Floor Statements

Mr. President, this is shaping up to be an auspicious time for an Energy Bill, as we begin a year long celebration of Benjamin Franklin's 300th birthday. Benjamin Franklin was the embodiment of a ``renaissance man.'' He was a small business owner, a diplomat, an accomplished author, a scientist, and one of our Nation's greatest Founding Fathers. It is his role as a scientist that I want to focus on today and suggest that the best birthday present we could give him would be to honor his work and pass a balanced, forward-looking and scientifically-based Energy bill this year.

Americans learn from childhood the story of Franklin and his breakthrough experiment with a kite and lightening. In today's world, it is hard to imagine that a politician as accomplished as Benjamin Franklin would also make such a profound contribution to science. But, he did. Franklin's contribution to science was profound because his experiment with a kite and lightning proved that electricity was a naturally occurring phenomenon.

Before that, superstition governed man's interaction with electricity. It used to be that people believed the devil hurled electric bolts from the sky. So when a lightening storm was brewing, churches sent people to ring the bells to ward them off. Tragically, this same superstition seems to often guide our policies today.

Franklin's pioneering work with electricity is so instructive because it reminds us that we need to put reason and science before superstition and myth. Electricity was once a dangerous force in the world that, thanks to Franklin and Edison, we have now harnessed to provide power and light, life and hope, and the greatest prosperity the world has ever known. This remains our challenge today. If we want to continue to generate power for future generations, we must harness powerful forces--solar rays, geothermal steam, nuclear fusion, wave energy and new generations of fossil fuel technology.

To do so, we must abandon superstition, misinformation and fear.

The area of sharpest interest to the People of Louisiana in this bill, is also surely one of the areas most in need of reason over superstition--oil and gas production, both on shore and on the Outer Continental Shelf. As we are all aware, the United States has an abundant demand for fossil fuels, but also a great need to use them wisely.

We comprise about 5 percent of the world's population, but we consume more than 25 percent of the world's oil production--roughly 20 million barrels per day. Some projections have the country's oil consumption hitting 29 million barrels a day by 2025--nearly a 30 percent increase. With the price of oil hovering around $50 a barrel, this is a chilling proposition.

And for our own purposes today, it should also be a motivating proposition.

The global picture is even more difficult. China, with its rapidly growing economy, 1.3 billion people, and millions of new cars, has just passed Japan to become the second largest consumer of oil after the U.S. In 2003, China consumed more than 5 million barrels per day, of which more than 35 percent was imported. By 2030 it is estimated that China will need 12 million barrels per day. India, with its 1 billion people and surging economy, also has a growing need for a reliable energy supply.

Despite this impending crisis, is the United States trying to secure its future by maximizing its own domestic production of natural sources of renewable energy? Absolutely not. Instead, like medieval villagers, we are running up to the bell towers when lightening is striking.

We have young American soldiers securing Iraq. I support democracy for Iraq; I support democracy for all people of the world. But what separates Iraq from brutal dictatorships in other places? The answer is obvious--the second largest oil reserve in the world.

So young American men and women are sacrificing their lives every day to cover for our superstitions and political gridlock in Washington.

We have lost 1,622 Americans in Iraq--that's more than 2 American soldiers per day of occupation. We have to play the cards that we are dealt, but just because we got a tough hand doesn't mean that we should, in good conscience, pass an energy bill that does not diminish our dependence on Middle Eastern oil.

That is why it is so important that we write an energy bill that provides smart, efficient incentives for the United States to maximize its own domestic energy production, using all the avenues that are available to us to diversify our supply and to encourage competition that would drive down and stabilize prices.

Vitally for my State, this must include a recognition of the contribution that coastal states, particularly states along the Gulf Coast, make to energy production now.

The coast of Louisiana is not a regular coast. In supporting the production and transportation of 80 percent of our Nation's offshore oil supply, it is truly America's Wetland--and with its loss, America faces a national emergency. In the past 50 years alone, Louisiana's size has been reduced by an area larger than that of Rhode Island, and continues to wear away at the rate of one football field every half hour.

If the Rocky Mountains were to shrink by 10 feet every year, we would act. If a foreign army were to advance a hundred yards up our shore every 38 minutes, we would act.

Because of the vast array of energy resources Louisiana and other coastal States supply and protect, coastal erosion in our States presents a direct threat to our national security and the global economy.

We must act--and while the waves eat away our shores, the solution may lie just beneath their surface.

In the early days of this Nation, Benjamin Franklin and his colleagues looked to the western frontier for its rich resources and the promise of new economic and military security, just as their ancestors had looked to the seas with the same thoughts in mind.

Today, our oceans have reemerged as a great frontier capable of helping build a stronger, more secure and more economically stable Nation. We have learned that through new technologies, when managed well and wisely, the ocean frontier holds tremendous resources that may be put to work for America.

Harnessed beneath the surface of this great frontier lies the energy to light our homes, power our public infrastructure and give birth to even greater achievements.

Little more than a century ago, what we'd call ``Ocean Energy Industry'' was simply one of whaling ships and harpoons. But today, the Outer Continental Shelf, or OCS, provides American consumers with 25 percent of the natural gas, and 30 percent of the oil, produced in the country each year.

It also rewards the U.S. Treasury with more than $5 billion annually--$145 billion since production began in 1953. That is the second biggest contributor of revenue to our Federal Treasury after taxes.

But it has costs, and it is perfectly reasonable for States to want assistance with those costs.

The Mineral Lands Leasing Act shares with interior States 50 percent of the revenues generated on Federal land within their borders. In serving as the platforms that support a vital component of our national energy supply, coastal States deserve the same treatment. And so, last week, I introduced the Stewardship for our Coasts and Opportunities for Reliable Energy Act--or SCORE--which does just that . . . It gives coastal States the same 50 percent share of the oil and gas revenues for their work that interior States receive for their efforts to support production.

This is more than just sound economic and energy policy--it is a simple demonstration of fairness.

The OCS supplies more oil to our Nation than any foreign power-- including Saudi Arabia--and it is estimated that 60 percent of our Nation's undiscovered oil and gas will be found on the shelf. And so, as we take to the seas again, we are not hunting the elusive Moby Dick of lore. . . We know where the bulk of this oil may be found.

But just as the Western frontier once represented a great unknown to our Nation's policymakers, the impact and reality of the OCS seems lost in a time warp. We exist on outdated policies, and while our production has increased somewhat, we haven't even built a new refinery in a decade.

We also have yet to adequately answer the question, ``Why should a State contribute to our energy independence?'' and have failed to take the necessary steps to encourage them to do so.

Last year, we commemorated the 200th Anniversary of Lewis and Clark's adventure into the frontier. It is a prominent historical event for Louisiana, because it marks the culmination of the promise of the Louisiana purchase. Thirty-eight soldiers and scouts set out with Lewis and Clark, and they called themselves the Corps of Discovery.

Hopefully, our body can take up their mantle and emulate their exploring spirit in the passing of this bill.

Today, we are exploring only 43 million of the 1.67 billion acres of the Outer Continental Shelf--less than 2.6 percent! If Lewis and Clark had taken this same timid tactic, they would have stopped just short of Cincinnati, and the history of our country would have been vastly different. Instead, Lewis and Clark ventured on for another 8,000 miles and helped to open our western frontier. Let us do the same!

