because many of them are from south Louisiana, and they don't have houses to come home to. I am here to tell you, that while

they may not have houses, they do have a home. We will do the best we can, and General Landreneau is well aware of the situation with his men and women on their way back from Iraq to hold their families tight.

We must learn from this experience. If we do not, we will fail again.

I have learned more in 2 weeks than I could ever have hoped to learn. I am going to continue to learn, and I ask the Senators to open their hearts and minds and learn. We don't ever want this to happen to any other city or any other place in this country for as long as we are on this Earth.

It is not true that Louisiana was not prepared. Surely we could have done a better job in every case, but our evacuation plan--and I want to give credit to the Governor of Mississippi and the Governor of Louisiana--Haley Barbour and Kathleen Blanco, who have been planning since Hurricane Ivan struck a year ago where everyone got stuck on the interstates and the back roads, those two Governors worked out a plan because we share a highway. We don't have a Louisiana highway that goes north and a Mississippi highway. We share our highways, and those Governors made a plan to get everybody out, and it worked as well as something like that can work. We had 2 million people approximately to evacuate in about 2 days. We got a lot of people out.

But when the storm hit and the levees broke, our calls went unanswered. In years past, our bills have languished here on the calendar. Money we requested before has been postponed year after year, year after year. I don't even want to talk to my colleagues about coastal erosion. They have heard it from me so many times and from everybody in the Louisiana delegation. They can give that speech better than I can.

But I will tell you one thing about our Federal Government. Our Federal Government, whether it was FEMA or this administrator or former administration or us, gambled that the predictions that countless experts voiced time and time again were mere rhetoric. They gambled that no one would notice if Louisiana's critical and vital role in our national economy was threatened.

And Washington rolled the dice and Louisiana lost.

I cannot stand here today and tell you that if all the money we had asked for, if it would have kept the levees up, but I can tell you that it would have given us more protection than we had.

Nor can I say with certainty that full funding for restoring our coasts would have protected those who perished in St. Bernard or in Jefferson or Washington parish or the counties in Mississippi and Alabama. But I can assure you that we would have had at least had a fighting chance. And I intend to find out just how much of a fighting chance we would have had.

And I intend to find out why the Federal response, particularly the response of FEMA, was so incompetent and insulting to the people of our States.

Already some in Washington are pointing fingers that something is wrong with my state and local officials, and if they would have been a little smarter, a little tougher, a little braver maybe this could have been avoided. This hurricane was a category four. It was one of the worst storms we have seen in this century. The eye of the storm went right over Slidell, LA. Waveland, MS, I understand from Senators Cochran and Lott, is gone. Biloxi is quite damaged, and that is where the storm came.

I am sorry we couldn't do anything about that, but I want you to know the people of our States have survived storms before. That was not what put us under. It was the levee systems that broke in New Orleans, a city that invented the gravity pump, a city that helped the Dutch secure the Netherlands and sent our engineering to Venice to keep that city floating. We invented those pumps in south Louisiana. We know about pumps. Harry Reid's seen them himself.

We know that the head of the National Hurricane Center said that he briefed the President of the United States on the threat of Katrina in a video conference call the day before she hit land.

We know the President said, quote, I don't think anybody anticipated the breach of the levees. Everybody anticipated the breach of the levee, including computer simulations in which this administration participated. Even the clay figurine, Mr. Bill, from ``Saturday Night Live'' anticipated the breach. His creator, a friend of mine, has used him in public service announcements for over 2 years, saying this will be the effect if this happens. How can it be that Mr. Bill was better informed than Mr. Bush?

We know the Secretary of Homeland Security pronounced himself, quote, extremely pleased with the response of every element of the Federal Government, even as the cable news networks were broadcasting images telling how he was so tragically wrong.

We know that FEMA was unaware that 20,000 Americans were stranded at the Convention Center without food, without water, without security, without clothes, without buses, without toilets and with no way out, and I had to stand there and listen to the news media say these people were lawless. These were mothers and fathers trying to find water for their kids. I might have been a little upset under the circumstances myself.

We know that someone has to be accountable. Let me be the first to take any blame that is to be assigned.

I will not allow my local officials to be made into scapegoats for others. I will not allow carping from those who were not there to diminish my Governor, my Lieutenant Governor, who happens to be my brother, who spent 3 days in a rescue boat, despite the pleas of his own wife, his sister, his mother and father not to go. He went anyway, and he lifted both the living and the dead out with his own hands.

Within 24 hours of the storm hitting the Gulf Coast, Senator Frist called and Senator Reid called. I appreciate so much that they were right there. I tried to reach Thad Cochran; he tried to reach me. I tried to reach Trent Lott. And David Vitter and I were together the whole time, but we couldn't get through on our cell phones. I know they called, and I thank them very much.

The record for rebuilding costs will be staggering, but it will pale in comparison to the staggering incompetence of this national government which is responsible.

Black people suffered, White people suffered, poor people suffered, and rich people suffered. The whole city is under water on the east bank. The wealthy neighborhoods have 10 feet of water, and the poor neighborhoods have 10 feet of water. Water does not know boundaries. It doesn't know demographics. It doesn't know Democrat or Republican. It doesn't know to stop at rich neighborhoods. It doesn't know just to go to poor neighborhoods. It goes everywhere. And there are wealthy people who are desperate. They don't know how to restart their businesses and keep their employees paid. They have no idea where to put their businesses. Do they leave the state? Do they go to Atlanta? Do they come back? What do they do with their wife and children? Do they take them and put them to school in Atlanta, or do they set their businesses up on the highest ground they can find?

The poor people are very disoriented. They have a hard time normally and they are having a real hard time now.

I want to say a special word of thanks personally to Ted Koppel for the beautiful piece he did last night, because I haven't been able to watch much television myself, but I got to see his piece. And we need journalists like that. I kept thinking, where's Walter Cronkite, and all I had was Geraldo Rivera.

I want to personally thank my family, my parents, my children, who evacuated with me that morning.

And the final word is this to the President: Mr. President, we need you. We need your help. The last time I shook the President's hand he looked at me and he said, ``Senator, I appreciate your passion.''

And I said, ``Thank you, Mr. President, because passion is what we need.''

He said, ``I'm sorry you lost your childhood home. I know that's upsetting to you.'' I want to be clear for the record in that piece that you all saw with me with George Stephanopoulos. I was not crying in anguish because the home that I walked out of with my children was gone. I knew it would be gone when I left. It was an anguished cry, a plea to the only one that I thought could hear, and that was God

himself, and I know he has heard, because the people of my state have cried out to him for now over a week and a half. But as he gives us the grace and the wisdom to do our job, I hope we can do it well because there are hundreds of thousands of families who are depending on us to do our best work.

Today we are going to rebuild New Orleans and the coasts of Mississippi and Alabama because America needs New Orleans right where it is, as well as the parishes of St. Bernard, St. Tammany, Orleans, Jefferson, and Plaquemines, and Hancock, Harrison and Jackson counties in Mississippi; and Baldwin and Mobile counties in Alabama.

The gulf coast region of our Nation is simply too important to be left for dead. One of the founding geniuses of our freedom, Thomas Jefferson, understood that. Two hundred years ago he purchased Louisiana--then it stretched from the Mississippi to the Rocky Mountains. And that purchase put us on the road to greatness, from sea to shining sea.

It is an energy coast. It was put there for a reason. We did not go there to sunbathe. We went there to set up the Mississippi River, to tame that river, to create channels for this country to grow and prosper. The Higgins boats that saved us from World War II were built in New Orleans. Forty-three thousand people built those boats and headed them out to Normandy. We are going to rebuild our shipping industry, we are going to rebuild our maritime industry, and we are going to rebuild this great gulf coast of the United States.

I ask unanimous consent have printed in the Record a letter dated September 7, 2005.

I seek 5 minutes under the majority time.

Mr. President, I rise today to support this Energy bill. I heard my colleague from Washington State speak beautifully and passionately about many of the important aspects of this bill. There are Members who can come to this floor and pick out one or two things they had hoped to get in that did not make it. We had a lot of arguments about this bill, a lot of debate, but overall it is very balanced legislation. It does look to the future, as well as holding on to some of the things in the past that have served us well.

It seeks to increase independence of the United States of America so we can produce more energy on our shore, under our control, to not only help boost our economy, make our industries more competitive, but most importantly make this Nation more secure when it comes to international involvements. Americans want lower prices at the pump, but they want to know that this Congress is taking action to make them more secure nationally. By being more self-reliant, we can.

Now, yes, we have to open up our shores to liquefied natural gas because our price is going through the roof, and unless we increase supply substantially and rather quickly, that price will remain high. It will put almost every industry in this country at a very serious disadvantage for international competition.

As Senator Cantwell stated, it does give new protections for consumers from market manipulation. Senator Dorgan has led the fight with regard to hydrogen, with Senator Bingaman's help. It has opened up new frontiers for that. We have opened up new frontiers for renewable energy sources. As a Senator from an oil-and-gas-producing State, we do need to get beyond petroleum and this bill is helping us to do that.

Under Senator Domenici's leadership, we are expanding in an extraordinary way the nuclear industry, which is going to help Japan, France, and others who have been leading the way. It is time for America to get with the program.

In my last 1 minute, let me compliment these leaders. We have not had an energy bill for 13 years. For 5 years, we have literally been laboring mightily to get a bill. Senator Domenici, Senator Bingaman, Chairman Barton, and Mr. Dingell, ``the big four'' as they have been called, have worked tirelessly, their staffs have worked tirelessly, and I might say with the patience of Job. This bill is balanced because these two leaders said they were going to build a bill together for the future of our country. As a Senator on that committee, I am so proud of the honesty in which they built this bill, the openness in which they built this bill, and the fact that no deals, to my knowledge, were cut behind closed doors. It was all open and actually on television so people could see the results of this work.

I commend that process to the Senate and the whole Congress and thank them for their extraordinary leadership and thank them, too, on behalf of the people of Louisiana and the Gulf Coast States for recognizing the contribution we have made of offshore oil and gas drilling and to get a very robust coastal impact assistance program that is going to mean a great deal to us and to the wetlands of America.

I yield back.

Mr. President, today I wish to say a few words about one of Louisiana's finest public servants, Mayor Harry Mims of East Hodge. Mayor Mims recently celebrated his 91st birthday and has dedicated the past 37 years to the people of East Hodge as their mayor. First elected in 1968, he has the distinction of being the first and so far only mayor of this community, population of 366. In fact, some say that if it I were not for Harry Mims, there would not be an East Hodge as he was instrumental in the city's founding.

Mayor Mims' motto that has made East Hodge thrive is one many small town politicians understand, when there is work to be done, ``You have to do it yourself.'' One of the best examples of his drive to bring to East Hodge some of the amenities and services enjoyed by their neighbors is his unyielding efforts to pave the streets of East Hodge. At one point in recent history, the streets were too narrow for cars to pass. The mayor wrote grant after grant to find the money he needed to manage this small community and as a result of his tenacity, they now have a new town hall, a large water system, two apartment buildings, a fire station, two trucks and a community center.

