Floor Statements

May we have order in the Senate?

Madam President, I see my colleague from Alabama who has been waiting patiently, as I have, throughout the day to speak. He only wants to speak for 5 minutes. I yield 5 minutes of my time, and then I will reserve my right to speak for the 85 minutes remaining.

Thank you.

Mr. President, I appreciate the opportunity to speak for the next hour and a half, and, depending on whether other Senators want to speak later in the night and what the agreements are, I may want to speak even longer because the subject I want to speak about is extremely important to my constituents and to many constituents around the country.

I spent a couple of hours in the Senate yesterday speaking about the tax bill, the $137 billion tax relief bill the Senate and House have been negotiating now for 2 years. Not just the last few months, not just this Congress, but for 2 years the Congress has been putting together a tax relief bill because we basically were forced to put a bill together because of a decision made by

the World Trade Organization, of which we belong and encourage, that said part of our Tax Code was not in order.

I am not on the Finance Committee. The Presiding Officer and I serve together on the Appropriations Committee. I am not a member of the Finance Committee. The Finance Committee, 2 years ago, began to put a bill together to address that situation. It was about a $50 billion problem. That is a lot of money.

What happens around here is every time we open the Tax Code, it is very tempting for everyone else to try to get in the bill because if you can get in the bill, you can get money out of the Treasury. You could ask for additional tax relief. You could correct something that you think was an injustice to your business, whether you are a big business or a small business, an international business or a domestic business. You could ask for all sorts of help.

What happened was this bill started out as a very specific $50 billion fix for something that most everyone--not everyone but most everyone, including myself--thought we should fix. It has turned into a $137 billion tax relief bill. That is the truth. That is very troublesome.

That is not even why I am speaking. There are things in this bill that are good and bad, and Senators have had all sorts of ideas and expressions of their opinion, including an eloquent speech about an important provision by the Presiding Officer for leaving out the regulations on tobacco, putting in the buyout provisions from the farmers but leaving out the companion regulation that was in the bill when it left the Senate.

Other Senators have come to the Senate today to speak about different issues. I come to the Senate not saying those are not important. But there is one issue in my mind and in the minds of many of my constituents in Louisiana and around the country that transcends all of these issues and which is in a total category by itself. It is an issue that doesn't have anything to do with corporations or business; it just has to do with fairness, justice, truth, loyalty, and honesty.

The truth is that in 2 years, putting this bill together that went from $50 billion to $75 billion to $100 billion to now $137 billion, we forgot one group of people. Just one group I think was forgotten. This is the bill, $137 billion--pages and pages of the bill. It is like two big phone books. Two years we put a bill together. Almost every kind of business one can think of is in this bill, from energy companies to chemical companies to farmers to hospitals, health insurance; good companies that deserve help--I am not saying they don't--and good tax provisions. But the one group that is left out--if you read the bill from the beginning to the end, read it upside down, backward, in any language, you will not find one group of people in the bill. I hate to say who that group is because the people in America do not believe we could do this. We left out our troops. We left out the men and women on the front line.

This is my problem. They are so far away in Iraq on the front line that we cannot see them or we will not see them or we do not want to hear them, maybe, because they are on the front line and they do not have time to be at the Capitol lobbying for themselves, and so we just left them out.

When the House Members or Senate Members come to the Senate and say they cannot understand why we are not rushing through on this bill and why some Senators are holding it up, I will tell them why. This Senator thinks it is a shame, unconscionable, to work for 2 years and put a $137 billion bill together that helps everyone--and you could argue for good, for bad--yet leave our troops out.

Some of us, including the Presiding Officer, Republicans and Democrats--had put in the bill when it was in the Senate a very small but important provision that only cost $2 billion of the $137 billion-- just $2 billion for our troops. Our troops are taking 100 percent of the risk. Our troops are bearing 100 percent of the sacrifice. We only asked for less than 2 percent, and we got nothing.

So this Senator is going to stay on this floor for as many hours as I can to tell the truth about this, and perhaps these words will reach to somewhere or people will be inspired or encouraged to take the political actions necessary to make sure these troops do not get left out next time or before we finish.

Let me read you some of the e-mails I am getting because we put this up on our Web page, and I have been doing interviews since I found out about this Wednesday night, as many as I can. I am going to continue to speak and debate and talk to anybody who wants to interview me about it.

I know some of these e-mails get a little political, but I think it is OK for me to read them here. But these are e-mails. I am happy to have them in the Record. I am not going to read all the political ones. I am trying to pick a mix of them. But I would like to start with this one to show the potential of this issue:

As a Texas Republican voter, you inspired me, and now I

will take a harder look at Democrats running for any office

because I'm a retired military service member. I have pretty

much believed the services were better represented by

Republicans, and I voted that way. You showed me that my

basic ideas may have been flawed, and I will now look

wholeheartedly into that. Thank you for such a beautiful

speech demanding that the military be represented in that

bill. You really moved me and may have switched my party

affiliation with that direct and memorable speech.

Mr. President, my office is being flooded with e-mails like this, but let me read you another one from a Democrat:

Dear Mary, I'm writing to tell you about how proud I am of

work you did on the floor today. As I write, you continue to

articulate a logical and, for most of us, a compelling

argument as to why the National Guard and Reserve should be

treated as first class citizens rather than second class

citizens in the tax bill pending before the Senate. Well

done. Can I convince you to move to North Carolina?

This is not about me. I am reading these not because I want people to know or because I want to brag about this issue. I want the Members of this body, and particularly the House leadership, the House Republican leadership, that took this out of the bill, I want them to know, Chairman Thomas, Speaker Hastert, and Congressman DeLay, how strongly Americans of all parties feel about what was done to our men and women in the armed services.

Let me be just very clear. The Republican leadership in this body supported this effort. I want to be very out front about that. The Republican leadership in this body, along with the Democratic leadership, supported this provision. And it went over to the House. Only in conference, at the direction of the Republican chairman, Chairman Thomas, was it taken out.

Now let me say this: I am so tired of seeing our troops in the pictures, in the photographs, riding with us in parades, waving the flag, taking the pictures, but when it comes time to put them in the budget, to give them relief, to put them in the tax credits, they are nowhere to be found--only in political propaganda and pictures. And this Senator and my constituents have had enough.

I want to talk about why this is important. This picture is up here because I want to demonstrate that one thing in the bill--and I am not trying to pick on the ceiling fan importers. I am sure it is a very legitimate request. But we have a tax provision to give help to those companies that import fans from China. Meanwhile, our troops do not get in the bill.

Now, if anybody needed a fan, our troops need one because it is hot in Iraq. It is about 105 degrees. If there were any way for me to get some of these fans to them, I would put an amendment on the bill. But the fans are in. The troops are out.

Now, another reason this is important is because the Members who are on the Armed Services Committee and many Senators who have served in the military understand this. I served on the Armed Services Committee for a while. I was very proud to do it. And I plan, hopefully, one day to be on the Defense Subcommittee on Appropriations so I can continue to fight for them and to articulate some of these views.

But I am not sure the country understands how much we are relying on our Reserve forces. We have a total of about 1.6 million Active troops and we have 1.2 million Reserve troops. So it is about 60/40.

Now, in 1953, not that long ago, during the Berlin crisis, we only called up 148,000 Reserve troops. In the Cuban

missile crisis, we called up approximately 14,000 Reserve troops. To fight in the Vietnam war, we only called up 37,000 Reserve troops. This comes to a total of 200,000. So for almost 35 years, we only called up 200,000 Reserve troops. So our Reserve was operating in a place where the men and women could sign up, go do their weekend work, get a pretty decent paycheck for that, get training, and serve their country.

These Guard and Reserve, some of them are retired Active military, but many of them are policemen and firemen and women who want to serve and are happy to be that citizen soldier, that part-time soldier. Their goals have not changed, but our country's needs have changed. We made the decision in the 1990s to say, to save taxpayer money, to make our forces better and stronger, we are going to rely more on our Reserve and less on our Active Duty, and we cut our Active strength, therefore relying more on our Guard and Reserve.

The only problem with that is we keep forgetting them. We send them to the front line, we deploy them year after year, and then we forget about them. We are not sending them the pay they need, the benefits they need, the equipment they need. I am wondering, what is going on?

In the Persian Gulf war we had to call up 238,000 Reserve troops. In Haiti, we called up 3,000 Reserve troops; in Bosnia, 29,000; Operation Southern Watch, 2,000; Kosovo, 6,000; and the war in Iraq, 410,000 Guard and Reserve--currently about 5,000 of them are from my State of Louisiana.

Just 2 weeks ago, I went to Leesville, LA, the proud home of Fort Polk, where many of our troops train. It is a joint training base. I was with my mayors and my Governor, and we saluted our troops. We prayed with our troops. We were with them. We sent them off. The 256th Infantry Brigade is getting deployed. This is affecting thousands of families around Louisiana. This is not just happening in Louisiana. This is happening in the State of the Senator from Ohio, in Chairman Grassley's State of Iowa, in Texas and California. Thousands of families are being separated, husbands from wives, wives from husbands, fathers from children, to go fight on the front line.

So you can see the increase and the frequently that we have called them up, so you would think that if we are calling them up more, we would help them more. But we help them less. You would think that if we have a tax bill going through, this is the group of people who should be on the front page. But they are not on any page. They are not on the front page. They are not in the middle. They are not on the last page. They did not even write a note to say: Sorry we couldn't help you this time. Maybe we can help you next time. Not even a PS.