Thomas Jefferson, who commissioned the adventure, was eager to have a full understanding of the economic potential of his great bargain. This was an act of political will--for no sooner did the trip commence, than Congress began complaining about its expense. Thus, even Lewis and Clark's voyages were seemingly subject to the mindless penny pinching of ``302(b)'' allocations.

What they were trying to discover was the economic potential and natural resources of this great country. It was a fundamental exercise of reason over myth. Jefferson sought new trading relationships with the native tribes, sought an overland route to the Pacific for nascent trade with China, and wanted to know of the quality of land for agriculture.

What he did not do was let ignorance and fear govern policy.

Yet when it comes to the Outer Continental Shelf, we are doing just that. Not only do we not know the full riches that lie off our coasts, policymakers around here don't want to go, don't want to see, and don't want to know.

While the OCS contains more than 60 percent of the Nation's remaining undiscovered oil and natural gas resources, 85 percent of the OCS in the lower 48 States remains untouchable . . . blocked by Congressional moratoria and administrative withdrawal.

While 98 percent of our current OCS production comes from a very concentrated area--the western half of the

Gulf of Mexico, offshore Louisiana and Texas--most of the Pacific Coast remains off limits. Most of the Eastern Gulf of Mexico . . . off limits. And the entire Atlantic seaboard . . . off limits.

At the same time, our demand for, and supply of, oil and gas are moving in opposite directions. Over the next 20 years, our consumption is expected to increase by 50 percent, but production is only expected to increase by less than half that amount.

Imagine explaining that circumstance to someone like Jefferson or Franklin, Lewis or Clark. They understood the essential fact of progress--you can't discover if you don't look.

It is time for a full accounting of the resources of the OCS. Technology has provided us with a modern Corps of Discovery that will be no more intrusive than the 40 men in the wilderness 200 years ago. With scientific data in hand, then we can have a meaningful argument about the efficacy of what to do with our natural resources.

For example, through the effective use of technology, we have produced three times as many resources as we thought existed 30 years ago--and have produced them in an environmentally friendly way . . . The Minerals Management Service estimates that from 1985 to 2001, OCS offshore facilities and pipelines accounted for only 2 percent of the oil released into U.S. waters. In fact, 97 percent of OCS spills are one barrel or less in volume. Obviously, just a little technology can go a long way.

What is disappointing to me is that the mythology around oil and gas production--its potential hazards and challenges--stems from stories nearly 50 years old. We live in an information driven economy, but many in the environmental community have a very industrial age approach to these challenges.

We ban; we prohibit; we restrict. Instead we should research, innovate and improve.

Several nights ago, I was up late watching an odd documentary. It was about the history of bringing hot water to our homes at the turn of the century. It's something we all take for granted now, but if you contemplate it, it was a difficult engineering problem years ago. Like all new technologies, water heaters were once a lot less reliable than they are now. In fact, when they first started to be installed in people's homes, they frequently blew sky high. That was tragic, and we are all relieved that we've moved beyond that stage in technology.

But, the lesson is that even though tragic injuries occurred, when there was great societal benefit to be had, technology kept on leading the way. That is what has already occurred in oil and gas. There is clearly more that can be done.

I invite any Member of the Senate to join me on an offshore platform. You will see something that looks a lot less like an industrial plant and more like a spaceship . . . A spaceship for which our coastal producing States provide the launch pads.

More can be done, but you will be amazed at what has already been accomplished.

The SCORE Act helps motivate States to consider the potential that lies on the frontier off their coasts, and hopes to inspire a new era of technological advancement and energy invention. As we begin to comprehend the Ocean Frontier, we need to partner with industry to develop the necessary science.

Safety and environmental sensitivity should be the watchwords of our stewardship. It is a lesson that we take with us from our collective experience. To ensure this remains a priority for industry, we need to reinvest some of the resources that we are collecting. That is the way forward--not ignorance and fear, but reason and stewardship.

No one understood the importance of stewardship more than Theodore Roosevelt, whose memorial I visited yesterday with the Senator from Tennessee, Mr. Alexander. Two of Roosevelt's greatest legacies--the Pelican Island National Wildlife Refuge and Breton Island National Wildlife Refuge--lie just off Louisiana's coast. They were the first refuges he created, but as we know, they were not the last . . . and the lives of generations of Americans continue to be enriched by these gifts to us.

In his only trip to one of the refuges he created, Roosevelt visited Louisiana's barrier islands in 1915 . . . but much of the landscape he visited no longer exists, having been washed away by coastal erosion. Reflecting on the visit, he wrote in his autobiography, A Book Lover's Holidays in the Open:

To lose the chance to see frigate-birds soaring in circles

above the storm, or a file of pelicans winging their way

homeward across the crimson afterglow of the sunset, or

myriad terns flashing in the bright light of midday as they

hover in a shifting maze above the beach--why, the loss is

like the loss of a gallery of the masterpieces of the artists

of old time.

Unfortunately, even with the efforts of conservation visionaries like Roosevelt, the story of the past 100 years has been one of continued coastal and wildlife losses. Consider that Battledore Island, the `gallery of masterpiece' of which he wrote, is no more. Today, fishermen know it as Battledore Reef.

It is too late for Battledore Island, but it is not too late to save countless other natural treasures around our Nation. While President Roosevelt's vision is still alive, there is much work left to be done . . . and today we have an opportunity to carry on his legacy of conservation and write a different ending to the story he began so long ago.

The Americans Outdoors Act, which I have introduced with Senator Alexander, is a significant start. In our Government today, you will be hard pressed to find a closer embodiment of Roosevelt's legacy than in Senator Alexander, and I am so very proud to be working with him in this effort.

AOA would mark our Government's greatest commitment of resources to conservation ever, and would directly benefit all 50 States and hundreds of local communities through its landmark, multiyear commitment to coastal restoration and other conservation programs like the state side of the Land and Water Conservation Fund. It, like SCORE, would also set forward a crucial first step to restoring America's vital wetlands and the billions of dollars in energy investments they protect.

When Hurricane Ivan struck back in September, it should have been a wake-up call to us all. Although the storm did not hit Louisiana directly, its impact on the price and supply of oil and gas in this country could still be felt 4 months later. One can only imagine what the impact would have been had Ivan cut a more western path in the gulf. How many more hurricane seasons are we going to spend playing Russian roulette with our oil and gas supply?

But the diversity of our energy supply is just as important as the increased production of it. And our atmosphere protects us much in the same way as our coasts. We have an obligation to serve as responsible stewards of both.

Mr. President, it will come as no surprise to you that fear, rather than science, also seems to dominate our policy with respect to nuclear energy. There are some startling facts that most Americans probably do not know today. Nuclear energy--today--despite not having licensed a new plant in 27 years--provides 20 percent of America's electricity. Most importantly, it does so without any emissions.

This is a resource that is produced 100 percent domestically. No one has to bring in a new LNG plant for nuclear energy, no one has to defend critical supply lines for nuclear energy, no one has to cap and trade emissions for nuclear energy. Yet a policy driven by fear and superstition keep the United States in a technological backwater. Between our fear of oil and gas production, our near hysteria toward nuclear power, and our rejection of clean coal options, the United States is living in a kind of energy technology dark ages.