Last Saturday, the Louisiana Chapter of the National Conference of Black Mayors honored Mayor Mims for his years of service to the people of East Hodge and the State of Louisiana. Mayor Mims told them he plans to run for 8 more years, if the Lord will allow him to. It is my fervent prayer that the good Lord allows Mayor Mims to continue to serve the people of East Hodge as he has so diligently for the past 37 years and that he does so in the best of health. As the daughter of a Mayor, I know that the people of East Hodge join me in this prayer. Thank you Mayor Mims, for all that you have done and continue to do for the people you serve.

Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry: Would the Thune amendment that was pending on a review of the BRAC closings that are going on around the country would have been germane after cloture on the Defense bill?

I will ask specifically by number if the clerk will give me the Thune amendment on the postponement of BRAC. We had several, but there was one on postponement.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I rise today to say a few words on the impact of Special Olympics. As many of you know, individuals with intellectual disability face an array of challenges in their efforts to secure opportunities to lead quality lives. These challenges affect every aspect of their lives, including their ability to participate in a meaningful way in their communities and society at large.

The Special Olympics were created to address the use of sports as a vehicle for demonstrating the dignity and capability individuals with intellectual disability can achieve. Over the 37 years of Special Olympics history, there is extensive documentation of competition waged, medals won, and barriers overcome around the world. Athletes, families, coaches, volunteers, and spectators have witnessed many small and large miracles through Special Olympics.

One such miracle is Rose Marie Garrett of Baton Rouge, a three-time participant in Special Olympics World games who in 2001 was named Louisiana's Special Olympian of the Year. At age 49, Rose Marie was diagnosed with Dandy-Walker syndrome, a congenital brain malformation that impairs motor development due to a blockage of spinal fluid to the brain. Despite her lifetime of struggle with the physical problems caused by Dandy-Walker syndrome, Rose Marie was able to rise above this barrier and take charge of her life. Not only did she successfully participate in the Special Olympics, but did so while holding a job at the YMCA. However, Rose Marie did not stop her lifetime of hard work with her achievements in the Special Olympics. She has become a strong advocate for this valuable program, and teaches bowling to children, disabled and non-disabled alike. Her message to those working to overcome difficult hurdles is ``Work hard and go for your goal. If at first you don't succeed, try, try again. Never give up. I didn't.

Rose Marie is just one of the many success stories in the Special Olympics. In 2004, they commissioned a study of the impact of Special Olympics programs on the lives of its athletes in the United States. This study included survey research of current and former athletes, coaches, and family members from a representative sample of U.S. athletes and coaches. It is the most comprehensive assessment to date of the impact of the Special Olympics experience on the lives of people with intellectual disabilities. In the Special Olympics Impact Study and the Special Olympics Athlete Participation Survey, we see that Special Olympics has enabled athletes to not only train for sporting events, but also train for life. Through their voices, U.S. Special Olympics athletes have provided Special Olympics with a very positive report card on the impact that Special Olympics has on their lives.

It is my hope that every person faced with intellectual disabilities will have the opportunity some time in their life to participate in the Special Olympics. As exemplified by Rose Marie's experience, overcoming athletic challenges can lead to a successful life. Special Olympics is a program that supports an inclusive and productive society and I look forward to watching what all these individuals will accomplish in the future.

Mr. President, I rise today to say just a few words on the resolution I have submitted concerning dyspraxia, a developmental disorder that affects 1 in 20 American children each year. My intent is to increase the public's awareness of this disability and to encourage each of my colleagues to do the same.

Let me share a few facts with you. Dyspraxia is caused by the malformation of the neurons of the brain, resulting in the inability of one's senses to respond efficiently to outside stimuli. It may manifest itself in various areas, such as movement, language, perception, and thought, causing difficulty in both work and play. One in twenty children suffers from this disorder. Seventy percent of those affected are male, and in children suffering from extreme emotional and behavioral difficulties, the incidence is likely to be more than 50 percent. Dyspraxic children fail to achieve the expected levels of development. Due to difficulties, these kids are often shunned from their peer groups because they do not fit in. There is no cure for dyspraxia, but the earlier a child is diagnosed the greater the chance of developmental maturation. However, many times these children are dismissed as ``clumsy'' and ``slow'' and are never given a chance to improve, finding it hard to succeed under such harsh speculations. The public's unawareness of dyspraxia is the chief reason that children and young adults go undiagnosed, unable to recognize a cause for their struggles. More than 50 percent of our educators are unaware that this disability even exists. With such alarming statistics, the number of children recognized cannot be expected to increase.

One of my former interns has a younger brother that suffers from this disorder. Borden Wilson is actually a success story. At age 4, Borden's parents noted that he was not able to perform tasks appropriate for his age. His

speaking ability was limited, even with encouragement. After going through a battery of tests performed by various specialists, the problem was identified as dyspraxia. While working with speech and occupational therapists, Borden's parents became familiar with techniques geared to improve his motor capabilities. Though advancements were seen, Borden still lagged behind his peers and low self-esteem soon set in. Borden is 17 years old now and through the hard work of teachers, therapists, and family, he has overcome many of his problems and is successful in both school and extracurricular activities. I am pleased to announce that Borden now maintains a 4.5 grade point average, has received his school's Scholar Athlete Award for the last 2 years, and placed in the 97th percentile on his California Achievement Test. Additionally, he has received All-District honors in both football and track.

Borden's superior achievements should serve as our inspiration to promote awareness of dyspraxia. With proper diagnosis and treatment, all of these children can experience the same level of success that Borden has been able to achieve. I hope that my colleagues will come together in support of this important legislation to raise consciousness of this disability.

Mr. President, I rise today to commemorate the 15th anniversary of the Americans with Disabilities Act. On this day in 1990, President George H.W. Bush signed this monumental piece of legislation into law guaranteeing equal opportunity for people with disabilities in public accommodations, commercial facilities, employment, transportation, State and local government services, and telecommunications.

One out of every five Americans today suffers from a disability. In the national workforce, there are currently 4 million men and 3\1/2\ million women with disabilities employed. We have made noteworthy strides in granting equal rights to those with disabilities. However, we still have tremendous work to do to decrease the 70 percent unemployment rate for people with significant disabilities.

In my own State of Louisiana, 710,000 people over the age of 5 were reported to have a disability. This means that 14.8 percent of the population in Louisiana suffers from some form of disability.

There are thousands of stories that capture the significance of this measure to people around this country, but I want to highlight just one. Shirley Adams is a constituent of mine, and she typifies the impact that the ADA can have on a person's life.

Shirley's road to inclusion into her community was long and filled with obstacles. She is a woman with many labels--profound mental retardation, visual impairment, a history of seizures, a rare bone ailment, and nonverbal. However, with great determination and courage, Shirley has established a life full of meaning surrounded by people who love and care for her. She would have it no other way.

At age 3, Shirley moved to Pinecrest Developmental Center in central Louisiana. She received care while living at Pinecrest, but she never learned to take care of herself. In 1997, at age 31, Shirley received an MR/DD waiver which enabled her to move from Pinecrest into her own apartment in the New Orleans area where she continues to receive 24- hour support.

Shirley is now able to attend church where she has made lifelong friends. In addition, she volunteers at another church where she assists staff in passing out lunches to children enrolled in vacation Bible study, sending mail out to parishioners, and welcoming people to the services each Sunday. She helps her neighborhood association by watering the flowers to the entrance to her apartment complex on a regular basis.

Living on her own has enabled Shirley to travel, which is something that she was unable to do while living in an institution. She loves to vacation in Biloxi and on the beaches of Florida. She is constantly looking for new places to go and for new adventures. If Shirley has it her way, she will continue to soak up the Sun on the gulf coast and explore new frontiers for years to come.

In sum, Shirley is known and loved by hundreds in her community now. She has a sense of belonging and security that she has never experienced before. Her life is full of people who care for her, and she continues to make wonderful progress in living in her own home to this day. Shirley Adams is clearly an inspiration to anyone who wants to explore their surroundings and lead a very happy life surrounded by loved ones in their community.

Shirley and thousands of others in Louisiana now live a full and complete life. The ADA gives people with disabilities such as Shirley a vehicle to request and secure the accommodations they need for both physical and programmatic access to life in Louisiana.

In 1990, when the ADA was passed, Louisiana spent nothing on home and community-based services for people with disabilities such as Shirley. In 2003 alone, Louisiana spent $157,447,900. These services, inspired by the spirit of equality established by the ADA, allow thousands of Louisiana's citizens with disabilities the opportunity to live their lives as contributing, participating members of our society.

In addition, there are now 3,170 aging or elderly individuals receiving home and community-based services that allow them to remain in their own homes.

The ADA impacts the daily lives of my constituents living with disabilities and for that reason I want to applaud the honorable work being done due to the enactment of this legislation while not losing sight of the fact that we

must work harder to help all disabled persons have equal civil rights and the job opportunities they deserve.

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

Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 1245. I understand there will be a request to set the vote at 2 o'clock on the amendment.

Mr. President, amendment 1245 is offered on behalf of myself, Senator Craig, and others to focus some time and discussion on the issue of family, of stability, of permanency for children around the world. I couldn't agree more with the Senator from Tennessee when he says this underlying bill, the bill that funds all of our foreign operations, assistance to many countries throughout the world, countries that are developing, countries that are well established, that share our values, that one of the most critical components of this underlying bill is to advance American values around the world.

We know not every action we take is perfect. We know not every thought we have is exactly right. But Americans believe we work hard at establishing good values. We know we are not perfect, but we try to get better and better each decade and each century. I could not agree more with the Senator from Tennessee when he says this bill in particular is a bill that helps us to advance our values around the world.

One of the values all Americans believe in is the value of family, the importance of family, the importance of the principle that children should in fact be raised in families. Children don't raise themselves. Governments don't raise children; parents raise children. And sometimes one responsible parent raises a child. That is the way it has been. That is the way we like to see it. It is the way we want to promote it here at home and abroad.

Senator Craig and I offer this amendment with others to express the sense of Congress regarding the use of the funds in this bill, which are substantial in section 3, for orphans and displaced and abandoned children. This amendment simply says our money in this bill should be laid down by USAID. We are not earmarking any money. We are not adding any money. We are not spending any additional money, just the money that is in this bill, that Members have said we want to send out to countries, should recognize the principles of The Hague Convention on Protection of Children and Co-Operation in Respect of Intercountry Adoption, should recognize the principle that children should stay with the families to which they are born. Our aid, whether it is for economic development or for education or health, should recognize the dignity and respect of each individual family unit. Try to keep children who are born to a family connected to that family.

Sometimes we know that doesn't happen or, unfortunately, it can't happen. War, disease, famine, violence separate children from their natural parents. When that happens, it is the principles of the United States, the values of the United States that we proudly share with the world to say that child who is orphaned should not be left alone to raise themselves. That child should be placed with a loving, caring, responsible relative as quickly as possible, someone in the extended family.