I have been proud to support tax relief since I have been here for 8 years. I haven't supported all the tax relief packages, but I believe people deserve tax relief. I wish we could live in a world with no taxes. As soon as we figure out how to do that, that would make everybody happy. I am not sure how to do it, but I am sure somebody will think of an idea someday because we sure eliminate taxes right and left for everybody.

We have been spending the last 4 years providing tax relief, $2.1 trillion. This is direct tax relief, either special benefits, including military families and the earned-income tax credit, ideas like their combat pay or their severance pay would not be taxed. Tax benefits to our military basically amounted to $1.37 billion. Everybody else gets $2.1 trillion. But the guys and gals on the front line get $1.37 billion.

Someone will say: Surely, Senator, some of the $2.1 trillion will go to the military families. And, yes, that will happen. Middle-class families generally are in here, and our troops are also middle-class families. The Republican side will disagree with this, but what the Democratic side says is, since so much of this tax relief is targeted to families earning over $100- or $200,000, I would argue that very little of this money is going to get to military families. Why? Because most of these families only make $50,000. The average is $30,000 in the active lower ranks. Very few people in the military make over $150,000. So who are we helping? Not the guys fighting the war. Not the guys taking the bullets.

The reason I am particularly offended on behalf of the soldiers is that we can afford to help them. If we didn't have the money, if we just couldn't afford it, then I would go to them and say: Look, you all know more about sacrifice than anybody. It is in the code of the military. Sacrifice, it is what they do; it is what they are. So everybody has to sacrifice. But the fact is, not everybody is sacrificing because everybody else is not sacrificing anything. They are getting extra. And only the military is being asked to sacrifice, not just their life but their paychecks.

I guess what really is upsetting, as I learn more about this and as I read the materials that are sent out by our own Government, this is the ``family readiness paradigm.'' It is www.defenselink.military, I think from the Pentagon. Secretary Rumsfeld is quoted and President George Bush on this chart. I want to quote what the President said:

The National Guard and Reserve are a vital part of

America's national defense. [They] display values that are

central to our nation: character, courage, and sacrifice,

[and demonstrate] the highest form of citizenship. And while

you may not be full-time soldiers, you are full-time

patriots.

That is lovely. It is wonderful. Except these words are not backed up with actions because actions would have put the patriots in the bill and said: You deserve a portion of this tax cut because the Guard and Reserve that go to the front lines are taking a 41 percent pay cut, according to the Government Accountability Office study.

And why is that? Because the Guard and Reserve are citizen soldiers. They work in regular life as truck drivers and architects and doctors and nurses. They might make $60-, $70-, $100-, $150,000. But when they are activated and they go to the front line, they leave their civilian paycheck at home and they pick up their Army, Navy, or Marine paycheck. And it is only $30,000 or $35,000 or $40,000. Some of these families are taking a 50-percent pay cut.

So while they are on the front lines taking the bullets, their families are back home. I have a letter from one of the families in Louisiana that said: Thank you, Senator, for fighting for us. We live on a very modest and meager income. I have been pouring water in my children's cereal to make ends meet because the grocery bill is getting pretty high.

I have to go home and tell that lady in Hammond that we couldn't find $1 in the bill to help her with her grocery bill. This is particularly upsetting to me.

The chart says ``Self-reliant families,'' I like that word ``self- reliant.'' I think it is important for us to be self-reliant, to be strong, to not be overly dependent. I believe in self-sufficiency and economic independence and pulling yourself up by your bootstraps. But why is it that we have to put a chart up for our Guard and Reserve asking them to be self-reliant, when this bill doesn't represent self- reliance? This bill represents companies and individuals who came to the Government to ask for help and aid, not self-reliance.

But in the charts that we send out to these families as they wave their loved ones goodbye, we tell them: Forget about being in the bill. Here is your brochure that talks about self-reliance. And if you need help, call the outreach family readiness coordinator. Maybe we can help you organize your finances because we know your situation is tough.

That is wonderful, except what they really would need from us is a whole paycheck. I am not asking for a bonus for them. I am not asking for any special tax break. Just make their paycheck whole. Just keep their paycheck whole. The way we did that in the Senate FSC-ETI bill was by giving the employers in this country, the patriotic employers who are basically subsidizing their salaries by saying: Harry is leaving us tomorrow. We can't let his family have to live on $30,000 less.

So here is a small business. I can just see them now getting together in the coffee room: Harry has to go. Can we make it? Can we help him? Can we keep his pay going because he is going to be gone for a year?

That small business digs deep. Harry goes to the front line. They keep sending him a check--even though he is not at work for them, he is at work for us--

and keeping that paycheck whole for that family.

And all of us in the Senate thought that was the right thing to do. These are patriotic businesses. Let's give them a tax credit, at least half, so those small businesses that are doing this could be rewarded. They could be recognized, voluntarily. They don't have to pay their active duty Guard and Reserve employees. But if they are doing it, they should get a 50-percent tax credit.

So, in essence, our amendment was creating a partnership between all the small businesses in America, patriotic businesses and large corporations that are keeping the front line going.

But Chairman Thomas decided in his committee that this bill and the things in it represented a higher priority than keeping the paychecks whole for the men and women taking the bullets for us on the front line. I am still waiting to hear from Chairman Thomas about why he thought that or what it is that I have missed. I haven't heard a thing.

I would like to read the letter I sent to the President. I put it in the Record yesterday. I will read the letter I sent to the President because I want to say again, as I said yesterday, I don't think the President of the United States knows about this. I think if he did, he wouldn't have let it happen. I want to read my letter again. I hope to get a response. I just sent it to him yesterday about 24 hours ago.

Mr. President:

I am writing to bring a grave injustice to your personal

attention. During the Senate consideration of the FSC/ETI

legislation, the Members of the Senate added a modest

provision to assist our troops. GAO studies have concluded

that 41 percent of our Guardsmen and Reservists called to

serve their country on the front line must take a pay cut to

do so. Fortunately, some companies around the country have

stepped up to the plate and taken the patriotic step to make

up the pay-gap of these brave men and women. The provisions

that we added in the Senate would have provided a tax credit

of up to 50 percent to cover the cost of these companies who

make up the difference. In doing so, we hoped both to

acknowledge the patriotism of the existing companies and at

the same time encourage more employers to take this step.

Mr. President, no doubt that you have traveled the country

and you have confronted the same stories I have from some of

the military families struggling to make ends meet. We have

had to ask an awful lot of our Guard and Reserve. They ask so

little from us. So trying to take this worry off the minds of

our men and women on the front lines seems to me to be the

least that we could do. So it is with deep embarrassment for

our Government that I must report that this very modest

release for our troops was stripped from the conference

report by Congressman Thomas and the leadership of the U.S.

House.

While I am certain that representatives of your

administration participated in this conference, I presume

that you did not have personal knowledge of this decision to

cut support for our military families. Regrettably, this

decision has placed all of us in a very difficult position.

While I endorse many aspects of this bill, I simply cannot

support a measure that places so many lesser priorities ahead

of our most important priority.

It goes on to say that I respectfully request that the President exert his significant influence to correct this at the earliest possible time. It could be by vetoing this bill and sending it back and telling us in a veto order to fix it, which has been done before and could be done. That is unlikely. It is very difficult to do, but I think these are difficult times. Or the President and the House leadership could admit they made a mistake and promise, in writing or in other ways, to include it in the next bill through here. This letter was signed by myself and Senator James Jeffords from Vermont.

Many other Senators signed a letter to the conference. For the record, I want to make sure that people understand that Senators Murray, Johnson, Cantwell, Corzine, Boxer, Kerry, Durbin, Dodd, Pryor, Reid, Lincoln, Bond, Graham, Dayton, and many others signed onto a letter to the conference committee when this bill was being decided. It is addressed to Senators Grassley and Baucus, who are very supportive of this measure. It was also sent to Representative Bill Thomas and Representative Charles Rangel. I do know that Charles Rangel, the Democratic ranking member of the Ways and Means Committee, supported this. It was a decision made by the House Republican leadership, and it was a bad decision. It is a decision that needs to be changed at the earliest possible time.

Mr. President, one other thing that is very disturbing to me and particularly hard or difficult to articulate is that I have met so many men and women in uniform. I have met so many men and women in uniform, and they trust us to represent them and to do our best by them. When they are on the front lines, they don't have time to have lobbyists here.

They have many Members of this Senate who have put in additional benefits--I see the chairman of the Appropriations Committee here, who has worked very hard for our men and women in uniform--and we have put in time and time again help for them. So we have tried to respond in the Senate. But they trust us to look out for them.

In this bill, when it left the Senate, this provision was in the bill. When it went to conference, it was taken out. Again, there are many other items that were not included. I understand that. I am not arguing that anything in this bill is not worth our attention, because some Member felt strongly about it or it would not have been in the bill. I am not arguing about what is in the bill. I am arguing about the one provision that I know about that was left out of the bill. It is not Senator Landrieu's provision; it is a provision for our Guard and Reserve, to keep their paychecks whole so they can save for their future, so they can send their children to college, so they can fight and keep their minds on the front line and not have to worry about the homefront. I am wondering why they were taken out.

Again, I feel obligated and very motivated to try to spend some time in the last days, as we wind down the session, to speak about a grave injustice. That injustice is that we have 1.2 million Guard and Reserve in our country, representing about 40 percent of our total force. They are fighting on the front line in Iraq, in Afghanistan, in places all over the globe. You can see on this chart that these are percentages of our Guard and Reserve that have been activated. Thirty-six percent of my Guard and Reserve--I think I have close to 12,000 Guard and Reserve units in Louisiana--are on the front lines. If you look at Washington State on the chart, it is 46 percent. Over here in Florida, it is 47 percent. You can see the States and the percentages of the Guard and Reserve.