Rather than harnessing powerful forces that could bring light and energy to this Nation. We are being ruled by superstition and fear, and we have to bring these attitudes to an end. The alternative is even more bleak. While the U.S. ignores nuclear power, our economic rivals in Japan and France are pulling away from us. More menacing still, the Chinese are threatening to leap-frog U.S. technology in this arena. Spencer Reiss wrote in a recent article entitled Let a Thousand Reactors Bloom:

The Future of Nuclear Power, a 2003 study by a blue-ribbon

commission headed by

former CIA director John Deutch, concludes that by 2050 the

PRC could require the equivalent of 200 full-scale nuke

plants. A team of Chinese scientists advising the Beijing

leadership puts the figure even higher: 300 gigawatts of

nuclear output, not much less than the 350 gigawatts produced

worldwide today.

To meet that growing demand, China's leaders are pursuing

two strategies. They're turning to established nuke plant

makers like AECL, Framatome, Mitsubishi, and Westinghouse,

which supplied key technology for China's nine existing

atomic power facilities. But they're also pursuing a second,

more audacious course. Physicists and engineers at Beijing's

Tsinghua University have made the first great leap forward in

a quarter century, building a new nuclear power facility that

promises to be a better way to harness the atom: a pebble-bed

reactor. A reactor small enough to be assembled from mass-

produced parts and cheap enough for customers without

billion-dollar bank accounts. A reactor whose safety is a

matter of physics, not operator skill or reinforced concrete.

And, for a bona fide fairy-tale ending, the pot of gold at

the end of the rainbow is labeled hydrogen.

With this sort of news, one begins to wonder if there is any set of circumstances that will dissuade the Congress from its wrong-headed policies. We cannot afford to keep waiting. I call on my colleagues to resolve once and for all the issues of where to store the byproducts of our nuclear generation.

Technology also harbors other exciting new promises for clean energy. Coal provides 50 percent of our Nation's electrical supply, and now we can use it in a better way. Coal gasification plants--or ``clean coal'' strip out the pollutants that would otherwise be released into the air, allowing us to continue to draw on this abundant natural resource while also respecting our roles as stewards of the environment.

Liquified natural gas also has a significant role in satisfying our clean energy goals while helping to solve our Nation's supply and demand imbalance. But we cannot allow the Gulf of Mexico to simply become a ``thruway'' for LNG without recognizing the role of coastal States that host the terminals and sustain its importation. To this end, terminal siting is not only a Federal concern but a local one as well.

And finally, we simply cannot ignore the promise of hydrogen technology. Senator Dorgan has been one of the Senate's foremost leaders in this regard. I was proud to support his efforts throughout all of the iterations of the Senate Energy bill, and am very pleased to understand that many of them have been incorporated into the Energy chairman's mark.

Beyond these, there are countless alternative resources we have yet to fully explore--resources such as wind, solar and even wave energy-- all of which can also be produced on the OCS with the encouragement SCORE provides.

Let me make clear: Increased domestic production and supply diversity are of paramount importance to our energy needs and national security, but no serious energy policy can ignore the equally important need for energy conservation.

Benjamin Franklin was eminently quotable, but one of his more relevant quips is ``When a well's dry, we know the worth of water.'' So it is with America's environment. The cost of global warming will be truly staggering when compared to conservation measures today.

There are a number of points to be raised in that regard.

First, I believe that the U.S. Government should use its power of economies of scale, and large purchasing power to set the best example. Energy efficiency should be a consideration in the design and retrofitting of U.S. Government buildings. Energy savings should be a factor in the enormous fleet of government vehicles.

I have also supported a provision, now included in the Energy chairman's mark, which would call for a reduction in our Nation's oil consumption by 1 million barrels per day over the next 10 years. We currently consume 20 million barrels. With research and technology, these are very attainable goals.

Similarly, the Senate will be best off with a smart Renewable Portfolio Standard--RPS--that it can pass. RPS is a lynchpin that will make alternative technologies commercially viable. It is a vital and logical step in our efforts toward energy independence.

And even as we address the production side of the equation, we need to make sure the energy we produce reaches consumers affordably and reliably. In our handling of OCS revenues, we ask our coastal producing States to give and give with little in return. Equally unfair are our Nation's electrical transmission policies, which expect Louisiana consumers to foot the bill for electricity consumed in other States.

For these reasons, Senator Burr and I earlier this year introduced the Interstate Transmission Act, which seeks to protect local rate payers and make electric reliability standards mandatory.

Today we make new history. It may not be as exciting as Franklin's discoveries about electricity, or require the endurance of the Corps of Discovery. But it may hold the key to America's economic future.

My Ocean Energy Initiative, which includes the Americans Outdoors and SCORE Acts, as well as a series of technology proposals still to come, creates a strong four-step framework for protecting our national economic, military and energy security by increasing, diversifying, and cleaning up our energy production and supply.

We must look for new ideas and new frontiers to support increased, diverse, and clean energy. The Ocean Frontier today presents the most immediate opportunities, but who knows what lies on the next horizon? Space, perhaps?

We must explore these new frontiers and develop the innovative new technologies to do so more effectively and responsibly.

We must share the shelf and other frontiers, so our states aren't left shouldering the burden.

And we must invest in our environment and return to our coasts, forests and green-spaces the respect and recognition befitting what they have given us by way of natural resources. We give back some of what we take.

Through a responsible balance of conservation and innovation, this Ocean Energy Initiative recognizes that the goals of energy security and environmental stewardship need not be mutually exclusive.

Mr. President, we follow in the footsteps of great pioneers: Benjamin Franklin, who put science before superstition; Thomas Jefferson, who opened the American frontier; Lewis and Clark, who journeyed into this frontier and found its rich promise; and Theodore Roosevelt, who saw that a great nation bears a responsibility of stewardship to the ground it is built upon.

If we follow their example, and continue down the path these pioneers blazed to the new frontier, we will have a bill that we can all look back on with pride.

Mr. President, today I rise to introduce legislation, The Stewardship for our Coasts and Opportunities for Reliable Energy Act--SCORE Act--which will ensure that offshore energy development on the Outer Continental Shelf--OCS--continues to serve our nation's needs, create opportunities for new development on the OCS as well as the use of alternative resources such as renewable energy.

Since the energy frontier of the OCS was officially opened to significant oil and gas exploration in 1953, no single region has contributed nearly as much to our Nation's energy production. Today, the OCS represents more than

25 percent of our Nation's natural gas production and more than 30 percent of our domestic oil production and it is estimated that 60 percent of the oil and natural gas still to be discovered in U.S. will come from the OCS.

An average of more than $5 billion in revenues from oil and gas production are returned to the federal treasury each year from the OCS--$145 billion since production began. That is the second biggest contributor of revenue to the Federal Treasury after income taxes.

But just as the Western frontier once represented a great unknown to our Nation's policymakers, the impact and reality of the OCS seems lost in a time warp. While much of the OCS has been off limits for decades, technological advancements have developed in that time to better target the resources and dramatically reduce the environmental footprint. These innovations will continue to allow crucial exploration and production to take place but in an environmentally responsible way. For example, we have produced three times as many resources on the OCS as we thought existed 30 years ago.