It could be the grandmother, grandfather, responsible aunt or uncle, perhaps an older sibling, not 12 years old, not 13 years old, but a 20- year-old or a 30-year-old, to raise that child and then that family unit continues.

When there is no a responsible adult in that family, then our principles say we should then look for some other family, perhaps a neighbor, another family in the community, a friend of the family to take that child or those children in and raise them and try to instill good values and security and happiness for that child's harmonious development.

If there is no family to be found within the neighborhood, the village, the community, then we should, as a human family, find some family in the world to take in that child. It is the miracle of adoption that is occurring all over this country and all over the world.

My husband and I have adopted children. We are very proud of our wonderful children. Many Members of Congress have added to their families or created their families through adoption. It is becoming something that Americans understand and believe to be important. There should not be any orphaned children, any waiting children. They are just unfound families, and we need to do a better job of connecting children who need homes with loving parents who will give them that support.

I come to this issue not just from a personal perspective but even before we went through this miracle of adoption ourselves, I understood this to be the truth. Children can't raise themselves. I was raised in a home, the eldest of nine children, with two loving parents. Many of us had wonderful experiences as we were growing up. We understand the value of keeping children protected and nurtured in the family setting. We come to this floor all the time trying to stop child trafficking, stop child abuse, mental illness, promote special education. The best way to stop some of that is to connect children with responsible adults who will raise them. It saves the taxpayers a lot of money, saves a lot of pain, saves a lot of anguish. That is what Americans, whether they are Republican, Independent, or Democrat, believe in. That is one thing I am confident of and need no poll to tell me.

I am a little surprised that when we laid down this amendment, we thought it would be accepted without any discussion, but there evidently is some hesitation. There is some sense that USAID doesn't agree with that. I am interested. If some Senator would like to explain USAID's position that they don't think families are important, I think the Congress would love to hear that. It would be quite a surprise to those of us who are appropriators who fund USAID and actually believe in so much of what they are doing, that they have a problem with an amendment that simply says children belong in families. That is all this amendment says.

Last year Americans adopted 120,000 children. Twenty thousand children came from many countries around the world to find a happy home here in America. One hundred thousand children were adopted, half of them out of our own foster care system which we recognize has some strengths but some weaknesses. We are working on that. We admit our long-term foster care has kept children in limbo for far too long. It has been a barrier, sometimes, to appropriate reunification. It most certainly has been a barrier to adoption.

Senators such as Senators Rockefeller, DeWine, Clinton, and others have spent many years working to reform that system. We are making a lot of headway. We are proud of it. But we had over 50,000 children adopted out of foster care.

Two children visited my office yesterday. They were 12 and 10, precious little boys from Louisiana. They said: Senator, we want you to meet our new mom. We were just adopted.

I asked the mom: Could I please speak to the children privately for a few moments?

She said: Fine.

So I had the little children in my office. I said: You don't have to tell me any of the details. I know it has been difficult. I just want to know, are you OK, are you happy?

They said: Senator, we are very happy with our new mom. She was our foster mom for a number of years. She is doing her best. Our parents just haven't been around.

I didn't want to go into too much detail with the children. But their little eyes were so hopeful. I walked out and I said: Congratulations. These two children now have a loving adult mother who is going to raise them and give them a future that they didn't have in the first years of their life.

I thank the Senators for all of their work and what they have done in that regard. We are making a lot of progress in our Nation. So this amendment basically recognizes that and says that we believe we should do everything we can to keep children in the family to which they are born. But when that separation happens, through all the things that I said about what can cause it, we need then to establish a permanent plan for children that tries to place them in another family as quickly as possible. Domestic adoption first. But if there are no families willing to adopt in that community or country, then intercountry adoption into the human family becomes very important before orphanages, institutions, et cetera.

So that is what this amendment does. It lifts our values that the Senator from Tennessee spoke about, lifts language from laws we have already passed in overwhelming numbers on this Senate floor, and it says in this amendment that all of the money in section 3 should recognize these principles.

There are over 54 countries in the world that have basically signed and ratified and are in the process of implementing these principles that are in the Landrieu-Craig amendment. This amendment says that sometimes temporary refugee camps are necessary, where children are temporarily separated because of war. But when the permanency plans begin to be made, let's make sure we put domestic adoption and intercountry adoption before long-term institutional care or, for that matter, letting children out on the streets to raise themselves. It is very clear.

So I say, again, that I hope we can get a strong, bipartisan vote on this amendment. I am sorry that there has been any difficulty. It was not meant to be that way. But I felt this issue had to be clarified in the bill because I was hearing too much at hearings, seeing too many things in letters that were passed on some of these issues that it gave me pause to think, I wonder if the USAID position is truly reflecting the position of the Congress, of the current Bush administration, of the State Department, which is the stated policy in support of the idea that children belong in families.

So I am hoping that with the cosponsors we have on this amendment we will get a strong vote affirming that intercountry adoption may offer advantages of a permanent family to a child or children for whom a family cannot be found in the child's home country. Let me state again:

Affirms that intercountry adoption may offer advantages of

a permanent family to a child for whom a family cannot be

found in the child's state of origin.

That seems to be controversial language. I cannot see it.

No. 4:

Affirms that long-term foster care or institutionalization

are not permanent options and should, therefore, only be used

when no other permanent option is available.

That is clear. We want to try to find a child a home, a real family. And there are 40 million orphans in the world, so this is not an easy task. But it is doable if we all work at it. If we cannot find children a home, if we have worked hard to look for a home for somebody that would take them in their own country, and we look internationally and try to find a family that would take them in, and we cannot find that, then, of course, we can have long-term institutions and foster care as the last and final option.

Please, let's give children a chance. In New Orleans right now--I had pictures sent to me--14 little orphans from Russia, between the ages of 5 and 12, through a program that many of us support, came over to the United States and spent 6 weeks in New Orleans. You know what the great news is? Yesterday, 12 of those 14 children are going to find permanent homes here. These children are older, but they are not damaged goods. Just because they are not little 3-month-old infants or 6-

month-old infants, they have a bright future. God gave them a lot of talent. They are stuck in an orphanage, where they have very little hope and opportunity. At the age of 15, they will be turned out on the street to fend for themselves.

If you want to talk about child prostitution or trafficking or what happens to children when they leave an orphanage at age 15, with no parents, no means of support, and no education--this amendment cuts down on child trafficking. This amendment cuts down on child exploitation. This amendment cuts down on child prostitution. If you can connect a child to an adult that will protect a child, that is the parents' primary job, protecting our children, and most parents do that very well.

For me to stand on the Senate floor and have to argue this to the agency that is sending out money around the world because they think this is not what other cultures are about--I am not an expert. I am a sociology major, but I never read where a family is not the primary building block of the community. If anybody knows of any other culture that doesn't recognize the family, let me know because in all of my reading, I have never read that anywhere. In every culture, family is important. We might describe it a little differently, and we may have different views about what a family looks like, which is not the subject of this amendment, but I don't know any culture anywhere in the world that doesn't think family is important.

So when USAID stands there and tells me something such as, it is not really in other cultures that this is important, I say, hogwash. Families are important. We define them differently. We respect the different views of how families come together. But in every culture adults raise children, and that is all this amendment says. It says, as a last resort, when you cannot find a family for a child--when you have tried and cannot find a family--then go ahead and build your orphanages, your institutions, and I hope that they will build them in a way and staff them in a way that these children know that, despite the fact they don't have a mother, father or someone to love them, they can be raised with a skill so that they can find their way. It is difficult when you are on your own. Children have done it before, and they will do it again. But for heaven's sake, can we try to find them a family?

Senator Craig and I offered this amendment. We cochair the commission on adoption. We have 180 Members of Congress who feel very strongly about this issue. I don't think we should be debating it, but for some reason we are. Our Members are Republicans and Democrats. None of our Members can understand why we are having this discussion, but here we are.

So this amendment simply, again, reaffirms its commitment to the founding principles of the Hague convention on the protection of children, recognizing that each country should take, as a matter of priority, every appropriate measure to enable a child to remain in the care of the child's family of origin. But when that is not possible, they should strive to place the child in a permanent and loving home through adoption. It affirms that intercountry adoption may offer the advantage of a permanent family to a child for whom a family cannot be found in the child's country. It affirms that long-term foster care or institutionalization are not permanent options and should, therefore, only be used when no other permanent option is available. It recognizes that programs that protect and support families can reduce the abandonment and exploitation of children.

I congratulate President Bush and his administration for agreeing to a breakthrough amendment with the country of Vietnam recently to open up again international adoption. There were some corruption issues. There was some lack of transparency in the process. There was some concern that this was not operating as smoothly as it should. So it was temporarily suspended. But because of the good work of the President and the President's administration, that was basically recreated. I have a copy of the agreement.

When an agency such as USAID tells me; ``We like what you are saying, but it is not our policy,'' I am confused because the President of the United States signed an agreement with Vietnam that has the same language of The Hague, in the first paragraph of this document: Agreement between the United States and the Socialist Republic of Vietnam. Clause 1, clause 2, and clause 3 are exactly this amendment. Forty-one Members of the Senate and the Congress signed a letter to the President of Romania outlining this exact principle. So the 41 Members who signed this letter, and myself, are very confused as to why this amendment is a problem. Again, I offered it to clarify.

This will be a great clarification to USAID that, unequivocally, the Members of this body and the House of Representatives, when this is passed, say that we value families; we think children should be in families; we want to do everything we can to connect children to families; we think they should stay in the families to which they are were born but, if not, find one close to home and, if not, someplace in the human family for them. End of story.

If that all fails, go ahead and build your orphanages and institutions. I don't know of anybody who grew up in an orphanage that liked it--not one person. I don't know anybody alive that ever told me that they had a happy time growing up in an orphanage. That is not a value that Americans believe in. I have had lots of people tell me they were so happy to grow up in a loving family. I have had people cry to me and say: I spent time in an orphanage my whole life. Nobody ever came for me, Senator. I have had people tell me that. I have never had anybody say to me how happy they were to grow up in a refugee camp or an orphanage.

I am not spending a penny in this bill to promote the idea that children could be happy being raised in an orphanage when one caregiver comes in for 300 children. I have been in a lot of these orphanages. Some of our other members have been also. I have traveled all over the world to some of these orphanage. I cannot describe the horrors of what I have seen. I cannot sit here on the floor of the Senate and let this go through being a little unclear. This is very clear to me, and it should be very clear to the Members of this body.

I know we are going to vote at 2 o'clock. I appreciate my colleagues giving me this time to express myself. I obviously feel strongly about it. Many Senators and House Members feel strongly about this. We are doing this here in the United States. This is our policy. So we need to promote, as Senator Frist said, our values--not force them, but promote them. Nothing is being forced here. We are promoting and saying, these are our values. We believe family is important. We are giving plenty of room in this amendment. We understand that there might be some contingency plans that have to be made, but let's try to connect children to families. I think it is the least we can do. I wanted to clarify that this is a value of the people of the United States of America.