Every one of these percentages represents thousands and thousands of families who are being called up to go to the front line. What could be more central to our security than the troops going to the front line? Why would this Congress, led by the House Republican leadership, spend 2 years putting together a tax relief bill and leave them out so that they have to take a pay cut while everybody else gets a bonus or they take a pay cut and everybody else gets extra financial help or everybody else gets their tax bill lowered, but they have to pay the same taxes, and they get not even a whole paycheck?

The Senator from Iowa came down earlier to the floor of the Senate and made a couple of comments about this conference. I just have to respond, and I know he is not here, but it will be in the Record. He will be here tomorrow, and we can talk face to face about this. I have the utmost respect for the Senator from Iowa, the chairman of the Finance Committee. It has been very difficult for him to put this bill together, I know. The ranking member from Montana has been very helpful in putting this bill together.

I do want to take issue with something the Senator from Iowa said. He said it has been a long road to what I hope will be a final passage of this legislation. American workers, especially those in the manufacturing sector, put in the work necessary to make the U.S. the most productive economy in the world. We Senators should employ the same work ethic. We have to match our constituents' work productivity. We cannot delay this matter any longer. We cannot leave the jobsite without finishing our work.

I understand we want to get this bill finished, but I think spending some time talking about the soldiers on the front line, who were left out, is something that is important to do so we can either get this fixed before the end of the time for this bill to have to be considered or we can cause the focus to be such that it can be fixed in the next tax bill that passes this body.

He goes on to say that in his opinion it was a very open conference. Now, that may be his opinion, but from what

we understand from Members who were there, basically the House Republican leadership laid down their mark, and out of a $137 billion bill there was only $182 million worth of amendments that were changed from the Republican leadership written bill. So of $137 billion, only $182 million--only seven items of this entire bill, which could be on one page--were added or changed from the House mark. So the House leadership wrote the bill and they left the troops out.

In the conference, the seven items, it could have been any seven, but it was rural carriers, letter carriers, were added at a cost of $33 million. The SUV loophole was closed. The National Health Service Corps loan repayment was put in that added $72 million to the cost; small issue bonds; electric cooperatives; marginal stripper wells; and whatever the blue ribbon task force on tax reform was, it is no longer existing because it was taken out.

So out of $137 billion, there were seven items, for a total of $182 million, that were changed.

When the argument is made that it was a very open process and the Senate put in some things and the House put in some things and it was all open and everybody talked and everybody negotiated, it is not true. What is true is for 2 years in many meetings, in many hearings, in many speeches, over many hours, a bill was put together and time and time again in those meetings and on this floor and in the committee, letters were sent to the Republican House leadership, please do not forget the troops. But when the final print was done, when the bill was printed for distribution, they were left out.

I have stated until this issue is addressed, I am going to vote against this bill. I have not had one person in Louisiana call me and say: Senator, how could you possibly vote against my tax relief that is in this bill? Because the people in Louisiana are very patriotic and they do not think anyone should stand in the front of the line, except the troops. Time and time again, the people of Louisiana show their respect in real and significant ways to our troops. So while there are tax credits in here for the oil and gas industry and for shipbuilders and for fishermen, and many things that are important to my State--and I want them to know I support those industries--I also know and can say with confidence there is not an industry or a business or a person in my State that thinks they should be ahead of the Guard and the National Reserve, not one.

I promise that if anyone from Louisiana calls me to tell me they do think they should be ahead, I will be happy to admit I was wrong.

Our troops depend on us in many ways, and in the middle of a war when we are fighting one, as we are, with a lot of rancor and different views and different opinions, it is important when we can send our words of support that our actions match those words and that in every way we can tell our troops, because it has been a difficult time, we are in an election year, there are different opinions about the way this war is being prosecuted, but I would think at this time in particular we would want to send, by our action, not our words, real support for our troops.

What could we send more than a paycheck? When we do not take the opportunity to put the paycheck in this tax bill--and maybe people will come and say, Senator, we put all of the help for the Army and the Navy and the Reserve in the Defense bill,--let me say what will happen when we leave them out of this tax bill: We end up having to argue in the Defense appropriations bill whether we want to spend money for their helmets, their rifles, their covered Humvees or do we want to spend the money for their paychecks. Why are we making them choose between a helmet and a paycheck?

That is what happens when we just focus on the Defense appropriations bill and divvy up the money. It is not fair to them. It is not right. It is not what we should do. When we have a tax bill moving through that could provide obviously $2 billion of the $137 billion we are giving, we could have given them tax relief. If there was a health care bill coming through, which there has been, we could provide health care provisions out of the general health care bill for our troops. Then in the Defense bill, we do our best to allocate those moneys as fairly as we can.

So that is why I am particularly upset, because I have been in those discussions on the Appropriations Committee and I know how tough it is. Do we give a 10-percent pay increase or do we invest in operations and maintenance on the bases? There is never enough money to go around. For what our troops are doing for us and the times our country is in and the challenges we face, we should not make them have to make those choices when we obviously have other options.

Let me read a couple of other e-mails I have received from people who feel strongly about this, because I think it is important.

I am a retired Army Reservist who was activated and deployed to the Gulf during Desert Shield/Storm. Because the company where I had worked for 16 years at the time was going through financial difficulties the best they could do was to continue with my family health plan, and I really appreciated that especially in their predicament.

Now, think about this. This is a guy going to the front line and he is especially appreciative that his company has decided, out of their patriotism and generosity, to keep his family receiving health care. They are not making his paycheck whole and he is not even angry about it. That is how men and women in uniform are. They do not even want to ask for help because they believe in self-reliance. They believe in sacrifice. But they also believe in fairness and honesty. It is not fair to leave them out of the bill. They deserve more. They deserve our truthfulness, our honesty, our hard work and our fairness, and we let them down.

He goes on to write:

Other reservists serving with me but who came from stronger

financial private or public work settings enjoyed all prior

pay and perks; most soldiers found themselves somewhere in

between those two positions.

So he is saying he went over there with very little. Some went over there with the ability of their employers to keep their pay whole, but most people fell in the middle, he says.

Your proposal about the Administration and Congress backing

up the rhetoric with real money would benefit employers,

employees and in the long run the services in their retention

efforts.

I want to talk about retention.

I don't know how many times the generals have to come before us to speak about retention. I don't know how many times some of us on the Armed Services Committee have to come to this Chamber to say we are having a tough time recruiting for our armed services, not because we don't have brave men and women, not because they don't want to serve, but when the compensation and the pay packages get so out of line with what people can make in the civilian world, it puts a lot of pressure on them. Believe me, I have talked with these soldiers. With tears in their eyes, sometimes, they tell me: Senator if it were up to me I would go and you wouldn't have to pay me a thing. This isn't about me. But I can't bear having to watch my wife take a second job or not be able to be home with our two children because I'm away. Please tell them I am not asking for myself, I am asking for my spouse. I am asking for my children.

I want to speak for them. Could we not just keep their paycheck whole? A report last month let us know--I will supply it for the Record--that the Guard and Reserve, for maybe the first time in a long time, I don't know exactly the number of years, but for the first time in many years, fell short of its goal. It fell short by 5,000 in its recruitment.

You might understand why. It is not because Americans are not patriotic. It is because of this issue. It is about pay. It is about benefits. It is about whether our Government cares enough for the soldier to take care of their family when they are away. The soldiers would fight for nothing. They don't eat very well over there, and they don't care about it. But they do care about their families and their children back home. We should care as much as they do. We can help by keeping that paycheck whole, sending it home for our soldiers on the front line. But we did not do that when we put this bill together.

As I said, I am sorry to have to report to the President that is the case because I don't think he has any personal knowledge. Maybe he will have

gotten the letter in the last 24 hours. He has been very busy. I know it is a very busy time. But I know somewhere in the White House they are reading that letter, and I am looking forward to them letting me know what they think about it. Do they think it was a good idea? Do they think we could fix it shortly in a different bill? Do they think we could find $2 billion to keep those paychecks whole?

Here's another e-mail--

Let me start by saying that I do not reside in your State

but I still listened to you on C-SPAN and I loved it. Yes,

the very people who we depend on for our national security

cannot make ends meet. This is something many people do not

understand, because they have never been affiliated with the

military. Painful to note, billions of our tax dollars go to

help overseas, but not for our troops' loved ones. I, along

with the other girls, we get together for our weekly quilting

group. And we opened up other people's eyes about this

subject matter many months ago. I don't know that we can get

them to vote any differently, but it sure felt good to hear

you tell the truth.

I am not reading this for my own benefit. I am saying that there are many people around the country--one of the girls, probably an older woman, I would imagine--who quilts with a group of friends. They, evidently, talk about this. They know about military families. They are probably part of a group somewhere in this community that collects cans of food and other helps for the families at home. There is a great support network in this country.

Why can't the Government be part of the support group? I don't understand it. The Government has more money than everybody put together, and we can't find a half a billion? $250 million? We can't find a few thousand dollars in the tax bill? And we have Americans sitting around their kitchen tables collecting food for our troops on the front line?

In one way it is a wonderful thought. In another way it is awful to think about. I am happy Americans are supporting the troops. Our Government should do the same, and not just in the photographs, and not just in the pictures but in the budget.

I am going to have a lot more to say about this subject. Again, for people watching, as I wrap up and put us into a quorum call for the next little bit, I want to say again, the underlying bill is an important bill, and it needs to be passed. This Congress has worked on it for 2 years. There are many important provisions in this bill. But for the life of me I cannot understand how we have 150,000 troops in Iraq, why we left them out. About 40 percent of them are Reserve.