In fact, the Minerals Management Service--MMS--estimates that from 1985 to 2001, OCS offshore facilities and pipelines accounted for only 2 percent of the oil released into U.S. waters. In fact, 97 percent of OCS spills are one barrel or less in volume. Serving America's energy needs and being good stewards of the environment need not be mutually exclusive goals.

However, despite our technological prowess and responsible exploration, we have yet to fully realize the potential the OCS has to offer. Today only 2.5 percent of the 1.76 billion acres that make up the OCS are leased. Most of the Pacific Coast and the eastern Gulf of Mexico are off limits as is the entire Atlantic seaboard.

Almost all of the area on the OCS that is currently leased is in the Central and Western Gulf of Mexico, off the coasts of Louisiana and Texas, where 98 percent of total OCS production occurs. However, we cannot continue to take without giving something back in return. A significant portion of OCS revenues must be returned to the coastal producing states off whose coasts they are generated.

The Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 shares automatically with states 50 percent of revenues from mineral production on Federal lands within that State's boundaries. These funds are distributed to States automatically, outside the budget process and not subject to appropriations. In fiscal year 2004, the State of Wyoming received $564 million as a result of this law and the State of New Mexico received $365 million. However, there is no similar provision in law for coastal producing states to share federal oil and gas revenues generated on the

Mr. President, today I rise to introduce legislation, The Stewardship for our Coasts and Opportunities for Reliable Energy Act--SCORE Act--which will ensure that offshore energy development on the Outer Continental Shelf--OCS--continues to serve our nation's needs, create opportunities for new development on the OCS as well as the use of alternative resources such as renewable energy.

Since the energy frontier of the OCS was officially opened to significant oil and gas exploration in 1953, no single region has contributed nearly as much to our Nation's energy production. Today, the OCS represents more than

25 percent of our Nation's natural gas production and more than 30 percent of our domestic oil production and it is estimated that 60 percent of the oil and natural gas still to be discovered in U.S. will come from the OCS.

An average of more than $5 billion in revenues from oil and gas production are returned to the federal treasury each year from the OCS--$145 billion since production began. That is the second biggest contributor of revenue to the Federal Treasury after income taxes.

But just as the Western frontier once represented a great unknown to our Nation's policymakers, the impact and reality of the OCS seems lost in a time warp. While much of the OCS has been off limits for decades, technological advancements have developed in that time to better target the resources and dramatically reduce the environmental footprint. These innovations will continue to allow crucial exploration and production to take place but in an environmentally responsible way. For example, we have produced three times as many resources on the OCS as we thought existed 30 years ago.

In fact, the Minerals Management Service--MMS--estimates that from 1985 to 2001, OCS offshore facilities and pipelines accounted for only 2 percent of the oil released into U.S. waters. In fact, 97 percent of OCS spills are one barrel or less in volume. Serving America's energy needs and being good stewards of the environment need not be mutually exclusive goals.

However, despite our technological prowess and responsible exploration, we have yet to fully realize the potential the OCS has to offer. Today only 2.5 percent of the 1.76 billion acres that make up the OCS are leased. Most of the Pacific Coast and the eastern Gulf of Mexico are off limits as is the entire Atlantic seaboard.

Almost all of the area on the OCS that is currently leased is in the Central and Western Gulf of Mexico, off the coasts of Louisiana and Texas, where 98 percent of total OCS production occurs. However, we cannot continue to take without giving something back in return. A significant portion of OCS revenues must be returned to the coastal producing states off whose coasts they are generated.

The Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 shares automatically with states 50 percent of revenues from mineral production on Federal lands within that State's boundaries. These funds are distributed to States automatically, outside the budget process and not subject to appropriations. In fiscal year 2004, the State of Wyoming received $564 million as a result of this law and the State of New Mexico received $365 million. However, there is no similar provision in law for coastal producing states to share federal oil and gas revenues generated on the

Mr. President, today I have 18 young men and women from Louisiana and the Washington area taking part in Take Our Daughters and Sons to Work Day. I am going to submit all of their names for the Record to show that they spent a day working in the Senate with me and with some of the other Senators and have seen firsthand the work that goes on.

I want to acknowledge the MS Magazine Foundation that started Take Our Daughters and Sons to Work Day to thank them for organizing this effort where there are thousands, maybe perhaps millions, of young people who have taken a day out of their school work to go to the various places where Americans are working to contribute to making this country of ours a better country and this world a better place.

I thank these young men and women for being a part of this special day and taking their time to come and learn about the workings of the Senate:

From St. Catherine of Siena School: Gabrielle Bordlee,

Metairie, LA;

From Schriever Elementary School: Cameron Dark, Houma, LA;

From Georgetown Day School: Alexa Dettlebach, Chevy Chase,

Mr. President, I rise today in honor of Alcohol Awareness Month to recognize The Century Council for its efforts to prevent underage drinking. The Century Council is a national, not for profit organization funded by America's leading distillers to develop and implement programs designed to combat drunk driving and underage drinking. These programs, such as Ready or Not: Talking with Kids About Alcohol, Brandon's Story, and Alcohol 101 Plus, are making great strides in reducing the amount of underage drinking and irresponsible consumption of alcohol.

Right now, The Council is kicking off its sixth annual National Prom and Graduation Safety Months Initiative. Between April and June, The Council has planned a series of events across the country to educate students, parents and the general public about making responsible decisions with regard to beverage alcohol. Over the past two decades, progress has been made in the effort to stop underage drinking through the implementation of effective programs and increased public awareness regarding the negative consequences of underage drinking. According to the most recent figures from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 749 people under the age of 21 were killed in alcohol- related traffic crashes during April, May and June in 2003 as well as countless non-fatal injuries. In Louisiana, alcohol is a factor in 20 percent of all traffic fatalities involving minors, and it is a factor in 15 percent of all traffic accidents involving minors.

It was once said that ``holding young people solely responsible for underage drinking is like holding fish responsible for dying in a polluted stream.'' As a mother of two young children, I know that I will soon have to speak to my own kids about alcohol use. As all of the other parents in this Chamber and across the country can say, the conversation between a parent and a child about alcohol use is not always an easy conversation. However, improved communication between parents and children is essential to preventing underage drinking. According to a recent survey by TRU Omnibuzz in 2003, 65 percent of adolescents identify parents as the leading influence in their decision to drink or not to drink. Unfortunately, 36 percent of adolescents say they had not spoken to either parent about alcohol. This communication gap can be minimized by through programs that increase awareness, educate parents and kids and help facilitate conversations between parents and kids about the dangers of underage drinking.

The role of parents in the efforts to reduce underage drinking is critical. I commend The Century Council for giving parents and children across the Nation the valuable tools to initiate those important discussions regarding alcohol.

Mr. President, today I rise with the Senator from Tennessee, Mr. Alexander, my colleague from Louisiana, Mr. Vitter, and the senior Senator from South Dakota, Mr. Johnson, to introduce legislation which we believe is a new and enhanced version of one of the most significant conservation efforts ever considered by Congress.

The Americans Outdoors Act is a landmark multi-year commitment to conservation programs directly benefitting all 50 States and hundreds of local communities. It creates a conservation royalty earned from the production of oil and gas found on the Outer Continental Shelf, OCS, and directs it towards the restoration of coastal wetlands, preservation of wildlife habitat, and to help build and maintain local and state parks for our children and grandchildren.