I yield the floor and reserve the remainder of my time.

I suggest the absence of a quorum

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

Mr. President, I would like to take this opportunity to add just a few more items for the record on the subject about which I was just speaking, which is the Landrieu-Craig amendment on international adoption, domestic adoption, and family preservation.

One of the items that got my attention which prompted the offering of this amendment was a National Public Radio commentary, which I want to submit for the Record, after the tsunami disaster. I had the opportunity to visit the region affected with the Senator from Tennessee. I spent 3 days on the ground reviewing the damage in Sri Lanka and all over the devastated area.

This is what prompted this amendment, when we were focused on the issue of these children having been displaced. Of course, we remember the devastation that occurred. Children were tragically separated from their families. There was great interest in the children who might have been orphaned in that disaster and whether they could find a home elsewhere.

There was a great coalition of people in the United States and around the world who felt strongly about that. We began working on it and encouraging that children who had been orphaned, whose parents had been swept out to sea, the children who survived, of trying to place them with relatives, along the lines of what I have been speaking.

Then there was this NPR commentary, and I would like to read a paragraph of it into the Record:

Jaco spends his days--

This is a UNICEF worker funded in part by USAID--

walking through refugee camps, trying to find orphans. He's

not from Aceh; he's a social worker from nearby Medan who

came here as part of--

The Government's efforts at a child welfare program that is working with UNICEF to care for children who have lost their parents.

This worker is walking through this refugee camp, and he finds an orphan, according to NPR, and he finds the orphan's aunt. He says to the aunt: We would like to take this child to one of the Islamic boarding schools.

The aunt says: No, I would like to help raise this child.

The worker then is in a discussion trying to convince the aunt to let the orphan be raised in a boarding school.

This is what started this whole amendment. I know one cannot believe everything one reads in the newspapers, and one cannot believe everything one hears on the radio, but when we investigated this and looked into it, we found that this, in fact, was a pattern that was occurring; that our money was being used to fund workers who, instead of being so happy that they found an aunt for this child and saying, ``We have a program that can help; we know it is difficult; you are probably raising three or four other children; we are appreciative that you are taking in this orphan,'' our money was being used to promote something completely contrary to our views and policies, which is: Oh, don't worry, let the government take this child and raise it in a boarding school.

Whether it was a Christian boarding school, Islamic boarding school, Muslim boarding school, the Christian, Muslim, or Islamic boarding schools are not the same as being raised in a Christian, Muslim, Islamic family. That is the point.

What happens is, if we don't make this clear, it will end up that money is going to support orphanages and discouraging the reunification of orphans with their families.

I ask unanimous consent to print in the Record this commentary by National Public Radio which has prompted this whole initiative, if anyone has questions about it.

Mr. President, yesterday, there were several amendments voted on and, unfortunately, I was not here yesterday. I was attending a funeral of one of our State officials who unexpectedly passed away. Had I been here, I would have voted with my colleagues in rejecting the Coburn-Boxer amendment to the fiscal year 2006 State and Foreign Operations appropriations bill, which is the bill about which I am speaking.

Mr. President, while the vote on this amendment was taking place, as I said, I was returning from the funeral of my dear friend and Louisiana Secretary of State, the Honorable Fox McKeithen. Had I been here, I would have voted with my colleagues in rejecting the Coburn- Boxer amendment to the fiscal year 2006 State and Foreign Operations appropriations bill.

In preparation for this vote, I cosigned a letter, along with my colleagues Senators Feinstein, Santorum, and Specter requesting that Senators vote against the amendment. I have concluded this amendment would derail something that would benefit both China and the United States at a critical time in our two nations' history.

In this, the most important bilateral relationship of the 21st century, it is crucial that both countries continue to work in cooperation with one another.

The Shaw Group-Westinghouse consortium is the only American team bidding on a contract to construct four advanced-designed nuclear powerplants in China.

This deal has the full support of the U.S. Department of Energy which has authorized that the Shaw Group and Westinghouse Consortium work in the

People's Republic of China, PRC. The National Nuclear Security Administration, NNSA, has thoroughly reviewed the proposal and determined that concerns over national security are negligible.

Nuclear safety and technology transfer are key national security issues that nobody takes lightly. After much deliberation and consideration of these sensitive issues, it is clear that this deal is good for both the United States and China.

The AP1000 advanced design nuclear reactor is one of the safest nuclear reactors in the world and is on the cutting edge of nuclear technological innovation. This innovation will yield significant economic and environmental benefits.

This proposal would support a significant number of high value U.S. export oriented jobs in the manufacturing and engineering services areas.

At a time when Americans are concerned about their jobs, we should demonstrate through initiatives such as this that we have their economic best interests at heart.

The Shaw-Westinghouse Consortium benefits small businesses by virtue of the many U.S. subcontractors that will be used during the implementation phase of this contract.

The Consortium's bid would create or sustain more than 5,000 high- tech U.S. jobs, and provide ongoing jobs for many years to come, not just for the China project, but for sales in the United States and other global markets

This proposal seeks to address not only jobs, but the tremendous trade imbalance between the United States and China.

The U.S. Export-Import Bank exists to provide financing of last resort to assist exporters in order to create jobs and export growth for the U.S. economy.

This deal would be consistent with the 1985 Agreement for Cooperation Between the Government of the United States of America and the Government of the People's Republic of China Concerning Peaceful Uses of Nuclear Energy.

To limit the purchasing of U.S. civilian nuclear energy technology to the Chinese would be disastrous to our bilateral relations at a time when we must engage the Chinese and to cloak this proposal in anti- Chinese rhetoric is doing a disservice to the American people.

These exports to China will most assuredly yield significant benefits to companies and workers in the United States and assist in the promotion of the safe, reliable, and efficient growth of nuclear power in China, something which will be essential to both countries.

The chief competitor is AREVA, a French company. AREVA will have the full support of the French equivalent of the Export-Import Bank,

Madam President, I have a modification to my amendment. It is at the desk. It is a technical modification.

Mr. President, under the previous order, we are now about ready to have the vote on the Landrieu amendment. I ask unanimous consent for 2 minutes to close.

Mr. President, I offered this amendment on behalf of myself, Senator Clinton, Senator DeWine, Senator Inhofe, and Senator Craig. It is an amendment we feel very strongly about and are proud to offer to the Senate this afternoon to clarify a very important principle as we give out billions of dollars in aid to other countries. That principal is very simple and straightforward: Families matter; families should be respected; children belong in families.

As we give out billions of dollars that would hopefully reflect our values, as the Senator from Tennessee, the majority leader said, that would reflect and advance our values, this amendment becomes very clear and very important, and I hope it will receive an overwhelming vote.

To clear up some misperceptions that are out there about this issue, again the Landrieu amendment is not a sense-of-the-Senate amendment. It is a directive. It is a directive to USAID to say that as you are giving out this money, keep in mind that children belong in families. Try to allocate money in a way that keeps them with the families to which they were born, their families of origin. But if they become orphaned, let's work as hard as possible to reconnect those children to other families, preferably to relatives through domestic adoption, long-term permanency, long-term care; not long-term foster care, but through the permanency of a real new family. If that family is not available in that country, then to look within the human family to place those children, keeping sibling groups together as much as possible.

That is our policy in the United States. It is what our law is. It is a value that Americans hold dear. That is what this amendment does, and I offer it in a bipartisan spirit of cooperation.

Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to read into the Record a statement about the passing of one of our most dedicated public officials.

Mr. President, I call up an amendment to the underlying bill, Foreign Operations.

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

Mr. President, I send this amendment to the desk and I ask my colleagues to consider this amendment. We can vote on the amendment at any time before, of course, the final passage of this bill. I send this amendment to the desk, and I will spend a few minutes this afternoon talking about the underlying bill as it relates to the U.S. work and position on orphans.

We have done a lot of great work promoting the idea that children should be raised in families. We have in the United States made a lot of progress over the last 10 years. The former administration, the Clinton administration, and the current Bush administration have made child welfare a priority, have made families a priority.

We believe very strongly in the Congress, both on the Republican side and the Democratic side, that children are best raised in families. We would like our budget to reflect that commonsense principle. I have been in a couple of hearings and a couple of meetings over the course of the last year or two that have given me, some question whether that is clear in this Foreign Operations bill. So my amendment attempts to make clear in the underlying bill what I think is the clear and overwhelming contention of the Senate--and I would imagine the House of Representatives--that we spend money promoting social policy around the world, and that we adhere to a very commonsense principle--it is not an American principle; it is a universal principle. But I can most certainly say in America people feel very strongly about the fact that children should not raise themselves and should not be raised in orphanages, unless absolutely necessary. They should not be raised in group homes and should not be left alone to raise themselves on the street. We should do everything we can to keep children in families.

Let me spend a few minutes being a little more specific. A couple of years ago, under the great leadership of Senator Jesse Helms, we passed an international treaty that put into place this principle, which basically says that in our foreign policy it is the principle of the United States to say clearly that

children should remain in the families to which they are born--that our policies should promote family stabilization, family reunification, reunifying children who might be separated because of war or disease. We should try our very best to keep children in the families to which they are born.

Separation is occurring at an alarming rate in this world today for a number of reasons. AIDS is like a factory for orphans. There is an unprecedented number of children becoming orphaned because of this particular disease. The way this disease affects families, it takes both the father and the mother, leaving children truly orphaned. ``Double orphaned'' is the way the international community talks about a child who has lost both a mother and a father. So we have a growing number of orphans in the world because of the AIDS epidemic.

But even if it weren't for the AIDS epidemic moving through, for instance, Africa and India at an alarming rate, we would still have a growing number of orphans in the world. The question is: What do we do as a human family to see that each of these children has a home, a place? That is simply what my amendment does. It recognizes it is the sense of the Congress and it recognizes the principle that children should grow up in the homes to which they were born. But if they are separated by disease, or war, or death, or for good reason--because some children are at risk in the home, perhaps from mental or physical abuse; sometimes children, unfortunately, have to be taken from parents, according to laws and customs of some countries. When that happens, those children should be raised by a relative, a caring, responsible relative, someone right there in the extended family.

If a relative is not available or willing or able to take on the care of this orphan or sibling group, then those children should be raised right there in the community or within the country of origin. And if not, then we should find a way for these children to be adopted somewhere in the world. My amendment is not making this the law; this is the law now in the United States. These are the principles that are followed by our treaty, as passed by this Congress.

My amendment simply restates, for the purpose of this bill, that the $1.6 billion the U.S. taxpayers are sending out all over the world to support children's health and survival through USAID, which is our primary agency that distributes these funds, shall be distributed mindful of this principle on which this Congress has already acted.

I believe we will have a unanimous vote on this amendment. I do not think it is something that will generate opposition, but if there are Members who oppose it, I will be happy to talk with them about adjusting any language they find objectionable.

One of the things we need to promote in this world, not only at home but abroad, is the strength and support of families because if families are strong, if children can be nurtured and cared for within the loving context of a family, then I believe communities are strong, and when communities are strong, then nations are strong. It does start with the family unit.