When they go to that front line they don't take a whole paycheck with them. We could have helped make it whole, but we chose other priorities. I don't know a higher priority than supporting our troops. Again, not just in the pictures, not just in the photographs, not just in the parades but in the budget, in our actions not just our words.

I don't see anyone wanting to speak. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Reserving the right to object, only for the purposes of his statement, and then I would like to be recognized. Otherwise, I will object.

I am going to object. Only to be recognized for the purposes of reading a statement, after which the Senator from Louisiana be recognized; otherwise, I will object.

We are in a quorum call.

I note the absence of a quorum.

We were in a quorum call.

Mr. President, under the previous order, I asked to be recognized after the remarks of Senator DeWine. I really appreciate the leadership trying to work out our schedule. It has been a long couple of days. It is getting late into the night. I really appreciate everybody trying to work forward to getting some of these bills

passed. But as I said, one of the most important bills that we have remaining to pass is a $137 billion tax relief bill.

There are many good provisions in this bill. There are many industries, large and small, in Louisiana that are going to be helped by it. I would have liked to have voted for the bill. There are energy tax breaks. There are shipping interests that are bolstered and supported in here, which means a lot of jobs to Louisiana. I would have wanted to vote for this bill.

I am not going to be able to vote for the bill, and won't vote for the bill unless we have some specific action on one provision--not the Landrieu provision, as some of the others have said, not an individual, personal Landrieu provision, but the provision for the Guard and Reserve, the men and women on the front line fighting for us whom every Republican and every Democrat in this body voted to support. Everyone, all of the Senators, from both parties, by unanimous vote, voted to send that provision over to the House to give modest tax relief to businesses, the small businesses and medium- and large-size businesses that are keeping those paychecks going to the front line.

We thought it was a good idea to take $2 billion of the $137 billion to provide some tax relief for those employers so that the Guard and Reserve that make up 40 percent of our armed services that are picking up more of the burden and are taking all the bullets on the front line, whether it is in Iraq or Afghanistan or somewhere else, so their paychecks could be made whole.

I want people to understand. The Senate of the United States felt strongly about that. But we sent the provision over. And when it got over to the House, it was summarily, unjustly, unconscionably cut out by the House Republican leadership. And it is a shame.

So over the course of the last few days, as we have tried to have debates about this bill in the morning and the afternoon and into the evening, I have spoken about this issue. The reason this poster is up is because it is a visual of what is in the bill and what is out of the bill. Ceiling fans are in the bill. Ceiling fans are really important in Louisiana. I know they are to the Senator from Nevada because we are from States that are very hot. We like air-conditioning, and we like ceiling fans. I am not picking on the ceiling fan industry. It is an important industry, and I am sure there is a good reason. I can't articulate what it is because it wasn't my provision. But someone could probably give a good explanation as to why the ceiling fan industry is getting a tax break.

But the Guard and Reserve, going to Iraq, taking the bullets, fighting on the front line, were left out of the bill, and ceiling fans are in the bill.

That is the truth. It is a shame. Many of us believe strongly that this injustice needs to be corrected.

I see the Senator from Iowa, Mr. Harkin, has raised other issues that he feels very strongly about that were either not addressed appropriately or properly in either this bill or several others. I want my constituents to know, and I would like my colleagues to know, I do not want to make these schedules difficult. I do not. I understand the pressures that are on the Members of this body.

But I also understand the pressures that are on the families who have their father or mother or brother or sister or husband or wife on the front line. I understand the pressures of these families. So do many other colleagues in this Chamber. If we can do something to help them, then we should. Maybe we cannot get them in this bill. But I have had conversations with the good leadership on the Republican and Democratic side, who are working as we speak to find a way to help the Guard and Reserve so they are not left out of this $137 billion tax bill with over 509 items. But they are not an item, they are not a line, they are not a paragraph or diddly-squat in the bill. So we are talking about how we could possibly get them included in some other bill that might pass before we go home for the election.

I can promise you, in the elections that we are getting ready to have, Members of Congress, Members of the Senate, the President, and the challenger for the Presidency, our nominee, Senator Kerry-- everybody is going to be taking pictures with the troops. I guess that is appropriate. But this Senator thinks that is enough of the pictures. Could we please put them in the budget?

I am not up for reelection this year, so this is not a campaign speech. The people in Louisiana have been supporting our troops. Our Guard and Reserve are the best in the Nation. Maybe a Senator would argue, but we have awards to prove it. We win awards. We are about the best--in the top 5 in the Nation. I know these men and women. They don't ask for much. They don't ask to be on the front of every tax break and giveaway. They are willing to sacrifice. But for Heaven's sake, we are going to pass a tax bill and give everybody in America $137 billion and leave them out? I don't think that is right. I don't think my colleagues think it is right or just.

I hope that sometime over the next 3 or 4 days that we are here--I know it is Saturday night. I have two small children. I had to make arrangements so I could be on the floor. I have a husband at home. I know everybody is going to go to church tomorrow, and people were at synagogue today and yesterday. I understand that. But I think we need to spend a little time talking about this issue. Why were they left out? How could we afford $137 billion and not afford a tax cut for them? Was it too complicated to figure out?

There are a lot of complicated things in here. It would make people's eyes twist if I explained how we were giving tax credits to foreign corporations so they could close down here and go to the Bahamas and open a post office box and get a tax check. There are more complicated things in here than saying to businesses in America: Thank you for being patriotic and for voluntarily sending that paycheck to the front line, closing the gap between what the reservists make as part of the Reserve and what they made for your company. We would like to honor that and give you a tax credit. You can pick up 50 percent of the burden, and the Government can pick up the other half.

Evidently, this is too much for us to pick up. It is not too much for me to stand here. I know the hour is getting late. The Senator from Iowa wants to speak. I just say again that I am going to get to the floor over the course of the next few days and I will speak about this issue. I thank the leadership for working in a cooperative manner to allow that to happen because I am still hopeful that we can fix this bill. Maybe the President will veto the bill when he finds out it is not in there. Maybe it could be fixed in a different way. Maybe another bill could be attached. I know if there is a way the leadership in this body wants to fix this, they could. I think the men and women on the front line deserve our best effort in that regard.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I make special note of the visit to the United States by the distinguished

President of the Republic of Kyrgystan, Askar Akaev. President Akaev was in the our country for the opening of the session of the United Nations and also traveled to Utah to discuss the reforms taking place in his country and to talk about the efforts his nation is taking in the war on terrorism. Today we face a global war against terror, a war we cannot win alone. It is in that spirit that we should recognize and support democracies worldwide, particularly those burgeoning democracies for which freedom is a new concept. The Republic of Kyrgyzstan, is just such an example.

A small country of 5 million in Central Asia, the Kyrgyz Republic has been one of the most progressive countries in the region, especially amongst the countries which once made up the former Soviet Union. Plagued by an inflation rate of 88% in the year 1994, Kyrgyzstan under the leadership of President Akaev was successful in carrying out a number of market reforms, which allowed it to lower that inflation rate to 15 percent in just three years.

President, Askar Akaev was first elected in October of 1990 and is internationally recognized for his promotion of science, human rights and democracy world wide. He has received many International Awards, including the Grand Cross of the Order of Liberty and Unity from the Association for Unity Latin America in 1995, the Prize of Javaharlal Neru's International Foundation for Unity also in 1995, the Prize of Crans Montana World Forum in 1996 and the North American-Kyrgyz Business Councils International Leadership Award in 1997. More recently, however, President Akaev's wife and first lady, Mairam Akaeva was awarded an honorary doctorate by Utah Valley State College during a trip to the United States late last month. She is also internationally known for her efforts with women and children, spreading the value of education, which is highly regarded in the Kyrgyz Republic, which enjoys a literacy rate of 98 percent.

I thank President Akaev's commitment to the war on terrorism and express our gratitude for providing a military base for our troops in his country. There are a number of companies with operations in the region that have helped supply our troops with what they need to prevail.

As we continue to search for allies in this critical region of the world, it is important to commend those who are trying and slowly succeeding with new found freedoms and economic opportunities.

I thank the Senator from New Mexico.

Mr. President, I thank my distinguished colleague for yielding.

I am objecting also because of an issue that is of great concern to me and to the people of Louisiana. It is in this $137 billion tax bill that we have worked on very hard for 2 years. Our leaders in the Senate have done an excellent job under very difficult circumstances. It was a House committee, without the cameras rolling and without a real record of it.

The only people taking bullets for us, who are the men and women on the front line in Afghanistan and Iraq--in this case the Guard and National Reserve--the only people taking the bullets were left out of the bill completely. They were not the top of the list, they were not in the middle of the list, and they were not in the bottom of the list.

So I am slowing the Senate down until I can get this message out, and talking to as many reporters and others who will talk so I can tell them the truth and what happened. I can talk to my colleagues if we are going to stay here a day or 2 days or 3 days. They have been in Iraq for over a year and a half, 2 years, and another weekend is not going to hurt me. We need to talk about a plan to work through it. But I am not leaving them on the cutting-room floor.

Mr. President, I think under the unanimous consent agreement that I am entitled to speak for the next 15 minutes.

Mr. President, the Senator from Nevada makes some interesting points. I will have more to say about that specific issue later, as will other Senators from this side. But I am glad that he brought up the point of greed because it is actually something that I am going to speak about myself but as it relates to a different aspect, a different bill, and a different issue, but basically the same ``sin,'' if you will.