By enacting this legislation, we will be making the most significant commitment of resources to conservation ever. It will ensure a positive legacy of protecting, preserving and enhancing critical wildlife habitat, open green spaces and the opportunity for Americans to enjoy their outdoors today and for generations to come. Our legislation builds on an effort made during the 106th Congress that was supported by governors, mayors and a coalition of more than 5,000 organizations from throughout the country.

Unfortunately, despite widespread support, our efforts were cut short before a bill could be signed into law. Instead a commitment was made by those who opposed the legislation to guarantee funding for these programs each year through the appropriation process.

However, as we have painfully witnessed since then, that commitment has not been met. What has happened is exactly what those of us who initiated the effort always anticipated. Each of these significant programs continues to be shortchanged and a number of them have been left out altogether or forced to compete with each other for Federal resources.

The legislation we are introducing today provides reliable, significant and steady funding for the urgent and worthy conservation and outdoor recreation needs of our states and rapidly expanding urban and suburban areas. What makes more sense than to take a portion of revenues from a great but depleting capital asset of the Nation-- offshore Federal oil and gas resources--and reinvest them into sustaining our Nation's natural resources: wetlands; parks and recreation areas and wildlife?

The Americans Outdoors Act dedicates assured funding for four distinct programs and honors promises made long ago to the American people. They include:

Coastal Impact Assistance--$450 million to oil and gas producing coastal States to mitigate the various impacts of states that serve as the ``platform'' for the crucial development of Federal offshore energy resources from the OCS as well as provide for wetland restoration. This program merely acknowledges the impacts to and contribution of States that are providing the energy to run our country's economy.

Since the 1.76 billion acre energy frontier of the OCS was officially opened to significant oil and gas exploration in 1953, no single region has contributed as much to our Nation's energy production. In fact, the OCS supplies more oil to our Nation than any other country including Saudi Arabia. Today, the OCS represents more than 25 percent of our Nation's natural gas production and more than 30 percent of our domestic oil production--with the promise of reaching 40 percent by 2008. It is estimated that 60 percent of the oil and natural gas still to be discovered in the U.S. will come from the OCS.

An average of more than $5 billion in revenues from oil and gas production are returned to the Federal treasury each year from the OCS--$145 billion since Production began. That is the second biggest contributor of revenue to the Federal treasury after income taxes.

Our legislation seeks to address a historical inequity. The Mineral Lands Leasing Act of 1920 shares automatically with States 50 percent of revenues from mineral production on Federal lands within that State's boundaries. These funds are distributed to States automatically, outside the budget process and not subject to appropriations. In fiscal year 2004, the State of Wyoming received $564 million as a result of this law and the State of New Mexico received $365 million. But, there is no similar provision in law for coastal producing States to share Federal oil and gas revenues generated on the

Mr. President, today I rise with the Senator from Tennessee, Mr. Alexander, my colleague from Louisiana, Mr. Vitter, and the senior Senator from South Dakota, Mr. Johnson, to introduce legislation which we believe is a new and enhanced version of one of the most significant conservation efforts ever considered by Congress.

The Americans Outdoors Act is a landmark multi-year commitment to conservation programs directly benefitting all 50 States and hundreds of local communities. It creates a conservation royalty earned from the production of oil and gas found on the Outer Continental Shelf, OCS, and directs it towards the restoration of coastal wetlands, preservation of wildlife habitat, and to help build and maintain local and state parks for our children and grandchildren.

By enacting this legislation, we will be making the most significant commitment of resources to conservation ever. It will ensure a positive legacy of protecting, preserving and enhancing critical wildlife habitat, open green spaces and the opportunity for Americans to enjoy their outdoors today and for generations to come. Our legislation builds on an effort made during the 106th Congress that was supported by governors, mayors and a coalition of more than 5,000 organizations from throughout the country.

Unfortunately, despite widespread support, our efforts were cut short before a bill could be signed into law. Instead a commitment was made by those who opposed the legislation to guarantee funding for these programs each year through the appropriation process.

However, as we have painfully witnessed since then, that commitment has not been met. What has happened is exactly what those of us who initiated the effort always anticipated. Each of these significant programs continues to be shortchanged and a number of them have been left out altogether or forced to compete with each other for Federal resources.

The legislation we are introducing today provides reliable, significant and steady funding for the urgent and worthy conservation and outdoor recreation needs of our states and rapidly expanding urban and suburban areas. What makes more sense than to take a portion of revenues from a great but depleting capital asset of the Nation-- offshore Federal oil and gas resources--and reinvest them into sustaining our Nation's natural resources: wetlands; parks and recreation areas and wildlife?

The Americans Outdoors Act dedicates assured funding for four distinct programs and honors promises made long ago to the American people. They include:

Coastal Impact Assistance--$450 million to oil and gas producing coastal States to mitigate the various impacts of states that serve as the ``platform'' for the crucial development of Federal offshore energy resources from the OCS as well as provide for wetland restoration. This program merely acknowledges the impacts to and contribution of States that are providing the energy to run our country's economy.

Since the 1.76 billion acre energy frontier of the OCS was officially opened to significant oil and gas exploration in 1953, no single region has contributed as much to our Nation's energy production. In fact, the OCS supplies more oil to our Nation than any other country including Saudi Arabia. Today, the OCS represents more than 25 percent of our Nation's natural gas production and more than 30 percent of our domestic oil production--with the promise of reaching 40 percent by 2008. It is estimated that 60 percent of the oil and natural gas still to be discovered in the U.S. will come from the OCS.

An average of more than $5 billion in revenues from oil and gas production are returned to the Federal treasury each year from the OCS--$145 billion since Production began. That is the second biggest contributor of revenue to the Federal treasury after income taxes.

Our legislation seeks to address a historical inequity. The Mineral Lands Leasing Act of 1920 shares automatically with States 50 percent of revenues from mineral production on Federal lands within that State's boundaries. These funds are distributed to States automatically, outside the budget process and not subject to appropriations. In fiscal year 2004, the State of Wyoming received $564 million as a result of this law and the State of New Mexico received $365 million. But, there is no similar provision in law for coastal producing States to share Federal oil and gas revenues generated on the

Mr. President, approximately 211,300 women will be diagnosed with breast cancer this year. No doubt, you know one of these women. In fact, they may be your sister, mother, aunt, cousin or dear friend. In most cases, the doctor will prescribe immediate and often times aggressive treatment in the hopes of stalling further progression of the disease. The quality of care that breast cancer patients receive is critically important to their survival. Despite the urgent need for Federal protections to ensure that breast cancer sufferers receive appropriate treatment, very few exist.

It may shock you to learn that women who have undergone surgical treatments such as breast removal mastectomy--or lymph node dissections are being sent home within hours of having surgery because insurance companies are unwilling to reimburse recovery time in hospitals, a practice referred to as ``Drive-Through Mastectomies.'' These women have reported being sent home still drowsy from anesthesia, weakened from hours of surgery, and with drainage tubes attached to their bodies, while simultaneously experiencing the immense emotional trauma associated with the removal of a breast or lymph nodes.