Any idea that we could promote successful social policy around that principle or over it or underneath it instead of embracing it fully I think is a real mistake.

That is all my amendment does. The language tracks from The Hague Treaty which has already been passed. It will leave no shadow of a doubt that the Members of this body think that as USAID gives this money to NGOs or to regular recipients, that this principle be included in the distribution of this $1.6 billion.

I would be happy to answer any questions about the amendment. The amendment is rather short, a page and a half. It is rather clear. Again, I think it will go a long way in restating in this funding bill that we are, in fact, committed to the idea that children should be raised in families and that there is really so such thing as unwanted children, just unfound families. If we would spend a little extra time and be a little bit more committed on this issue, we could, despite the growing numbers, I believe, find a home for every child who needs one. I know that is a tall order, and I know people will say: Senator, that can never be done. I know the number of orphans is on the rise. But I also know from my personal experience and the thousands of parents who have adopted children that there is plenty of room in the homes and hearts of people all over the world. If governments would just make a little better effort to identify some of these families and to promote these concepts and continue to restate them in all of our work, that is not as farfetched as it may seem.

We want to respect the family, recognize the extended family, recognize the right of relatives to raise children, but when relatives and extended family members cannot be found, we believe that children should be placed in another family, to be raised as their own, and sibling groups kept together, which is the new practice in child welfare, not only in the United States but around the world, and that governments have an obligation to reduce barriers to adoption, to cut down the costs, to eliminate the corruption, to encourage transparency, to cut down on the paperwork, and to do their best to make what is so natural and what happened before governments existed, I am certain of it. When a parent or parents died, the most responsible adult next to the child took that child under their wing and raised them as their own. It is the way it has been done since the beginning of time. I don't know why governments in this world find this very complicated. It really is not. It is quite simple.

I want to make sure our primary aid giver USAID, understands clearly that the Members of this Senate are not trying to dictate, are not trying to earmark, are not trying to tell them the specifics of how to do their work. This amendment says that in giving money for social welfare and child survival and health, the principle that children should be raised in a family should be ever present in their decisionmaking. I believe this amendment would make this issue very clear, and there needs to be clarity on this subject.

If there are no other questions, I submit the amendment for consideration by the body and will expect a vote sometime at the managers' discretion. I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to read into the Record a statement about the passing of one of our most dedicated public officials.

Mr. President, I call up an amendment to the underlying bill, Foreign Operations.

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

Mr. President, I send this amendment to the desk and I ask my colleagues to consider this amendment. We can vote on the amendment at any time before, of course, the final passage of this bill. I send this amendment to the desk, and I will spend a few minutes this afternoon talking about the underlying bill as it relates to the U.S. work and position on orphans.

We have done a lot of great work promoting the idea that children should be raised in families. We have in the United States made a lot of progress over the last 10 years. The former administration, the Clinton administration, and the current Bush administration have made child welfare a priority, have made families a priority.

We believe very strongly in the Congress, both on the Republican side and the Democratic side, that children are best raised in families. We would like our budget to reflect that commonsense principle. I have been in a couple of hearings and a couple of meetings over the course of the last year or two that have given me, some question whether that is clear in this Foreign Operations bill. So my amendment attempts to make clear in the underlying bill what I think is the clear and overwhelming contention of the Senate--and I would imagine the House of Representatives--that we spend money promoting social policy around the world, and that we adhere to a very commonsense principle--it is not an American principle; it is a universal principle. But I can most certainly say in America people feel very strongly about the fact that children should not raise themselves and should not be raised in orphanages, unless absolutely necessary. They should not be raised in group homes and should not be left alone to raise themselves on the street. We should do everything we can to keep children in families.

Let me spend a few minutes being a little more specific. A couple of years ago, under the great leadership of Senator Jesse Helms, we passed an international treaty that put into place this principle, which basically says that in our foreign policy it is the principle of the United States to say clearly that

children should remain in the families to which they are born--that our policies should promote family stabilization, family reunification, reunifying children who might be separated because of war or disease. We should try our very best to keep children in the families to which they are born.

Separation is occurring at an alarming rate in this world today for a number of reasons. AIDS is like a factory for orphans. There is an unprecedented number of children becoming orphaned because of this particular disease. The way this disease affects families, it takes both the father and the mother, leaving children truly orphaned. ``Double orphaned'' is the way the international community talks about a child who has lost both a mother and a father. So we have a growing number of orphans in the world because of the AIDS epidemic.

But even if it weren't for the AIDS epidemic moving through, for instance, Africa and India at an alarming rate, we would still have a growing number of orphans in the world. The question is: What do we do as a human family to see that each of these children has a home, a place? That is simply what my amendment does. It recognizes it is the sense of the Congress and it recognizes the principle that children should grow up in the homes to which they were born. But if they are separated by disease, or war, or death, or for good reason--because some children are at risk in the home, perhaps from mental or physical abuse; sometimes children, unfortunately, have to be taken from parents, according to laws and customs of some countries. When that happens, those children should be raised by a relative, a caring, responsible relative, someone right there in the extended family.

If a relative is not available or willing or able to take on the care of this orphan or sibling group, then those children should be raised right there in the community or within the country of origin. And if not, then we should find a way for these children to be adopted somewhere in the world. My amendment is not making this the law; this is the law now in the United States. These are the principles that are followed by our treaty, as passed by this Congress.

My amendment simply restates, for the purpose of this bill, that the $1.6 billion the U.S. taxpayers are sending out all over the world to support children's health and survival through USAID, which is our primary agency that distributes these funds, shall be distributed mindful of this principle on which this Congress has already acted.

I believe we will have a unanimous vote on this amendment. I do not think it is something that will generate opposition, but if there are Members who oppose it, I will be happy to talk with them about adjusting any language they find objectionable.

One of the things we need to promote in this world, not only at home but abroad, is the strength and support of families because if families are strong, if children can be nurtured and cared for within the loving context of a family, then I believe communities are strong, and when communities are strong, then nations are strong. It does start with the family unit.

Any idea that we could promote successful social policy around that principle or over it or underneath it instead of embracing it fully I think is a real mistake.

That is all my amendment does. The language tracks from The Hague Treaty which has already been passed. It will leave no shadow of a doubt that the Members of this body think that as USAID gives this money to NGOs or to regular recipients, that this principle be included in the distribution of this $1.6 billion.

I would be happy to answer any questions about the amendment. The amendment is rather short, a page and a half. It is rather clear. Again, I think it will go a long way in restating in this funding bill that we are, in fact, committed to the idea that children should be raised in families and that there is really so such thing as unwanted children, just unfound families. If we would spend a little extra time and be a little bit more committed on this issue, we could, despite the growing numbers, I believe, find a home for every child who needs one. I know that is a tall order, and I know people will say: Senator, that can never be done. I know the number of orphans is on the rise. But I also know from my personal experience and the thousands of parents who have adopted children that there is plenty of room in the homes and hearts of people all over the world. If governments would just make a little better effort to identify some of these families and to promote these concepts and continue to restate them in all of our work, that is not as farfetched as it may seem.

We want to respect the family, recognize the extended family, recognize the right of relatives to raise children, but when relatives and extended family members cannot be found, we believe that children should be placed in another family, to be raised as their own, and sibling groups kept together, which is the new practice in child welfare, not only in the United States but around the world, and that governments have an obligation to reduce barriers to adoption, to cut down the costs, to eliminate the corruption, to encourage transparency, to cut down on the paperwork, and to do their best to make what is so natural and what happened before governments existed, I am certain of it. When a parent or parents died, the most responsible adult next to the child took that child under their wing and raised them as their own. It is the way it has been done since the beginning of time. I don't know why governments in this world find this very complicated. It really is not. It is quite simple.

I want to make sure our primary aid giver USAID, understands clearly that the Members of this Senate are not trying to dictate, are not trying to earmark, are not trying to tell them the specifics of how to do their work. This amendment says that in giving money for social welfare and child survival and health, the principle that children should be raised in a family should be ever present in their decisionmaking. I believe this amendment would make this issue very clear, and there needs to be clarity on this subject.

If there are no other questions, I submit the amendment for consideration by the body and will expect a vote sometime at the managers' discretion. I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise today in sadness to pay tribute to a man who served the State of Louisiana well for over 22 years, our late Secretary of State Fox McKeithen, who passed away over the weekend at his home, lovingly surrounded by friends, family, and admirers.

Walter Fox McKeithen was born on September 8, 1946. He was a young man when he died this weekend. He was the second of six children in a small northern town of Louisiana called Columbia. He was the son of a very well-respected governor whom we fondly called ``Big John'' McKeithen. He served in the 1960s and is accredited with leading our State of Louisiana at a very tough and tumultuous time in a very progressive and positive direction. Fox McKeithen, the oldest child, took after his father's political skills from an early age. He demonstrated those leadership skills as senior class president at Caldwell Parish High School, and after graduating from Louisiana Tech, he worked as a high school civics teacher and coach.

With his desire to serve the people of Louisiana in a greater role, he was elected to the House of Representatives in 1983. I had the distinct pleasure of working with Fox as a State representative. He went on then to run statewide and was elected Secretary of State. I went on at that same time as State treasurer, and we continued our strong partnership and relationship.

As Secretary of State, however, Fox took his very colorful personality and spirited dedication to make great improvements to an office that was in need of improvement. He modernized the way the State archived its records. He made it easier for businesses to register and get assistance from the Secretary of State's office. Most importantly, he was a friend to local clerks who work diligently in our State to process elections, make sure they are run fairly and openly. He had a very strong view, as Secretary of State and our chief election commission officer, that registered voters should have a chance to vote. Not a radical notion, but in this day and age not something that always happens. So he worked overtime to make sure the machines were there on time and people were well trained. If the clerks had problems, he himself would step in and give personal attention. So we all owe him a debt of gratitude for his dedication and commitment. In fact, once there was a problem--voting machines were arriving late. He jumped in his own pickup truck and went down to one of our parishes to bring them voting machines.

Perhaps his greatest legacy was the renovation of our old State capitol, a building that sat on the banks of the Mississippi River in decay and abandonment for many years. But with his vision and his leadership, he restored that building to its former grandeur, and now it is a place that is used by many different organizations and appreciated and admired by all the people of our State. When he started this project, people said it could not be done, there was not enough money to do it. But because of his tenaciousness and his hard work and leadership ability, he led a group of leaders both in the public sector and in the private sector to restore our own State capitol and enhanced one of the great communities on the banks of the Mississippi River, right there in our capital city, reminding us of our rich and colorful past.

It was truly an honor for me and many people in Louisiana to serve in public office with Fox McKeithen. He loved Louisiana and he loved serving all of her people. He shared his father's famous campaign slogan, ``Won't you h'ep me?'' as if it were a question that the people of Louisiana were asking of him. It didn't matter if you were a Democrat or a Republican, rich or poor, from north or south of I-10 or north or south of I-20, he was always there to help you if he could.