Unfortunately, it is not our allies who are committing this sin, it is us right here. We are debating now, over the course of the next several days, and have actually been debating for 2 years, a tax relief bill prompted by the World Trade Organization's decision that some of the things in our U.S. Tax Code were contrary to the free trade principles that most of us--not all of us but most of us--espouse. So that decision set in motion a very necessary effort to address that decision by changing some things in our Tax Code.

Of course, anytime you open up the Tax Code there are many people interested in changing the words, the letters, the titles, the paragraphs, and the provisions. Sometimes a change in one word could mean a $1 billion windfall for a particular company, or millions of dollars of windfall for particular entities. There is a lot of interest every time this body opens up a tax bill.

Two years ago when it came to the attention of some of us that a tax bill would be opened, and then as the 9/11 tragedy happened and as we saw men and women from our States going to the front lines to fight in Afghanistan and Iraq, and as we watched some of our health units, particularly in New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, right here in Washington, DC, and Virginia respond to some very tough casualties that this country experienced, some of us began to think: What could we do in this tax bill to honor the men and women who are on the front lines?

Not being on the Finance Committee, I wasn't aware of all the specific aspects, but I knew there would be maybe hundreds or thousands of entities, corporations, big and small, groups that thought they were entitled to some sort of tax break.

For the life of me, I didn't think we would have any trouble at all when a group of us got together--Senator Boxer being one, Senator Mikulski, Senator Murray, Senator Daschle, Senator Reid, Senator Bond, the Senator from South Carolina, Lindsey Graham, and many others--and thought, having been to a lot of parades and flag-waving ceremonies for our troops, maybe there would be a way we could help them in this tax bill.

I know it is not the focus, but we figured--or I thought--there would be lots of other people who were trying to get in. So why don't we try to get our troops in? The good part of this story is we did in the Senate, with the help of Senator Grassley, Senator Baucus, and many members on the Senate Finance Committee who worked long hours, many weeks, many months negotiating a bill that would correct the original problem that the World Trade Organization had, and provide some tax relief, according to their views and other people who wanted tax relief; we put in a tax benefit of $2 billion for the men and women who are actually on the front lines, the guardsmen and reservists who have become a larger and larger component of our fighting force, who leave their regular jobs, leave their families, and leave their regular civilian life, put on their uniforms and go to the front lines.

We know from reports which we have read and from our own experience representing our Guard and Reserve in our own States that 40 percent of these men and women take a cut in pay to go to the front lines. Not only do they take the bullet, not only do their Humvees get blown up on patrols, but they also take a cut in pay to go.

Some of us had the notion that maybe in this bill, whether it was going to be $350 billion or $75 billion or $100 billion, now it is $137 billion--I would like to show you what that looks like. This is only part of it. This is what a bill looks like that has tax relief provisions of $137 billion. This is just part of it. I am going to get the rest of it because it is a lot of pages.

Some of us had the foolish notion that maybe the Congress could find one page, one paragraph, one letter to include tax relief for American businesses that are doing the right thing, the patriotic thing, by filling the pay gap that these men and women are experiencing. When they leave their civilian life and they put the uniform on, and they pick up their paychecks from the Army, Air Force, or the Navy, they get a substantial cut in pay. Some of the employers are making them whole and doing the right thing, the patriotic thing. We thought surely in this tax bill we could give a tax credit to those small businesses because times are not good everywhere in some States and communities. Really, the whole economy is weaker than we had expected and these small businesses are struggling.

But I don't know why Chairman Thomas from California who wrote the bill, and the House leadership of Congressman DeLay and Speaker Hastert, couldn't find one page or paragraph to include them. So they were left out. They weren't in the top of the list, they weren't in the middle of the list, and they were not at the bottom of the list. They are not on the list.

We stand here and talk all weekend about our intelligence reorganization to secure ourselves. We talk about spending and the investment in our defense to secure ourselves. Let me just ask anyone who would want to come to this floor, or Chairman Thomas, if he is listening to me, what could we be thinking if we are not even keeping the paychecks of the men and women on the front lines whole? No bonus, no extra, just keep their paycheck whole, just to keep their house payments up, just to keep the car notes for their spouse who is at home so they can continue to work and transport the children, just keep the children's trust funds moving along so they don't have to make that up when they come home--what could they be thinking? They weren't thinking very well on the House side. They took it out.

If we could afford $2.5 trillion in tax cuts in 2001, I think we could at least allocate one-tenth of 1 percent to our troops on the front lines who are protecting us today.

I want to say another thing to the businesses that are in this bill. I have a lot of companies in Louisiana that are going to benefit from this bill. I have not a word to say about that. I am happy they are in. I am sure they have good reasons. I am sure it is going to help create jobs.

But I have a word to say to the businesses in the United States of America. No business would be here, no business could operate, no business would have international trade, no business would have stockholders, no business would have a profit sheet, no businesspeople would be paying taxes on profits they made if it were not for the men and women in uniform who go to the front lines every time we have a conflict, a peacekeeping mission or a war to undertake to protect their commercial interests.

I am confident that the businesspeople who are represented in this bill know that. I know they are not going to blame me for taking a few days to talk about it. I know they will say, Senator, you are right. We are

grateful to the men and women in uniform. We are actually a little embarrassed because we are in the bill and they are not. It is not their fault. It is nobody's fault. But the House leadership who wrote the bill left them out.

We have in this bill help for investors who want to invest in a subway system in Paris. I like NASCAR. Lots of people in my State go to NASCAR races. We have tax relief for NASCAR. We have tax relief for ceiling fan importers with Home Depot. I shop at Home Depot. I like Home Depot. But we left out the Guard and Reserve.

I don't know. I am just starting to think that unless the cameras are on nobody remembers the truth. It is only the photo opportunities or the rallies or the parades that everybody goes to. We wear the pins and the flags, but when it comes to the budget and to the tax bill, we leave them out.

I don't think our troops need a lobbyist. I thought we were their advocates. Mr. President, $137 billion and we could not allocate $2 billion, not $1 billion, not half a billion?

I will speak about this as often as possible for the next couple of days. I tell my leadership, I don't want to make people's lives miserable. I am happy to talk with our leadership and the Republican leadership about any time agreements that make people's weekends convenient, but I could not in good conscience not spend some hours-- whether it is 2, 5, 10, or 30--talking about the 5,000 men and women who have been deployed out of Louisiana, who are on the front lines, whose employers, whom I know personally, are making their paychecks whole.

We had the chance to help out small business, to help our National Guard and Reserve. Somebody, somewhere, on the other side of this Capitol made a decision that is immoral, unconscionable, and most certainly not justifiable.

I will present for the record some names of families. I will present some hardship cases so the record is clear about the kind of families we have turned our backs on and the kind of employers who are doing the very best they can. While they are hiring a replacement, because they obviously need the job done, and sending the paycheck overseas, the Government of the United States, which is supposed to be on their side, decides we do not want to help them because we have higher priorities.

What higher priorities could we possibly have in the Tax Code at this time? If any one of my colleagues wants to explain to me and anyone else what could be a higher priority, I would appreciate it. If there is something else in here for the Guard and Reserve, for the military, to support our troops directly, please tell me. Maybe I didn't get to read the whole report.

I was on the Armed Services Committee for several years. Eventually, I hope to be on Defense Appropriations where I can do more work along this line. I know one thing, last year the Guard and Reserve, despite the fact these are the most dedicated and patriotic men and women--they will go the distance. They do not complain. They do not even like to say what is wrong because they feel sacrifice is what they do. I understand that. They came 5,000 people short of their retention goals. Could it possibly be because, although the soldiers do not mind making the sacrifice, they are getting belly sick of their spouses and their wives and children making sacrifices more than the rest of us are making? Why can't we sacrifice and help them? Why do they have to continue to make the sacrifice? When we have the opportunity, we say no.

Drastic pay cuts, bankruptcies, foreclosures--these aren't exactly the kinds of challenges members of the American military reserve signed up for when they volunteered to put their life on the line for us and for a country as great as this. For all of our pompous talk about how patriotic we are in this Congress, the least we can do is keep their paycheck whole.

Let me talk about three families I actually know. I will be in the Chamber talking about more.

Janet Wright is from Hammond, LA. Her husband Russell is in the Marine Corps. I have the Marine Corps pin on today in honor of our men and women. He makes $60,000 a year in the civilian world. He was activated and made only $30,000. He took a 50-percent pay cut. Mrs. Wright said that after a couple of months she started to put water in her children's cereal while her husband was gone because she had to count every penny. That is what happens when we give out $137 billion: We cannot help the Wrights. We don't have enough money to help the Wrights, so they have to put water in the children's cereal bowls.

Scott is a Navy reservist from California. He lost his home when he was activated and he lost nearly $1,000 a month in pay because the Navy job was different than the civilian. People say, Senator, that is impossible. There is a law that protects people from losing their home. I know that. You cannot foreclose on someone's home when they are on the front line. But the problem is, the bills add up and when they have to come home, if they have not paid those monthly notes and they cannot pay it within a certain amount of time, the foreclosure happens.

I don't understand how we don't have any money to fix it. How can I go home and tell my Guard and Reserve, I'm sorry, we didn't have any money, but here is $137 billion we gave out to everybody else? I am not going to do it. I can't go home. So I would as soon stay here because I don't have a thing I can tell them, not a thing I can say.

I will tell more stories about real people. They are calling my office right now and sending letters. We are getting a lot of e-mails. I will come down here until I hear from Chairman Thomas. We are sending a letter to the President at 6 o'clock today.