To this end, I am pleased to have worked with Senator Snowe to introduce the Breast Cancer Patient Protection Act of 2005. This legislation will prevent insurance companies from restricting hospital stays resulting from mastectomies to less than 48 hours and hospital stays resulting from lymph node dissections to less than 24 hours. This bill does not prevent a doctor from discharging a woman prior to these minimum requirements, if he/she determines, in consultation with the patient, that this is the best treatment option. The Breast Cancer Patient Protection Act simply ensures that these types of medical decisions are made by doctors, not insurance companies. The legislation also prohibits insurance companies from circumventing the legislation through practices such as providing incentives to doctors or patients to reduce length of stays associated with mastectomies or lymph node dissections.

To be fair, we must acknowledge that this legislation will not change the nature of mastectomies and lymph node dissections for the majority of women. Over 19 States have already put State laws in place that work to the same end as the Breast Cancer Patient Protection Act, and the vast majority of insurance companies have already responded on their own to this problem. However, this is a case in which the injustice, while small in number of women it affects, is clear. And just as the injustice is apparent, the solution is simple. It is high time that the Federal Government took action. Yes, many states have already done so, and yes, many insurance companies have, too, but if even one woman is forced to go home too soon after such an invasive surgery, that is one woman too many. It is not the fact that this is happening to many women, it is the fact that it is happening to any women. For all of our sisters, mothers, daughters, aunts, friends, and loved ones, it is time for us to provide the needed protections. I ask for your support of the Breast Cancer Patient Protection Act of 2005.

Mr. President, approximately 211,300 women will be diagnosed with breast cancer this year. No doubt, you know one of these women. In fact, they may be your sister, mother, aunt, cousin or dear friend. In most cases, the doctor will prescribe immediate and often times aggressive treatment in the hopes of stalling further progression of the disease. The quality of care that breast cancer patients receive is critically important to their survival. Despite the urgent need for Federal protections to ensure that breast cancer sufferers receive appropriate treatment, very few exist.

It may shock you to learn that women who have undergone surgical treatments such as breast removal mastectomy--or lymph node dissections are being sent home within hours of having surgery because insurance companies are unwilling to reimburse recovery time in hospitals, a practice referred to as ``Drive-Through Mastectomies.'' These women have reported being sent home still drowsy from anesthesia, weakened from hours of surgery, and with drainage tubes attached to their bodies, while simultaneously experiencing the immense emotional trauma associated with the removal of a breast or lymph nodes.

To this end, I am pleased to have worked with Senator Snowe to introduce the Breast Cancer Patient Protection Act of 2005. This legislation will prevent insurance companies from restricting hospital stays resulting from mastectomies to less than 48 hours and hospital stays resulting from lymph node dissections to less than 24 hours. This bill does not prevent a doctor from discharging a woman prior to these minimum requirements, if he/she determines, in consultation with the patient, that this is the best treatment option. The Breast Cancer Patient Protection Act simply ensures that these types of medical decisions are made by doctors, not insurance companies. The legislation also prohibits insurance companies from circumventing the legislation through practices such as providing incentives to doctors or patients to reduce length of stays associated with mastectomies or lymph node dissections.

To be fair, we must acknowledge that this legislation will not change the nature of mastectomies and lymph node dissections for the majority of women. Over 19 States have already put State laws in place that work to the same end as the Breast Cancer Patient Protection Act, and the vast majority of insurance companies have already responded on their own to this problem. However, this is a case in which the injustice, while small in number of women it affects, is clear. And just as the injustice is apparent, the solution is simple. It is high time that the Federal Government took action. Yes, many states have already done so, and yes, many insurance companies have, too, but if even one woman is forced to go home too soon after such an invasive surgery, that is one woman too many. It is not the fact that this is happening to many women, it is the fact that it is happening to any women. For all of our sisters, mothers, daughters, aunts, friends, and loved ones, it is time for us to provide the needed protections. I ask for your support of the Breast Cancer Patient Protection Act of 2005.

Reserving the right to object, is there any objection to add to that list the Landrieu amendments Nos. 414 and 479?

Reserving the right to object, I would like to add after that vote Senator Landrieu would be allowed to take up amendments Nos. 414 and 479.

Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 414.

Thank you.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Bingaman be recognized for 1 minute.

Mr. President, I am glad I was able to accommodate our colleague. At this time I send a modification to amendment No. 414 to the desk and ask unanimous consent that we discuss this slightly modified version.

Mr. President, as we continue to discuss the supplemental bill, it is not the largest bill in terms of dollar amounts that we have talked about on the Senate floor. Of course, we manage to move through 13 appropriations bills most years. That is billions and billions of dollars in priorities that we are trying to reflect on behalf of our constituents in our States and around the Nation.

One of the important components of this $80 billion supplemental bill is about $1 billion for relief for tsunami victims. We remember all too vividly and dramatically and traumatically when on Sunday, December 26, a wave of about 50 feet hit several countries in the Indian Ocean, primarily Indonesia, and within a few hours or a few days, 120,000 people were dead, some of them children who were simply unable to get out of the way of the wave; there was no warning.

The Senators who have forwarded this supplemental are very aware of the needs. I offer this amendment on behalf of Senator Craig and myself because part of the effort to reconstruct this region is to help not only rebuild

the roads, rebuild the houses, rebuild the schools, reinvest in the health and education infrastructure. I argue that it is most important for us to rebuild the families. We talk about nation rebuilding. We talk about building nations. We talk about reconstruction. All of that is wonderful and terrific, but I don't know if people are understanding that nations are built, communities are built, cities are built on families.

When I read through the many pages of this very well put together bill, one of the problems was there was not a mention under the title for USAID of this Government's efforts to reunite orphans and parents, to establish strong programs or initiatives to help reunite children with parents who are still alive or with extended family relatives so that those family units can be strong.

I can tell you, I know from experience--and I think every Republican and Democrat on this floor would agree with me--you can build the strongest buildings in the world. You can build the mightiest interstate systems. You could have the finest school buildings and the finest universities. But if you don't have strong families, the nation, the community, is not going to thrive, and there will be no future. The future is passed from parent to child, from grandparent to grandchild, not from a bureaucratic government. Governments do a lot of things well, but let me stand here on behalf of the Coalition on Adoption, which represents 180 Members of Congress, to say, governments do a lot of things well. Raising children is not one of them. Parents raise children.

Senator Craig and I--and I see the Senator on the floor, and I would like him to add his insights--want to strongly go on the record saying that if we are going to spend a billion dollars to help tsunami victims, certainly we can carve out of that money, not adding money to this, $25 million for the express purpose of strengthening families, identifying those children who have been orphaned, working to see if some relative would adopt them. If that relative who wants to adopt has lost their fishing boat and is no longer able to provide for their surviving children and the orphans of the sister or brother who was lost next to them in the wave, then these programs we are establishing could help to reunite that family and keep them together and not pull these children out of these family units and send them to be raised in an orphanage or in a boarding school and give them food.

They need more than food. They need emotional support. They need spiritual support. They need care. I could go on and on for hours, which I won't do, to give you documents that are alarming to me from people whose salaries we pay saying that this is not important.

I want to say to the Members--and all of us feel it is quite important--it is a real problem when these pages do not reflect that principle and that priority.