A dedicated public servant who gave everything he had to serving our State, Fox McKeithen will be dearly missed. The people of our State owe a great debt of gratitude to Fox and the entire McKeithen family for a legacy of leadership, compassion, and vision for our State. His eldest daughter Marjorie follows in her father's and grandfather's footsteps through her practice of law and effective advocacy for many important programs and initiatives in our State. She is truly carrying on the great McKeithen legacy of service.

So I come to the floor today saddened by the fact but gladdened by the life this man led and certain of his legacy that he left with the people of our State and the many contributions he made over a long and dedicated career.

On behalf of the people of Louisiana, I say our thoughts and prayers are with him and his family at this time.

Mr. President, I rise today in sadness to pay tribute to a man who served the State of Louisiana well for over 22 years, our late Secretary of State Fox McKeithen, who passed away over the weekend at his home, lovingly surrounded by friends, family, and admirers.

Walter Fox McKeithen was born on September 8, 1946. He was a young man when he died this weekend. He was the second of six children in a small northern town of Louisiana called Columbia. He was the son of a very well-respected governor whom we fondly called ``Big John'' McKeithen. He served in the 1960s and is accredited with leading our State of Louisiana at a very tough and tumultuous time in a very progressive and positive direction. Fox McKeithen, the oldest child, took after his father's political skills from an early age. He demonstrated those leadership skills as senior class president at Caldwell Parish High School, and after graduating from Louisiana Tech, he worked as a high school civics teacher and coach.

With his desire to serve the people of Louisiana in a greater role, he was elected to the House of Representatives in 1983. I had the distinct pleasure of working with Fox as a State representative. He went on then to run statewide and was elected Secretary of State. I went on at that same time as State treasurer, and we continued our strong partnership and relationship.

As Secretary of State, however, Fox took his very colorful personality and spirited dedication to make great improvements to an office that was in need of improvement. He modernized the way the State archived its records. He made it easier for businesses to register and get assistance from the Secretary of State's office. Most importantly, he was a friend to local clerks who work diligently in our State to process elections, make sure they are run fairly and openly. He had a very strong view, as Secretary of State and our chief election commission officer, that registered voters should have a chance to vote. Not a radical notion, but in this day and age not something that always happens. So he worked overtime to make sure the machines were there on time and people were well trained. If the clerks had problems, he himself would step in and give personal attention. So we all owe him a debt of gratitude for his dedication and commitment. In fact, once there was a problem--voting machines were arriving late. He jumped in his own pickup truck and went down to one of our parishes to bring them voting machines.

Perhaps his greatest legacy was the renovation of our old State capitol, a building that sat on the banks of the Mississippi River in decay and abandonment for many years. But with his vision and his leadership, he restored that building to its former grandeur, and now it is a place that is used by many different organizations and appreciated and admired by all the people of our State. When he started this project, people said it could not be done, there was not enough money to do it. But because of his tenaciousness and his hard work and leadership ability, he led a group of leaders both in the public sector and in the private sector to restore our own State capitol and enhanced one of the great communities on the banks of the Mississippi River, right there in our capital city, reminding us of our rich and colorful past.

It was truly an honor for me and many people in Louisiana to serve in public office with Fox McKeithen. He loved Louisiana and he loved serving all of her people. He shared his father's famous campaign slogan, ``Won't you h'ep me?'' as if it were a question that the people of Louisiana were asking of him. It didn't matter if you were a Democrat or a Republican, rich or poor, from north or south of I-10 or north or south of I-20, he was always there to help you if he could.

A dedicated public servant who gave everything he had to serving our State, Fox McKeithen will be dearly missed. The people of our State owe a great debt of gratitude to Fox and the entire McKeithen family for a legacy of leadership, compassion, and vision for our State. His eldest daughter Marjorie follows in her father's and grandfather's footsteps through her practice of law and effective advocacy for many important programs and initiatives in our State. She is truly carrying on the great McKeithen legacy of service.

So I come to the floor today saddened by the fact but gladdened by the life this man led and certain of his legacy that he left with the people of our State and the many contributions he made over a long and dedicated career.

On behalf of the people of Louisiana, I say our thoughts and prayers are with him and his family at this time.

Mr. President, from the day she became the first woman to sit on the U.S. Supreme Court, Sandra Day O'Connor has been an inspiration for millions of Americans, particularly for women and girls. I know this is true because she inspired me.

I was a young woman in my twenties serving in the Louisiana State Legislature when Justice O'Connor was appointed to the Supreme Court, and I remember that day very clearly. I always knew I wanted to serve the people of my country, and on that day I realized that there was no limit to what one woman could do.

And today, 24 years later, I am a woman standing on the floor of the U.S. Senate while the number of women in the Louisiana State Legislature has grown from 2 to 24. We all owe a great debt to pioneering women like Sandra Day O'Connor who broke the judicial glass ceiling and paved the way for me and for millions of other women.

But O'Connor's legacy is not limited to the barriers she broke. Throughout her 24 years of service, Justice O'Connor has proven herself to be one of our Nation's leading legal scholars, consistently putting the rule of law ahead of politics. She has been a champion of the law, a champion for our rights, and a champion for our country.

Finding an appropriate successor to such a dedicated jurist is a heavy task indeed.

To protect the rights and liberties of all Americans, there is perhaps no more important decision a President makes than nominating a Justice to the Supreme Court. I strongly urge President Bush to rise above the partisan politics that have gripped recent judicial confirmations and to reach out to both Republican and Democratic Senators as he selects a nominee to succeed Justice O'Connor.

It is the Senate's constitutional duty to provide advice and consent. To provide real advice and to grant real consent, every single Senator must weigh the nomination carefully and consciously.

Senators from both sides of the aisle must come together to ensure that the next member of the Supreme Court will uphold the rights of the American people and base his or her decisions on the law and the Constitution--not on political ideology.

I hope President Bush will join us in this partnership and allow us to provide real advice at this historic time.

Working together, I am confident that we can find a suitable Justice who will follow the great precedent of Sandra Day O'Connor.

Mr. President, I rise to speak a moment about why I am strongly opposed to the Dominican Republic/Central American Free Trade Agreement Implementation Bill, or CAFTA it is often referred to. CAFTA threatens a proud heritage and a way of life in Louisiana that dates back more than 250 years. Our great-great-great grandfathers were raising cane long before our country was even born. Since 1751, Louisiana sugar cane farmers have been farming the fertile soil of our great State. Before the marble Walls of Congress were ever erected, Louisianans built an industry that would weather hurricanes, the Great Depression and even the Civil War.

These farmers have good reason to be proud. American sugar producers are among the most efficient in the world. Two-thirds of the world's more than 100 sugar-producing countries produce at a higher cost than the U.S. And in my State of Louisiana, farmers produce about 20 percent of the sugar grown in the United States and currently rank fourth in the Nation in production of sugar, producing an average revenue of $750 million per year.

But today, we are prepared to deal this proud industry a death blow. We are talking about undoing centuries of tradition and stripping away jobs from efficient Louisiana farmers. As passed, this trade agreement would have a serious and harmful effect on sugar producers in my State: CAFTA will equal job loss and financial despair for 27,000 Louisiana sugar workers and farmers. Along with additional bilateral trade agreements, CAFTA could cost my State $750 million in direct sugar sales, as well as $2 billion in industry-related revenue each year.

In any trade negotiation, there are losses and there are wins. Oftentimes we are willing to accept the impacts these deals might have on our domestic producers because in the long run the good outweighs the bad. But that is not the case. CAFTA is a relatively small trade deal with a group of countries whose combined economies are smaller than that of New Haven, CT. Nearly half of all Central Americans earn less than $2 a day, and they simply cannot afford the meats or crops we have to sell. That is why the Louisiana Farm Bureau has joined other State farm bureaus, the National Association of State Departments of Agriculture, and numerous national farm groups in opposing CAFTA. Even our own Government's economic estimates say that CAFTA will mean little to agriculture or to our country as a whole; and these are known to be quite optimistic estimates. That is because as the administration points out time and time again--we already dominate the import market of this poor region.

According to estimates by the U.S. International Trade Commission, CAFTA would actually increase our trade deficit with Central America while benefiting our economy by less than one-hundredth of 1 percent. That is worth repeating again. The administration's economists say that CAFTA will increase our trade deficit with the region while boosting our own economy by less than 0.01 percent.

This same study concluded that for other farmers CAFTA would have ``a negligible impact on total U.S. production and employment.'' Why then are we talking about dismantling my State's sugar industry? U.S. farmers and ranchers get little in return for sending thousands to the ranks of the unemployed.

So what we have here is another raw deal for Louisiana sugar. I urge my colleagues to take a long, hard look at our country's current agricultural trade agenda. This year, the USDA says America will import as much food as we export. The agricultural trade surplus that stood at $27 billion less than 10 years ago is now gone. The promises made to farmers during the NAFTA debates have come up flat. And the promises that will be made today about CAFTA are contradicted by the administration's own estimates.

In closing, let me say I support free trade, so long as it is fair. Fair free trade requires that all players operate on as equal and level a playing field as possible, accountable to the same labor laws, environmental standards, and governmental intervention. To sacrifice even one job for a trade deal that will deepen our agricultural trade deficit is a travesty. And, having to tell thousands of hard-working farmers in Louisiana that they must look for work, because sugar was used as a bargaining chip, is unacceptable.

Madam President, I am pleased to be a cosponsor of this amendment, along with the Senator from Louisiana, Mr. Vitter, and many other Senators. We feel very strongly about this particular amendment.

I first thank the chairman of the committee and the ranking member for the excellent work they have done to move this Energy bill forward to this point. It has been a very difficult, tedious, and time- consuming task that has required a lot of patience and a lot of compromises to get a bill of this nature in this climate to this point. We appreciate their patience and their skill.

This is an amendment both leaders have been working on for many weeks. Amendment No. 891 would basically direct a portion of revenues to six States in the United States that have production off their shores, Louisiana being the prime State that produces so much of that energy resource for our Nation, but in addition, obviously Texas, Mississippi, to some degree Alabama, there is some production off the coast of California today--not much but some--and even the State of the Presiding officer, the State of Alaska, that contributes so much to the Nation's energy reserves, has some production off the coast.

Because of this tremendous contribution we have made these many years, let me say willingly and very ably, so many small, medium, and large companies have worked to perfect the technology. They have invented the tools, established the procedures, and have been pioneers in this industry. Many of the tools and technology invented for the environmentally responsible extraction of these minerals--not just in the United States but around the world--have actually been invented and developed in Louisiana. We are extremely proud of the contribution we have made.

In addition to this technological contribution we have made, we have contributed over $150 billion to the Federal Treasury since this began.

I see my colleague from Louisiana on the floor ready to speak in a few moments, but I would like to make a couple of other comments.

The wetlands in Louisiana are not Louisiana's wetlands, they are America's wetlands. They are host to some of the largest commercial shipping in the world. There are seven ports that comprise the ports of south Louisiana and, if combined, it is the largest port system in the world.