Let me say on the record I don't think the President of the United States knows they were left out. He has a lot on his mind. I understand that. And I know this is only one of a thousand things he has to consider, literally, weekly. But I am sending him a letter to let him know. I cannot amend this bill; it is beyond my power to amend it. It is against the rules. But the bill could be vetoed and this could be included. Or the President could send a message to his House leadership that says, you must have made a mistake; we should have included this. We obviously could afford it and he could promise to fix it.

I hope that is a response we will get over the next couple of days. I don't know. I know he is very busy on many other things right now. There will be a big debate tonight, but this is something I had to bring to our attention.

Over 410,000 members of the National Guard and Reserve have been activated since September 11. Secretary Rumsfeld has predicted that number may go up to 640,000. That is a lot of families dependent on us to make good decisions for them. This was not a good decision made by the House leadership. I will do everything in my power to get them to change their mind, to change the bill, or to promise they will put in this $2 billion or $3 billion--whatever it will cost to close this pay gap--so the men and women who leave your State of Illinois or my State of Louisiana or the Senator's State of Ohio or the Senator's State of Massachusetts, when the soldiers leave to go overseas, they have confidence that when we have a chance to help them keep their pay whole, keep their benefits intact, give them some support in the spousal support program we have established, we are there for them.

I understand the Senator from Massachusetts will speak and I understand the Senator from Iowa will yield the time to make that possible. But if my colleagues are wondering why the process has slowed down, why we are having a hard time getting a schedule for the next couple of days, this is one of the reasons. This is the reason I am voting against the bill and will be speaking about it as the days go forward.

I yield the floor.

Yes.

Will the Senator yield for a question?

Does it strike the Senator as odd and actually unjust that the same bill that would push the date back for companies to go register in the Bahamas--to give up their U.S. citizenship presumably because they think it is too hard for them to pay their taxes--in that same bill, the men and women who are protecting the right of those businesses to make a profit and to benefit from the great riches of this country were deprived of a tax credit? Does that strike the Senator as an odd way to either begin or end a session of the Congress?

Will the Senator yield for me to have an opportunity to try to answer that just briefly?

OK. I would just ask the Senator, did he know that at least my remarks were not at all directed politically to this bill? The Senator is correct. Did he know that when the provision I spoke about earlier left the Senate floor, 100 percent of the Senators, including the leadership of Senator Grassley and Senator Baucus, sent our bill over to the House saying, please put our troops at the top of the list if we are going to give out $137 billion? Did the Senator know they didn't even come back in any part of the list? They are not on the list. I just wanted to ask the Senator if he remembered that that was something we sent over.

Madam President, is there a specific order under the unanimous consent agreement?

I ask unanimous consent to speak for the next 10 minutes, if I am not interrupting anyone's time.

Madam President, before the Senator from Wyoming leaves, I want to make a couple of comments regarding some of the things he said. While some Members of this Senate intend to vote for this bill, I am one who will not be voting for the bill. I would like to restate why.

There is only one reason, one specific reason, and I think one compelling reason, that injustice was done in this bill after it left the Senate, and that injustice was that the one provision which would give direct tax relief to the men and women on the front lines, the Guard and Reserve fighting in Afghanistan, in Iraq, or whether it is North Korea, or South Korea, was left out of the bill.

We have a lot of bills, and not all of them are this fat, this full, and this expensive. This is $137 billion.

In 2 years, we negotiated between the House and the Senate. I know the Senator from Wyoming is aware of this because he helped to put it in. But there was only one provision in this entire bill that would have actually directed some modest tax relief to the men and women in the Guard and Reserve. But for some reason--I am not sure if it was politics, I am not sure if it was an election, I am not sure because I have not gotten an answer yet from anyone about why it was left out. Obviously, we had $137 billion to spend, and we spent it. We allocated it, but not for the Guard and Reserve.

We send the Guard and Reserve to the front lines. According to Secretary Rumsfeld, we sent 640,000 men and women, 5,000-plus from my State of Louisiana, to the front lines. We can't even send them with a full paycheck.

Some of us thought, gee, if we have this tax bill going through, we have to fix this problem with the World Trade Organization, and surely in the middle of this war at this time we could spend $2 billion to give tax credit. If we didn't have the $2 billion, I certainly would not have suggested that we spend it. But we have $137 billion in this bill.

I am confused. My constituents are confused. The men and women in the armed services are confused and their families are wondering and are very puzzled: How could we possibly be giving away $137 billion to businesses here and abroad and leave them out?

I am going to stand here for a couple of days and talk about it. I don't have an explanation for it. I don't want to go home because I don't know what I would tell them.

When the Senator from Wyoming says it is politics involved in the opposition of this bill, I think that is a good question. I am not sure of the answer. But I would like to say it this way. Is politics in any way involved in the passage of this bill? This bill, $137 billion for every corporation, or many corporations that you could think of, big ones, little ones, ones that make ceiling fans, ones that operate horse racing--just go through it. I am not going to even comment about the benefits of that. I don't want the reporters and the people following this debate to say Senator Landrieu objects to anything in this bill except that the Guard and Reserve were left out. That is what I object to. I am not going to even talk about ceiling fans and horse racing, or shipbuilding, which happens in my State. There are lots of wonderful things in this bill. My only question is, How could we possibly have the nerve to pass a bill and leave the Guard and Reserve out?

According to the GAO, the men and women in the Guard and Reserve on the front lines are taking a 41-percent pay cut.

You may say to me, Senator, they knew it when they signed up. Let me answer that. They knew there would be sacrifice. These men and women don't want a lot of pity or attention. They are happy to go. They want to go. They are proud to serve. I know many of them personally. I am proud of them. But I tell you what they did not know: They didn't know that we--when I say ``we'', I mean this President, the former President, and the leadership of the Armed Services Committee--would make a policy decision that would say that our Armed Forces, instead of relying mostly on Active and a little bit on our Reserve, decided because it is less expensive we are going to rely more on our Reserve and a little less on our Active.

We didn't tell them that because they signed up 10 years ago and we have been making these decisions in the last couple of years. They sign up. They weigh the pros and cons. They want to serve their country. They are patriotic. They say, I will make the sacrifice. But then we changed the rules on them. It is not their job to fix that. It is our job to fix it.

We had a bill coming along. It started 2 years ago. I thought: this is a perfect time to fix this situation. Here is the money. It is small businesses that are writing these checks to keep their pay whole, and surely this country would find money in this bill to do this, and then whatever else they want to do is fine with me. But, oh, no.

Let me make another point about what the Senator from Wyoming said. He said something along the lines that jobs are created by tax cuts. We have to have tax cuts for businesses to grow. I think that is partially correct. I don't think just any tax cut at any time makes business grow, but I will give him that. But I will tell you what makes businesses in America grow. I will tell you what no business could operate without. I will tell you in large measure what this war is about. It is about economic freedom. It is about global trade. It is about peace in the world so people can make a profit. No business in this bill could possibly function without the men and women

in the Active or Reserve units. They wouldn't exist. Yet we have this bill to help companies and businesses, and we can't help the men and women taking the bullets.

I am not voting for a bill like that. I urge my colleagues, if they have decided how to vote, they might want to change their minds. I hope maybe people listening in their States, and maybe some of the families who have actually lost soldiers on the front lines might call their Senators, and say, Senator, if you do not mind, what Senator Landrieu is saying makes sense. Please don't leave me out of the bill. You put me in the war. Don't leave me out of the bill. You put me in the photograph, don't leave me out of the budget.

I will say one more thing before my 10 minutes is up.

I know something else about military families, and it is what I love about them the most. They never even want attention. I have had a little bit of a difficult time getting some of the families to call me. Do you know why? Because these men and women understand what sacrifice is all about. They didn't sign up to get rich. They didn't sign up to get an award. They don't really advertise their bravery every day, not like some people around here who cannot wait to show their awards off, et cetera. The men and women in uniform don't do that. So it is hard for them to ask.

I want them to know it is my job as their Senator to ask for them and to fight for them. I don't blame them for not wanting to have their names used. They want to feel self-reliant. But I will be darned if I will sit here and watch this $137 billion get out of this Chamber and leave them behind.

My colleagues, we are going to be here for a long weekend because I have a lot of things to say about this. My time now is up, but I am not going far. I don't live far from here. I am back and forth from Louisiana, and the house I live in when I am here is four blocks away, so I am not far away. I would stay here for many days to talk about it.

Members in this Chamber feel very strongly about their Guard and Reserve. They know the sacrifices they are making and a mistake was made. Mistakes can be corrected.

At 6 o'clock today I am delivering a letter to the White House. I will read it before 6 o'clock in the Senate. It is being delivered to the President. It is assumed in the letter that he didn't know about this personally, that it was just something that did not come to his attention. But he has the power as the President to fix it, and I hope that he will take that action.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, 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 thought I would take the next 15 minutes or so to review a couple points about the tax relief bill we are considering adopting. There are three or four major pieces of legislation that the Senate is trying to finish in the next couple of days. One of them is the reorganization of homeland security and the Intelligence Committee. One of them is the tax relief bill that we have been working on for 2 years. There are other issues that this Congress is struggling to get finished in the next few days, but the most important issue to me and the one I would like to spend a bit of time talking about now is the tax relief bill that was put together by many of us, or tried to be put together by many of us, over the last 2 years.

That started out for a very good purpose and a very good reason because there was a trade decision made by the WTO that called into question the legitimacy of some part of our Tax Code relative to certain businesses.