I know Senator Craig's time may be short. Let me yield at the moment to him. He may want to add a word. I am hoping we can get this adopted without a vote.

I thank the Senator from Idaho for his insight and his addition to the record. Let me make two additional points. As we know, President Bush has asked former President Bush and former President Clinton to head up an international private sector effort, so the money that we lay down, the $1 billion, is sort of a guide to the private dollars being raised.

This Congress cannot, with the power that we have, let this budget go out without a mention or a specific dedication or at least an underscore that we in the Congress think families are important, we would like to send that message out to private donors saying: Please, let's rebuild the highways, let's rebuild the schools, let's rebuild the hospitals. But while we are doing that, let's respect the family. Let's honor the family. Let's try to keep children within families through extended kinship adoption, through adoption domestically and, if not, through international adoption with all the proper safeguards.

Second, we have spent a lot of time coming up with new rules and regulations about child trafficking, child exploitation. It is terrible to see children sold into the sex trade, and many of these children are sold into the sex trade because they don't have parents who are watching them and protecting them. Yet in some cultures it is unfortunate that even children have children and the parents are not strong enough, either economically or in a strong enough physical position, to protect these children from these exploitations.

So I say to my friends in this room, if we want to protect children from exploitation, if we want to protect children from child trafficking, then, heavens, help them find a parent. Parents do a lot better job of protecting children than any army in the world. Nobody could get my children out from underneath my watchful eye. So I know. We all hover around our children and protect them. The least our Government can do is honor the work parents in the United States of America do in trying to protect their children, and when their parents are killed or separated from them, move them to adoptive parents who will protect them and keep them away from the traffickers.

So I say to the leaders, the managers of the bill, we are not adding money to the bill; $25 million is not that much money when you are talking about continents and nations and hundreds of thousands of families that could benefit. Please consider accepting this amendment. If not, you can understand why Senator Craig and I would have to ask for a vote. We are not asking for any more money. We have mentioned everything in this bill--physical disabilities, mental illness, loss of fishing boats, highways, houses, schools. I have read every page of it, and I am on the Appropriations Committee. I cannot find a mention in here about the U.S. Government--after many of us have traveled to the region and taken pictures with orphans and with the families and promised aid, I don't see why we cannot earmark and set as a priority $25 million, which is a small amount of money, to this end.

That is basically the argument. I hope the leadership will accept it. I thank the chairman, the Senator from Mississippi, for his great help and support. I know it is a difficult bill to move through. Whether he wants to vote now or if he wants to stack it for later, I am open to that.

Mr. President, last year the Internal Revenue Service hit my State like a Category 4 hurricane when it determined that disaster mitigation benefits from the Federal Emergency Management Agency are taxable. We get hurricane warnings when a storm is coming, we can track their paths as they come out of the Carribean and into the Gulf of Mexico. We didn't get any kind of ``tax warning'' from the IRS, but the financial toll on many of my constituents was devastating.

Let me explain what happened. In June of last year, the IRS chief counsel issued an advice letter that determined that FEMA disaster mitigation benefits were taxable as a matter of law. This ruling applied to a variety mitigation grant programs, covering a wide range of natural disasters. The main disasters that concern us in Louisiana are hurricanes and flooding. They are as much a part of life as crawfish boils and Mardi Gras. The key to our peace of mind is the National Flood Insurance program administered by FEMA. In Louisiana, 377,000 property owners participate in the National Flood Insurance program. It is a real Godsend to the people of my state.

The National Flood Insurance program also provides funding for property owners to flood-proof their homes through the flood mitigation grant program. FEMA distributes these grant funds to the States which then pass them along to local communities. The local communities select properties for mitigation and contract for the mitigation services. Communities use these funds to put homes on stilts, improve drainage on property, and to acquire flood proofing materials. These mitigation grants encourage property owners to take responsible steps to lessen the potential for loss of life and property damage due to future flooding. The grants also have the added benefit of saving money in the long term for the flood insurance program.

But the IRS has turned this valuable disaster preparedness and prevention program into a financial disaster for responsible property owners by making these payments taxable. This tax is unfair, unexpected, and an unfortunate policy decision--unfair and unexpected because no one told my constituents that they would be taxed for accepting FEMA disaster mitigation assistance. The local officials in their parish were just as surprised. This tax is unfortunate policy because in the long term, the IRS will undercut the effectiveness of using mitigation as a means of decreasing future costs to the flood insurance program. It will force people to take risks that they will not be hit by a disaster.

I was pleased that the House of Representatives passed a bill, H.R. 1134, to correct this problem. It says that going forward, disaster mitigation benefits are not taxable. But this legislation is not retroactive. It offers no relief to people who are facing a huge tax bill this Friday, April 15, for mitigation funding received in 2004 or earlier years. Virtually every constituent who has written or called my office about this issue received their grant in 2004. This bill will do nothing for them.

I understand that the sponsors of H.R. 1134 and its Senate version S. 586 claim that once it has been passed, the Department of the Treasury will issue some sort of notice to IRS field personnel essentially making the effect of this bill retroactive. Treasury officials, however, cannot cite a legal justification for issuing such a notice. They claim that they can rely on the floor statements of the chairs and ranking members of the House Ways and Means Committee and the Senate Finance Committee as a basis for issuing the notice.

Mr. President, we cannot legislate on a wink and a nod. The right way to make this relief retroactive is to pass the Baucus-Grassley amendment to H.R. 1134 and send it back to the House. This amendment will extend the tax relief in this bill to all recipients of FEMA disaster mitigation assistance past, present, and future. I am proud to be a cosponsor of the amendment. I thank the chairman and ranking member of the Finance Committee for their leadership in bringing this matter to the floor.

April 15th is 2 days away. I urge the other body to take up and pass H.R. 1134 as amended by the Senate, and send it to the President for his signature. This bill will bring peace of mind to thousands of responsible property owners who face an unfair tax burden. We should not allow April 15th to pass without giving these people relief.

Mr. President, every session in Congress, we spend a large amount of time discussing education in this country. Debates range from accountability to school construction to teacher recruitment. While our discussions are of the utmost importance, it is the implementation of our decisions by individuals within the education system that changes how our children learn. Today, I honor an elementary school in Paradis, LA that has served as an example of a great school that is achieving the goals we set forth in these halls.

R.J. Vial Elementary School will turn 30 years old this Friday, April 8th. There will be festivities and celebrations for students, alumni, teachers, administrators, and parents. But I would like to take a minute to talk about the real celebration of this school. In the past 5 years, R.J. Vial Elementary School has steadily increased the number of students passing the LEAP 21 test in all four areas that the test covers. R.J. Vial is clearly meeting its mission of developing respectful, lifelong learners. That is what I would like to celebrate today in the United States Senate.

In the April 2005 Community Newsletter of R.J. Vial Elementary School, Principal Frederick A. Treuting wrote, ``Our greatest and perhaps only truly effective discipline tool is a strong relationship that bonds us to our children.'' Principal Treuting could not be more correct. If we are to succeed in educating our children to the best of our ability, we must reach out to them and work to raise academic achievement in our public schools by putting the priority on performance instead of process, delivering results instead of developing rules, and on actively encouraging bold reform instead of passively tolerating failure.