We have leveed the Mississippi River for the benefit of the Nation, not just for Louisiana's benefit. Realize, there were people living in Louisiana before the United States was a country. So we have been doing this a very long time. Controlling and taming this river, while it has been a great benefit to the Nation, has come at great cost to the State that holds this mouth of the great Mississippi River.

What do I mean by that? Because we channeled this river, again for the benefit of the Nation so we can ship grain out of Kansas and can ship goods throughout this world--north, south, east, and west--and serve as the vibrant global port that we are, the river has ceased to overflow its banks. So this great delta, the seventh largest in the world, is rapidly sinking. If we do not get some infusion of revenue through this mechanism and others that we are seeking, we will lose these wetlands. It will not be Louisiana's loss, it will be America's loss.

In addition to the commerce we support for our Nation, we also serve as a great migratory flyway for all the many bird species in North America. If they do not have a place to land when they come up from South America and Mexico--that is the place they land, that is the place they nest, that is the first land that is available to them off the water, and that is the marshland we are losing.

In addition, this delta, besides the commerce, besides the environmental benefits for birds and other wildlife, is the fisheries, the nursery for the Gulf of Mexico. More than 40 to 50 percent, estimated by scientists, of all the fisheries in the Gulf of Mexico have some part of their life cycle spent in this great expanse of wetlands.

I have been so pleased to have Senator Domenici and Senator Bingaman--both Senators from New Mexico--come down to Louisiana to fly over our marsh and see it. You cannot get there any other way. You cannot drive to our coast as you can to the coast in Florida or to the beaches in Mississippi where many of us spent many of our years growing up. There are actually only two beaches, and they are each only about 5 miles long. There are no highways. The only way you can get there is by pirogue, motor boat, skiff, helicopter, or air boat in the marsh. So not many people have seen these wetlands. I have pictures to show any colleague who would like to see them.

It is a magnificent stretch of land. The Everglades can fit inside it. It is three times the size of the Everglades in Florida. It is a huge expanse we are losing. If we do not capture these revenues in some annual, reliable amount to help the State of Louisiana put the resources into saving this wetlands, it will be, indeed, a great loss to America.

In addition to what this wetlands contributes to the United States, it is not only all the above I have described, but it also drains water from two-thirds of the United States. Without the ability to drain this water out, we would have flooding all the way up the Missouri. As you know, because of the

geography of our Nation, that water has to leave those areas or businesses and communities will flood.

We think we are making such--we don't think, we know we are making such a great contribution to this Nation in so many ways. We think this amendment is quite reasonable. There is money available for this purpose. It will be shared with these producing States.

From Louisiana's perspective, this money would be used primarily and almost exclusively for the restoration of America's wetlands so that these wetlands will be there for our children and our grandchildren.

It is with great pride I helped to lead this effort, along with my colleague from Louisiana and many cosponsors. That number continues to grow. We have substantial support because of the leadership of Senator Domenici and Senator Bingaman.

Again, Louisiana has contributed so much. We simply ask an investment back to preserve this wetlands, which is America's, and to recognize the contribution our State makes to the energy independence of this Nation and to the future economic viability of this Nation.

I want to recognize my colleague from Louisiana, Senator Vitter.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

No. I am sorry. I am wondering if we could have some additional time. Did the Senator want to speak for a certain amount of time?

Will the Senator yield?

I ask unanimous consent to speak for 5 minutes since we have no timeline.

Mr. President, I appreciate so much the support we have on this amendment from both sides of the aisle. A great deal of thought has gone into this amendment. My colleague from Louisiana answered every single one of the objections raised against this amendment by the Senator from New Hampshire. I add just a few words.

First of all, the Senator has done a very good job as budget chairman. I have enjoyed working with the Senator on many issues, including the education reform issue and trying to move toward a balanced budget. I share his goals in so many ways.

He, of course, is a great advocate for his State, although he is somewhat critical of an act that we fondly, and in a very appreciative way, refer to as the Breaux Act in Louisiana. We take that in Louisiana as a great compliment when a Representative, a Senator or a Congressman, can use their committees to do something that is so warranted and so worthy and so necessary for a State. Senator Breaux served so ably in this Senate for many years. We refer to that act as the Breaux Act.

The Senator is correct, we get a relatively substantial amount of money, $50 million a year. It started out at $20 to $25 million and has gone up to $50 million. However, that is a drop in the bucket considering the money that Louisiana has generated for this Nation and for the Senator's general fund. There has been $155 billion generated since 1953. Last year alone, $5 billion came off the coast of Louisiana. That would not be possible without our State agreeing to lay the pipeline, drive the pipe, allow the trucks to come down our two- lane roads that go underwater even when it rains. Forget the storm and hurricanes. Five billion dollars last year.

If any State has contributed to the Federal Treasury anywhere near that amount with their resources, please, I would like to know. No other State, except the State of Wyoming, contributes more to energy independence than the State of Louisiana. Wyoming gets prize 1 and we get prize 2. I am speaking about all sources--nuclear, hydro, geothermal, wood, wind, waste, solar, oil, natural gas, and coal. All of it. The States of Wyoming, Louisiana, West Virginia, Alaska, New Mexico, Kentucky, Oklahoma, Montana, North Dakota, Colorado, and Utah, generate more energy in their State than they consume, more energy than their industries need, and we export it out. And we are happy to do it because we actually believe in our State what we say in the Senate, that we want to be energy independent.

These States are at the top of the chart for usage: California, New York, Ohio. There are others.

People say every State contributes what it can. Some produce sweet potatoes, some produce Irish potatoes, some States have beaches, some States have mountains. I understand that argument. That is what makes our Nation great. We all contribute to this great whole. But Louisiana contributes more than its share and it has since 1940.

Are we asking anybody else to do that? No. Are we trying to move moratoria? No. We are saying for the money we contribute--we understand the OCS does not belong to us; we do not claim it does--we are saying for the money we contribute, could we please have six-tenths of a percent. If it means an entitlement, let me say to the Senator, the people in Louisiana are entitled. They are entitled to the money we helped contribute to the general fund. I don't take that as an insult, I take it as a compliment to the people of my State. We are entitled to some small amount of money we are asking for. We are willing to share it with the States that did not produce nearly the amount we produce, but we are happy to do that. In fact, the Presiding Officer may remember we have had bills to try to share the money with everyone. No matter what we try, we can share with everyone, but it is never quite enough, never quite right.

We have it right this time because we probably have over 60 supporters of this amendment to give Louisiana and these coastal States a small share of the money that, yes, they are most certainly entitled to.

Second, in this bill, the use of this money will go to wetlands conservation and resources. There have been a lot of pictures shown of the coast. I will show one of my favorites because this is what our coast looks like. This is what we are trying to keep healthy, a place where wildlife can flourish. A lot of people live near marshes like this. When they open their kitchen windows, they do not see interstates or big highways, they see this marsh.

If you live near the Atchafalaya and you open your back windows, you will see a beautiful cypress forest. Most are gone in North America, but we are fortunate to have some in Louisiana we are trying to preserve. If you go out near Lake Maurepas around Lake Pontchartrain, this is what you see when the sun sets in the evening.

I am tired of people coming to the Senate and putting up pictures of pelicans with oil all over them. We are wise people. We are an industrious people. We are a people who care about our environment. We have cared about it for hundreds of years. And we continue to try to save it.

The Senator from New Hampshire can most certainly appreciate how much we love our State because he loves his, and how smart the people in Louisiana are to use the resources appropriately, the Senator would understand that these are some of the extraordinarily beautiful places that we are trying to save.

There is a delta that is growing in Louisiana. It is the Atchafalaya Delta. And because of its natural beauty and because the water continues to flow and because of the good technologies our great universities have contributed to understanding the ecology of a delta-- there is no delta in New Hampshire, I don't believe. The last time I checked there wasn't one, but there is a big one in Louisiana, the seventh largest delta in the world. It is a growing delta. If you looked on a map from the satellite, you could see there is land growing off the coast of Louisiana. We are proud that this Atchafalaya Delta is growing. We are preserving it. The State is spending millions of dollars to buy this land and preserve it.

Any argument in the Senate that the people of Louisiana are sitting around twiddling their thumbs, not smart enough to figure this out, is an insult. I don't think that is what the Senator meant, but sometimes people in Louisiana hear words in the Senate that lead them to believe that might be the conclusion. I am certain that is not what he meant.

We have every intention of using this money to preserve these wetlands, to make the place that we have lived for over 300, 400 years more beautiful, and most importantly to make it secure for the future. As this marsh goes away, it threatens not only the life and livelihood and investments of the 2 million people who happen to live there and the 1 million people who live on the coast of Mississippi--because this marsh land protects them, as well--it also puts at risk billions and billions of dollars of infrastructure that the oil and gas industry has invested for the benefit of every single solitary American, whether they live in New Hampshire, Maine, Illinois, California, or Florida.

The Senator from Louisiana and I have made our points very well. We appreciate the work of the Senator from New Hampshire and his work on the budget. We understand he has a tough job. But we have a job to do, as well. That job is to get six-tenths of 1 percent of the money that we generate for this Nation without bellyaching about it, without complaining about it. We have patiently and consistently asked for some fair share.

Yes, Senator Breaux was quite successful in managing a small amount of money, but the tab that we have, the Corps of Engineers has helped us to appreciate. The tab that we have to pick up right now in our 20/ 50 plan is estimated to be $14 billion.

So am I to believe the Senator from New Hampshire expects the 4.5 million people in Louisiana to pick up the tab--$14 billion--to fix the wetlands that is not ours but belongs to everyone, that we did not destroy but the

Mississippi River leveeing destroyed, and put taxes on us to do this? I do not think he would suggest that.

This is a partnership we ask for. We will do our part. The Federal Government should do its part. We are going to continue to press this issue. I am pleased to be able to answer some of those questions and concerns.

Finally, this is a picture of the wetlands itself from a satellite view. This is Louisiana's coast. It is very different from Florida, very different from California. As I said, most people have never quite seen it because there are only two places you can get to. One is Grand Isle, which is shown right here, that tiny, little place. It is a beautiful little island, but it keeps getting battered by the hurricanes that continue to come. And Holly Beach is somewhere right around here on the map. It is too small to see on the map.

There are only two roads you can get to. No one can see our coast unless you are one of the thousands of fishermen who come fish and tie their boats up next to the rigs. They actually fish next to the oil and gas rigs. That is where the best fishing is in the Gulf of Mexico. So unless you are one of those fishermen, or one of the trappers who have trapped here--for hundreds of years families have trapped here--you would not know where this is or what it looks like. But we do because we represent this State.

We are losing this land and must find a way to save it.

This amendment is a beginning. My colleagues have been so patient. Our colleagues have been so helpful. Chairman Domenici and Ranking Member Bingaman have seen this land.