We had to take some action or our businesses would have been fined through the WTO because the European Union had prevailed in their argument. So our tax writers got busy and tried to fix that. We need to fix it. But what has happened is, we have done more than fix. We have really messed up some things. Unfortunately, inexplicably, and as a grave injustice, we didn't take care of our men and women in uniform. For the men and women who are taking care of us on the front lines and suffering pay reductions, we are letting pass the opportunity to make their paychecks whole. I am going to spend a few hours over the next couple of days talking about that. Before I do, let me share a fact that maybe some might not realize. We have always had men and women in our Guard and Reserve units supplementing our Active Forces. But never in the history of this country have we relied on the Guard and Reserve to the extent we are today.

Let me share that in the Berlin crisis of 1961, we called up 148,000 reservists;

in the Cuban missile crisis, we called up 14,000; in the Vietnam war, we called up 37,000--for a total of almost 200,000 from 1953 to 1989.

You can see from this chart that just in the last 12 years, in the Persian Gulf War, the invasion in Haiti, the Bosnia peacekeeping, Operation Southern Watch, which is ongoing, the Kosovo conflict, and Iraq and Afghanistan--and this list is not completely up to date--we have called out 364,000 guardsmen and reservists to supplement our Active Forces, to protect this country, to defend this country. These troops have been willing to go at great sacrifice, but the least we could do is keep their paychecks whole. The least we could do, if we are giving out tax credits and tax cuts to other people, is include them in the bill. This conference report that this Senate is considering over the next couple of days, $137 billion, left them completely out.

We talk about helping small business. This is a picture of one of our soldiers. We left them out but we put in ceiling fans. I know people are not going to believe this, because it is hard to believe. But the guardsmen and reservists and their employers who keep their paychecks whole while they are on the front lines so they can pay their mortgages, pay their car notes, continue to contribute to their children's college trust fund, or just keep their household together, the employers of this country, small employers and large employers, are doing the right thing, the patriotic thing, not mandated by the Government but out of their own good heart, digging deep, keeping those men and women on the front line with a full paycheck.

We had the opportunity to give them a modest tax credit so they could keep that paycheck whole and hire a temporary worker to take the spot of that guardsman or that reservist who went overseas to protect us. And we couldn't find one line, one paragraph, not one word in a $137 billion tax relief bill for every conceivable commercial, industrial, or manufacturing interest in the country, for our guardsmen and reservists.

I want to show you the state of our Active Reserve. Sometimes pictures help us to understand. I know this subject can be complicated, but it is actually very simple. We just didn't put our Guard and Reserve in the $137 billion tax bill. We put everybody else in, but we left them out. I am going to stand here until I get an answer why.

In 1940, at the height of the Second World War in the 1940s, this was the Army troop strength. This is where we had to go in the Second World War to defend. This is in the thousands, so it was 600,000 to defend our Nation. Because we, of course, won that war, won the Cold War, defeated communism, we have dropped the active strength force of our troops down to probably the lowest level since 1942. What fills this gap is our Guard and Reserve that are called up when we need them.

When September 11 hit, we needed them and we called them. And they went. And 41 percent of them are going with a pay cut. Some of us got together, Republicans and Democrats on the Senate side, Chairman Grassley and our ranking member, Senator Baucus from Montana, and fixed that. Since we have a big, fat tax bill going through, couldn't we possibly give a little bit of money to the businesses that are keeping those paychecks whole, filling the gap, giving us extra strength, Active and Reserve, to protect us?

But for some reason, once the bill left here and got over to the House Republican leadership, it got taken out.

I know Senator Byrd is here to speak so I will wrap up my comments in just 5 minutes. I know he wants to speak, perhaps a little about this and other subjects. But I want to say a few things that the newspapers are saying about this bill.

Let me be clear. I don't oppose this bill for any other reason other than the fact that the $2.4 billion tax benefit to employers for the Guard and Reserve to help keep their paychecks whole while they are on the front line was left out. There are other provisions of this bill that are questionable. There are other important issues that have been raised by the Senator from Iowa, Mr. McCain from Arizona, and the Senator from Massachusetts. Those are legitimate arguments as well.

But leaving the Reserve and the Guard out and their patriotic employers is more than I can bear to be silent about.

This is some of what some of our newspapers are saying about the general bill.

The Washington Post, October 8:

The bill is aimed at ending a transatlantic trade war by

scrapping certain illegal tax subsidies for U.S. exporters

that have brought on retaliatory action by Europe. But in the

version approved last night by the House, that modest goal is

largely overwhelmed in a preelection package of benefits for

dozens of constituencies, including NASCAR track owners and

mall builders.

That is the opinion of the newspaper. Again, I don't know if the NASCAR track people are deserving or not. Many people enjoy NASCAR in my State. Maybe they are. But I can promise you that nobody in my State thinks NASCAR owners or investors or ceiling fan importers deserve a tax break more than the employers who are keeping whole the paychecks of our men and women on the front line. I can promise you that--not a one. I don't know of a business or a mall or a retail establishment that thinks they should get in line before the Guard and the Reserve.

It was a long line. This is what I call a long line. This is not a thin bill. This is not a one-page bill. This is a lot of lines and a long line. They didn't even get in the middle of the line. They didn't get in the end of the line. They didn't get in at all. It is a grave injustice.

The New York Times, the Boston Globe, the Minneapolis Star Tribune, and the Las Vegas Journal have all editorialized against this bill for different reasons. I am hoping that many of these newspapers and others that are listening will begin to focus on this issue as to a reason why we should vote against this bill, send it back to conference, redo it.

We all make mistakes. This was a big mistake the House Republican leadership made. I say basically this is a paycheck that we send to our soldiers. Their average pay is $30,000. According to our own report, these soldiers are getting a 41-percent pay cut. We could have done something to help them, but we chose not to. So I am going to vote against this bill. I know other Senators are joining me in letters being sent to the conferees, which evidently did not make an impression on them--at least not to the point where they kept our provision in. That was passed by 100 votes here, Republicans and Democrats, and it would be paid for with an offset. We didn't ask for this provision to be included without paying for it. It is even paid for. But they decided--the leadership, Chairman Thomas and, I guess, Congressman DeLay and Speaker Hastert--we could not afford it.

Let me again say for the record that there is $137 billion in this bill. The bill started out as being a $50 billion fix over 10 years. That was the cost of fixing the problem we originally started to correct. It grew and grew and grew. Everyone, it seems, was added in, except the men and women who are taking the bullets morning, noon, and night.

It is hard for me to go back to Louisiana and explain this. I am not sure I could explain it adequately to the 5,000 families who are currently serving on the front lines. Why should they pour a little water into the cereal bowl, as one woman wrote to me, trying to make ends meet? Why did some of them lose their houses because their notes pile up and they cannot pay the bill when they get home? What could we be thinking as to the justice of losing an automobile, losing their retirement, losing their college benefit, or having to make them stretch and sacrifice when we could help them? If we could not afford it, if we didn't have the money, that would be one thing. This is $137 billion. Why could we not have given them $1 billion, or $2 billion, or half a billion? Or even if you could not give them the money, write something in the bill, for Heaven's sake, and tell them you understand they have a 41-percent pay cut and you are sorry you cannot fix it today, but when we get another bill, we will try later.

Not even a comment.

When they go off to war, they don't make a lot of comments to us either, other than I am going to my post, I am going to do my job; I will see you when I get back. Take care of my family. That is all they say to us. We could not even get a paragraph of gratitude in this bill.

Senator Byrd is going to speak. I will speak a few more times this weekend about this. I am doing as many interviews as I can, explaining this to people and handing out material. I am still waiting for Chairman Thomas to either write me, send me a note, write a letter, make a comment in the newspaper, or meet me for a debate about why he took them out of the bill in the middle of the night, when the cameras were not on, and there is virtually no record of the discussion. I don't know. The people in my State would like to know.

I yield the floor.

I ask unanimous consent to speak for 10 minutes. I see other colleagues on the Senate floor. I will take the 10 or 12 minutes I have remaining, if I might.

Mr. President, I thank the Senator from West Virginia for the kind words he spoke before he made the very important points he has made this evening and throughout the course of actually the last few days. The challenge we face in Iraq is the most important issue before our country. I thank him for his kind words, and I want to thank him for his continued leadership.

As we get toward these evening hours, I remind my colleagues--

I thank the Senator. My colleague is so right that the men and women of West Virginia have served so bravely and so willingly, as so many people from our States have served in the Active Forces and in the Reserve and the Guard and, as I said earlier in my remarks, do so without the expectation of fanfare. They do not want awards. They do not even want that special attention in their communities because they are so proud to serve and they are so willing to serve. That is what makes me want to stay on this Senate floor even more for them, knowing that about these families.

I will read a few things into the Record during the 10 minutes that I have to build this argument and get out these facts about this important issue. One of the three or four important pieces of legislation we are trying to make decisions about in the last 2, 3, 4 days of this Congress is whether this bill, which is called the FSC bill--it is a tax cut bill which modifies many sections of the Tax Code--should pass or if it should not. I am going to vote against it because the Guard and Reserve were left out. The people on the front lines taking the bullets, taking the cut in pay to serve us, and risking their lives were in the bill when it left the Senate, but because of the House leadership they were left out.

This bill is $137 billion, and if we could not afford $2 billion of this $137 billion for them, then I do not know what we can afford because none of us would be here without them and none of the businesses benefiting from this bill would be able to actually operate, function, have a license, or have the freedom to function or enjoy the free enterprise system that has been created over 220 years without the men and women in the armed services.