At 510 Louisiana Street in Paradis, LA, R.J. Vial Elementary School is already doing these things and because of that, has become one of the finest schools in the state of Louisiana. There is no greater investment we can in our future than in the education of our children. I commend the hard work of all the people who have and currently work at and with R.J. Vial Elementary School; you are giving the best gift you can to our youth. It has been said that it takes a village to raise a child, so we must all work together to see that we educate our children to the best of our ability. And to the students, both past

and present, of R.J. Vial, I offer my congratulations. Because of your efforts in the classroom for the past thirty years, R.J. Vial Elementary School has become the beacon of success that it is today.

Happy Birthday, R.J. Vial Elementary School! My heartfelt congratulations to all involved with the school, and best wishes to another great 30 years.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Kathleen Strottman be granted the privilege of the floor during consideration of the budget resolution.

Mr. President, I send my amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

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

Mr. President, I come to the floor to lay down an amendment to provide a place in this budget for the men and women who are placing their lives on the line for us.

A couple of months ago, before we went on our break in December and January, I had the great privilege, actually, of holding this body in a filibuster for 3 days. It was not something

that was planned, but it was something that evolved after I found out that the last huge FSC-ETI bill that we passed in the Senate managed to find tax relief, tax cuts, special tax considerations for seemingly everyone in America except for the men and women in uniform fighting for us.

I know people listening tonight will really not believe what I am saying is true. But they can go to Web sites on this budget to look at the record, or talk to their Guard and National Reserve to see that what I am saying is actually true.

We have passed trillions and trillions of dollars in tax cuts since 2001. It would be one thing if we were taking money out of the budget to do that, but we are actually borrowing money to give tax cuts. We are not just taking money that is just sitting there sort of waiting for us to decide how to use it and then giving it to tax cuts based on some reason about who would need it the most. We are borrowing money, charging it to our children and our grandchildren, and then giving tax cuts to people who arguably do not need it.

Many Democrats have come to the Senate floor and tried to make that case over and over again, and I hope that some of this is getting through.

But whether they are a Democrat, Republican, or Independent, or whether they were for the war in Iraq; whether they think the troops should stay there or come home; or whether they believe there were weapons of mass destruction and we went in for the right reasons or there were not and we went in for the wrong reasons, I think universally in America people believe, no matter what their political persuasion, that if we are going to continue to give tax cuts the first people who should get them are the people who are fighting to protect us.

But in this budget, on page 21, proposed by the President of the United States, in small print, which I am sorry cannot be picked up by the camera, it says:

The Committee-reported resolution assumes on-budget

revenues are reduced by $70.2 billion over five years.

The resolution instructs the Senate Finance Committee to basically give out $70 billion in taxes. So if this budget passes the way it is now, $70 billion is going to have to be given out in taxes, in addition to the $2 trillion we have already passed--these numbers are just mind- boggling; it is impossible for me to describe how much money that is. But this President is intent basically on emptying the Treasury for tax cuts. So I have argued that is not what we should do.

I believe we should balance the budget. I was one of 50 Senators today who voted on the only amendment that actually would have gotten us there, which was the pay-go amendment. We lost by one vote. So I am not going to make that argument tonight again.

I believe that if we are going to give $70 billion in tax cuts, which is what this budget instructs us to do, please, Mr. President, could we please give a tax cut to the men and women in uniform? They are the ones who have left their homes in Louisiana, North Dakota, Tennessee, all over the country, and gone to the front lines to fight for us.

The sad thing about this is that 40 percent of those men and women who go from the Guard and Reserve take a pay cut to fight for us. It is inconceivable to me that this administration, or anybody in the Senate, would stand here tonight and argue for a budget that gives $70 billion in additional tax cuts to people who may or may not need them and yet at the same time ask our soldiers to go to the front line and take a pay cut.

When we come to the floor and go to the Finance Committee and beg and plead on their behalf, could they give them a few pennies, could they give them a few dollars, we are told over and over again, I am sorry, we cannot afford it.

The last ``military tax relief'' the Congress passed was a $1.2 billion bill. I wish I could show how tiny that is. I mean, $1.2 billion is a lot of money, but relative to what we are giving out to everybody else in tax cuts, it is so small. When we did that bill, I went to them and said: Look, can we do better? Our men and women need this tax break. Their employers are trying to keep their paychecks whole. If we give a tax cut to their employers who are voluntarily continuing to pay their active duty Guard and Reserve employees' salaries, perhaps they could at least keep their paycheck. We are not talking about extra money; we are just talking about letting them get their paycheck that they got when they were firemen, policemen, an architect, a doctor, or a lawyer. Let them keep that paycheck.

This is not even really for the soldiers, because these guys and gals are making the sacrifice. This is to keep their wives, their spouses, and their children in their homes, in their automobiles, getting them to the doctor.

For some reason--I do not know why--this Senate, particularly the Republican leadership, refuses to give a tax credit to the Guard and Reserve. So the last time a bill came through, I asked: Could you please attach this amendment to it?

Sorry, Senator Landrieu, we cannot afford it. We cannot possibly give the Guard and Reserve a tax cut. Do you not understand, we do not have any money.

I do not know what they are talking about, because this budget is going to give another $70 billion in tax cuts. So please do not even argue with me on the point. I am not going to listen. There is $70 billion given away in this budget again, and I am going to ask for the $1.2 billion out of $70 billion--pennies, pennies--for the Guard and Reserve.

Let me tell you how this affects Guard and Reserve families. This is a letter from Kansas, the State of Senators Brownback and Roberts:

After 9/11 [my husband] was activated . . . His pay was

significantly decreased, his health care was in jeopardy, and

I was pregnant. Here was my family, making so many sacrifices

for our country and our country wasn't taking care of us at

all. How could this be happening?

I ask for 2 additional minutes.

Continuing:

Luckily, our country may not have been taking care of us

under the circumstances, but [my husband's company] was.

[They] sent us a check to make up the difference in pay for

my husband's entire activation. They deserve to be recognized

as a great supporter of our military by receiving this tax

credit.

This tax credit would go to businesses that are doing the patriotic thing, helping the Guard and Reserve on the front line, keeping them and their families out of bankruptcy, not having to mortgage their house, not having to give up the car while they are fighting for us. This tax credit is going to benefit the thousands of Guard and Reserve in Louisiana and thousands of Guard and Reserve in our country. It is unconscionable that the Senate Finance Committee, or this budget, would contemplate yet more tax cuts for everybody in America and leave out the men and women in uniform.

What is worse about it is every picture we are in is taken with men and women in uniform, with that flag flying, but when it comes to putting them in the budget--we can put them in our campaign pictures, all right, but we cannot put them in the budget.

That is what my amendment does. We are going to vote on it tomorrow. It does not add one penny. It just says to the Finance Committee, go ahead and give away $70 billion again, but the first $1.2 billion is going to be given to the men and women in uniform. They deserve it. Shame on us if we do not put them in.

So we are not going to vote on this tonight, but for the Guard and Reserve in my State, for the Guard and Reserve in New Hampshire, for the Guard and Reserve in South Carolina, North Dakota, and South Dakota, I hope we will get 100 percent of the Senators to vote on this. If anybody wants to debate it, I will stay here all night and debate it as long as anybody wants, but I think my time has been limited.

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