Again, as my partner from Louisiana said--and I am going to wrap up in a moment--this does not open moratoria. It is not an opt-out or opt- in amendment. It is simply a revenue-sharing amendment. We believe the people of Louisiana and Mississippi and Texas and California and Alaska and Alabama are entitled to some of the money, a small amount of money they are contributing to the general fund that helps us keep our taxes low and funding projects all over the Nation.

Mr. President, 30 more seconds. The Senators have been so patient, but I want to say this one response.

When the Senator says no other States share the revenues, that is inaccurate. I know he is aware that interior States share 50 percent of their revenues from Federal land in their States. Louisiana does not have a lot of Federal lands. Texas has very little Federal land. Mississippi does not have much Federal land. Most of that is in the West. We are different. We are not the West. We are the South, although Texas could claim to be both. But Louisiana and Mississippi are Southern States. We do not have a lot of Federal land. What we do have is a lot of land right off of here, as shown on the chart, that belongs to the Federal Government. But the Federal Government could not get to it unless we allowed pipelines. There are 20,000 miles of pipelines put under this south Louisiana territory to go all over the country, to keep our lights on and our industries running.

So again, there is revenuesharing. We would like our share. This is going to go for a good cause, for the preservation of an extraordinary marsh. It is time for us to make this decision today for Louisiana and the coastal States.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question?

The Senator from Mississippi has made such excellent points, and we appreciate his comments and support. The Senator may want to express for a moment the terror that reigned south Louisiana, Mississippi, and Florida last hurricane season with the unusual number of storms

that came up through the Gulf of Mexico and how frightening it is to people on the coast when these wetlands continue to disappear. The intensity of those storms gets greater and greater, and the damage to property and the threat to life is fairly serious.

As a Senator who lives on the Gulf of Mexico, maybe just a word to talk about what happened to our States last hurricane season.

Will the Senator yield for a question?

If the Senator will yield, he has made so many excellent points, and I am not sure I heard them. Maybe if he would repeat--right now we are building a pipeline from Alabama to Florida? Could the Senator explain that, again? I am not sure people understand that you are building a pipeline from Alabama and sending the gas-- where?

I thank the Senator for that question. I would like to respond this way. I do think there is a lot of misunderstanding and fear associated with an industry that not everyone knows about. As the Senator knows, we do know a great deal about the industry. We understand that 40 years ago, 30 years ago, the industry was relatively new and mistakes were made and technology was being tried out. We just did not have all the environmental data that we have today. But as the Senator knows, in every industry there has been tremendous advancement made.

Not too along ago I was watching a program on television that was showing the way hot water heaters were developed in the Nation. I think the chairman from New Mexico would appreciate this. The whole program was about how in the early days people really wanted to have water, clean water, but they needed it warm for many purposes--not just for convenience and health, but cleanliness. They couldn't figure it out. So they kept trying to figure out a way to get hot water to people's houses.

But what would happen is these early hot water pumps, as you know, would blow up, they would blow the whole house up and people were actually killed; they lost their lives. But did we stop trying to bring hot water into the homes of Americans?

I know this might seem to be a small matter to people who live in the United States, but turning on a faucet, in your home, for clean, drinkable cold and hot water is still a luxury in the world today. But Americans did not stop with that technology. So today we take it for granted. Everybody can go home and turn the hot water on and it comes out and nobody blows up.

The Senator from Alabama is absolutely correct. There are people who just do not know. This technology is very safe. Plus, we have the Coast Guard, we have Federal agencies, we have the State court system, and the Federal court system, in answer to your question, that all enforce the laws, and agencies that are ``Johnny on the spot'' if something goes wrong.

Are there accidents? Yes. Can things go wrong? Yes. But I think as we start telling people more and at least give people more good information--the Senator from Alabama is correct--then they can make better decisions for the country. Again, to be respectful, if some States have accepted this information and still make the choice not to go forward, that might be their prerogative. But the Senator is absolutely correct. For those States such as Alabama, such as Mississippi, such as Texas and Louisiana, that have decided this is in our State's interests and the Federal interest, then most certainly this small amount of money for coastal impact assistance--to help us with our wetlands, to help us with beach erosion, to help make those investments that are so necessary--is absolutely the right thing to do at this time.

The Senator is correct. There is some thought that perhaps Cuba may open drilling and Canada may open drilling. But again, this amendment that the Senator has cosponsored, along with my colleague from Louisiana, who is here on the floor as well, is not a drilling amendment. It is not touching the moratoria. It is not laying down any boundary changes whatsoever. It is a coastal impact assistance revenue sharing for only the current producing States. So while there has been an extended debate--because we are not able to go to a final vote because there are some things that are being worked out and there has been an extended debate in these last hours, as my good friend from Florida knows, who is here on the floor--this amendment is a coastal impact amendment.

We have already debated the moratoria issue. We have debated the drilling issue. We could not come to a compromise on that so that issue is going to be saved to another day.

I have said to my friends from New Jersey and my friends from Florida and to my friends from Virginia and to you, the Senator from Alabama, this debate is not going to go away. We are going to have to continue to debate it. But this is not the debate at this moment. This debate now, this amendment that has broad bipartisan support, is about coastal revenue sharing, coastal impact assistance for States that produce oil and gas.

If I could, I wanted to make mention of something that would help the country understand, I think. This is from the Department of Energy, Energy Information Agency's Report of 2001.

These numbers will have changed, obviously, since 2001, but probably not by too much, and I doubt the quarter will change too much.

This is all energy produced--nuclear, hydro, geothermal, wood, wind, waste, solar, oil, natural gas, and coal. That is everything--nuclear, hydro, geothermal, wood, wind, waste, solar, oil, natural gas, coal.

There are only 11 States in the Union that produce more energy than they consume. All of these States, starting from No. 1, California, all the way down to Vermont, use more energy than they produce.

Again, I am aware that we are a Nation of 50 States. Some States grow sweet potatoes, some States grow Irish potatoes; some States make tractors, some States make automobiles.

But the problem here is that some are saying we don't want to produce energy but we want the benefits. So I am saying to my friends on all sides, if you don't want to drill for oil and gas on your shore or off, then put up a nuclear powerplant. If you don't want to put up a nuclear powerplant, put up windmills. If you don't want to put up windmills, you have to try to do something to generate energy for this country.

That is my only argument. That is not this amendment. This amendment is just recognizing that the States that have--let me just say this. I am trying to speak the truth here. Not only does Louisiana produce more than it uses, but please remember how much industry we have. Most of the chemical plants are in Louisiana, New Jersey, Illinois. Those are the areas where there are a lot of chemical plants.

We are proud of the petrochemical industry. But we also supply all of those manufacturing facilities--huge manufacturing facilities--that produce products that are not just bought by Louisiana; these chemicals go into better products we create in America. We sell them overseas, we sell some to ourselves, and we make money.

Not only are we producing all the gas and energy we need, we are fueling all of our plants and then exporting. When you add that on top of the numbers on my chart--and I want this corrected for the record. I am not sure this chart counts offshore; I think this may be just onshore. I don't think this counts offshore. If you add that, these numbers go up exponentially.

Wyoming gets the first prize. Some States say, We do not have the resources. I understand that. Not everyone has oil and gas. Not everyone has coal. The point Senator Domenici has been trying to make is, that is fine, but everybody has an ability to do something. Either conserve more, do not let SUVs come to your State if that is what you want to do, or produce more. That is the point--not on this amendment-- one of the points of this bill.

The Senator is correct. The Senator from Louisiana could answer as well, Senator Vitter. I will yield to him for a response.

We get the benefit of jobs. We are happy for the jobs, and we are proud of the technology we are developing.

The Senator from Alabama is correct. This oil and gas that comes through our State and is generated in and around our State goes to the benefit of everyone to try to keep the lights on in Chicago, New York, California, and Florida. We are happy to do it. We are not even complaining. We are just saying, in light of this, could we please share less than 1 or 2 percent of the money generated. Last year we gave $5 billion to the Treasury.

Will the Senator yield?

I thank the Senator from Florida.

I wanted to say that he has made some excellent points about our need for energy independence. He has stated it eloquently and correctly in terms of our overdependence. In large measure that has been what so many of our debates in the last few weeks have been.

As the Senator knows, the underlying bill we are trying to get to a final vote on within a few hours actually addresses so many of the concerns the Senator has so rightly raised. He is correct that we can move to a new kind of vehicle that you can plug in at night, drive during the day, switch from electricity to gasoline. That gives

us extraordinary hope, without compromising our industry, without Draconian measures. What he spoke about is real, it is not fantasy, and it is in this bill. The ethanol provisions that he talked about are in this bill because of the great work of Senator Domenici and Senator Bingaman, a Republican and a Democrat. Yes, they are from the same State, but they have different views--some more conservative, some more liberal. But they have come together on a great, balanced bill.

We are attempting to pass this good bill today. We are very close. We are down to the last few amendments. The Senator from Florida has made some excellent points. I also want to say he has been tireless in his advocacy for Florida. He is a Senator from Florida, along with Senator Martinez. They have been down here for hours telling us about their beautiful beaches. We acknowledge it. In Louisiana--I tease the Senator from Florida--we know about those beaches. We grew up on those beaches as well. People from Mississippi and Alabama and Louisiana spend a lot of time on those beaches. We want to help them preserve their beaches.

I wanted to ask the Senator: Does he intend, if we can get our situation cleared up, to support the amendment we have on the floor, which is a revenue coastal impact assistance sharing? He has been so good in his comments about the contribution that Louisiana and other coastal producing States make. I know he is aware that this amendment we are considering is not a drilling amendment. It is not a boundary amendment, the Bingaman-Domenici-Landrieu-Vitter-Lott amendment. I wanted to ask him to comment on that.

I thank the Senator for those comments.

Again, I recognize Senator Domenici and Senator Bingaman, who have tried to work through the great differences between all of us, representing our individual States, trying to move a bill forward that achieves the purpose we all want. The goal of more energy independence for our Nation, stronger conservation measures, opening the supply of different types--that is the purpose of the bill. So as we get to the final hours, having debated this bill now for 2 hours, I hope we can stay in the spirit of moving this important legislation. One of our colleagues from Virginia said this morning that in his opinion this might be the most significant piece of legislation we may pass this Congress.

We have tried for 14 years. The Senator from Florida is aware we have tried to pass an energy bill. This is not an easy bill to pass, not because Democrats and Republicans disagree, but because regions of the country disagree about how best to achieve that goal. It is an extremely difficult piece of legislation.

If we had not had the two leaders we had, with the patience of Job-- as I have said many times, I don't know how they have brought us to this point. I know it is the Domenici-Bingaman amendment that is pending. Senator Vitter and I are cosponsors. Both Senators from Mississippi came earlier to speak on the amendment. We hope sometime in the next hour or so--hopefully sooner--to get a vote on the amendment-- it would be a bipartisan vote--and then move on to take care of the other amendments and finalize the bill.

The Senator from Florida knows that despite our differences on this issue, we will agree to debate it in the future. This debate will go on. The underlying debate is not about the moratoria. It is not a drilling amendment. I look forward to having his support.