Some of us were silly enough to believe that in a bill that was $137 billion, they could get in at the top of the list, but we were mistaken because they did not even make the cut.

I ask unanimous consent that this article be printed in the Record.

This is from ``Citizen-Soldiers and the Fortune 500. Employer Support Grows.'' The article reads:

``I know of no other time in our nation's history when so

many employers have voluntarily offered this level of support

and benefits,'' Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld wrote

in September to employers of Reservists and National Guard

members called to active duty in the global war on terror.

In his open letter of thanks and praise, Mr. Rumsfeld expressed the deepest appreciation of his Department and the U.S. Government for ``your unswerving support of our nation's military.'' His letters were sent on 29 September to directors of major employer associations and Government agencies that were asked to distribute them to their members so their members would know of the good works and good words of Secretary Rumsfeld.

His letter went on to say:

Many employers did more than was required by law by

voluntarily offering continued benefits, pay differentials,

and additional, creative forms of family support, which made

the period of separation so much easier to bear, Mr. Rumsfeld

noted. He said that without the continued support, we could

not maintain a strong military or sustain the current effort

to overcome the international terrorist threat directed at

our country, our citizens, and all who love freedom.

Those are beautiful words. My colleagues would acknowledge these are beautiful words. The problem is, they are only words, because when the administration that Secretary Rumsfeld works for and the House Republican leadership that follows his lead and his direction put together a $137 billion tax package, they did not think they could find the room, the time, the energy, or the concern to really thank the employers by giving them part of this tax cut. They decided to send them the brochures and the newsletters and the go-for-it congratulations kind of letters, but the real people who they wanted to help or the people they thought deserved the most help were actually in the bill.

I think this is pretty clear evidence that the words that are sometimes written by leaders do not really convey what actually happens, that really what happens is what is in the budget. When one is in the budget, they know they matter, and if they are not, they do not. It is about as simple as that.

I am going to submit a list of the employers--the National Committee for Employers supports the Guard and Reserve, outstanding employers. I have them all through my State. I am so proud of these small businesses, I do not know what to do.

I had one of my mayors whose chief operating officer was called out of the city not once but twice, one of the most talented, remarkable public servants. The whole city sort of suffers when one of these skilled folks goes off, and I have heard his story out of Lake Charles, LA. But they kept his paycheck going voluntarily. Many employers keep the paychecks going.

I thought, silly me, we have a tax bill. Could we not acknowledge the patriotism of these thousands of employers in our country, big companies, small companies, local governments, fire departments and police departments that are digging deep? There are no line items in their corporate budgets to pay people who are not at work, but they do it anyway. We do not even mandate they do it; they are doing it voluntarily. They do not put a line item in their corporate budget: Pay people that are not on the job that are on the front line. But you know what. They do it. They do it for a good reason--because 41 percent of the Guard and Reserve are taking a pay cut to serve on the front line.

I want to submit for the record some the patriotic employers.

I ask unanimous consent to have some of their names printed at the conclusion of my remarks.

(See exhibit 1.)

Unlike some of the leaders who just write these employers letters and tell them what a good job they do, I want these employers--Conoco and Chevron and Alcoa and All About Music and Allianz Life Insurance Company and American Electric Power, American Express, the American Stock Exchange, and I could go on and on, 250 Central, 3M--there are pages of them--I want to tell them all that there are a few Senators, some Republicans and some Democrats, who are going to do more than send you a letter. We would like to send you a tax credit and we think you deserve it.

You didn't really ask for it. We understand that because you are digging deep. But we are going to give tax credits out to everybody in the world, it looks like, because we have ceiling fan importers and NASCAR race investors; we have shipbuilders--many of which are in my State and they know I support them--but we can't find a tax credit to help these companies that are sending paychecks for the front line to keep our soldiers prepared to fight and defend our country when really it is the Federal Government's responsibility.

If they said we didn't have the money, I would just sit down and say we just don't have it. We are running a deficit. We can't afford it. But for me to sit here and watch $137 billion fly through this Chamber and land in the hands of whomever, but not these companies, not our troops, not the people who are having a hard time paying their house note and keeping their household together, it makes me literally want to just get on my knees. I can hardly stand here. I really feel like just falling out.

I want to read a couple more things into the Record. I only have a few minutes. This is from Kristin who called in today from Portland. Her husband is in the Army Reserve and has been in Iraq for about a month. She is anticipating a 50-percent cut in pay. Her husband was a private consultant project manager.

We knew when he was activated that he was going to have to

be away, but to think that some in Congress aren't even

willing to do something to help employers continue to pay him

is hard to believe.

Gwen from Minnesota, her husband spent a year deployed in Iraq as a reservist. He is a schoolteacher. He took a significant pay cut during deployment.

Because I talked to Gwen, let me add a few things to this. Her husband has a doctorate degree. He is teaching school, in either high school or elementary school. He is a real double patriotic American because, even though he has a doctorate degree and could teach at a college or get some high-paying job, he feels compelled to give his life to help children.

In his spare time he goes to the front line. So what does our Government do for Gwen and her husband? Send them letters in the newsletter to tell them

how proud we are. Then, when they are not looking, in the dead of night, we pass a $137 billion tax cut and leave them out? I don't think so.

Sue, from New Orleans, her husband has been activated for a year and a half but has not been deployed. Even so, her family is experiencing a 60-percent pay cut during his deployment.

Trish from Pennsylvania, her family is experiencing a one-third pay cut. He is on his second deployment. They may have to declare bankruptcy. Her husband is in the Air Force Reserve. He was deployed to Afghanistan last year and is headed to Iraq in the fall.

We in Congress think we do a great job for these families by providing them financial counseling. Let me say one thing. Most of the people I know in the Army and Reserve do a very good job managing their money. They are happy for the help we could give them and they are happy for the counseling that they could sign up for, but I can tell you what they really want. They just want a paycheck and they want a solid paycheck. They don't want something to make them rich, not something to allow them to live in a mansion or drive around in a Lexus, but they would like a real paycheck. We could have helped them but we decided this Congress had other priorities.

The last thing I want to submit for the Record is a letter to the President of the United States that I am sending right now. I am going to read it and then I am going to yield the floor to the Senator from Kansas.

May I have order, please?

The letter says:

Dear Mr. President: I am writing to bring a grave injustice

to your personal attention. During Senate consideration of

the FSC-ETI legislation, the members of the Senate added a

modest provision to assist our troops. GAO studies have

concluded that 41% of our Guardsmen and Reservists called to

serve their country on the front line must take a pay cut to

do so. Fortunately, some companies around the country have

stepped up to the plate, and taken the patriotic step to make

up the pay gap of these brave men and women.

The provision that we added in the Senate would have

provided a tax credit of 50% of these costs to companies who

make up that difference. In so doing, we hoped both to

acknowledge the patriotism of existing companies, and at the

same time encourage more employers to take this step.

Mr. President, no doubt that as you have traveled the

country, you have confronted the same stories I have from

spouses and military families struggling to make ends meet.

We have had to ask an awful lot of our Guard and Reserves,

and they ask very little from us. So trying to take this

worry off the minds of our men and women on the front lines

seemed to be the least we can do.

So it is with deep embarrassment for our government that I

must report that this very modest relief for our troops was

stripped from the conference report by Congressman Thomas and

the leadership of the United States House. While I am certain

that representatives of your administration participated in

this conference, I presume that you did not have personal

knowledge of the decision to cut support for our military

families.

Regrettably, this decision has placed all of us in a

difficult position. While I endorse many aspects of the FSC-

ETI bill, but I simply cannot support a measure that places

so many lesser priorities ahead of our military families.

Mr. President, I respectfully request that your exert your

great influence to correct this injustice. Your willingness

to veto this bill, or your insistence that a free standing

bill be adopted, could redress this failure. Mr. President

our troops need your leadership on this matter. Let us not

disappoint them.

I might add, our troops need our leadership. I am sending this letter. I am sending a similar letter to Congressman Thomas. I hope in the next 3 days that we are debating we may get an answer that tells us either why they were left out or what we could do to help them, because $137 billion is a lot of money and they deserve to be in the bill.

I have ended my speech. I see the Senator from Kansas on the floor and I yield the floor.

Exhibit 1

National Committee for Employer Support of the Guard and Reserve

Outstanding Employers

250 Central, 3M, 99th RRC, AMSA 113 (G), A.G. Edwards &

Sons, Inc., A.K. Steel/A.E.I.F., Abbott Laboratories, AC

Nielsen, Accenture, Accolades Awards and Trophy, Adelphia

Cable, ADT Security Services, Aerojet Ordnance Tennessee,

Aetna, Affiliated Computer Services, Inc/Riverside, AFLAC,

Ahold Information Services, Air Products and Chemicals,

Alabama Rural Water Association, Alchua County Sheriff

Qffice.

Alameda County Sheriffs Office, Alamo Area Council of

Government, Albany, N.Y., Albertsons, Inc., ALCOA, Alion

Science & Technology, Alkermes Inc., All About Music, Allianz

Life Insurance Company, Allstate Insurance Company, Alpha

Industries, Altair Engineering, Inc., Alticor, Inc.,

Amazon.com, Amber Mechanical Contractors, Inc., AMERESCO,

American Electric Power Company, American Express, American

Express Financial Advisors, American General Financial Group.

American Heart Association, American Ink Jet Corp.,

American International Group, American Medical Response,

American Postal Workers Union, American Recycling Systems,

Inc., American Standard, American Stock Exchange, AmeriGas,

Anderson County, Blue Mountain Energy, Blue Cross Blue Shield

of South Carolina, Bluefield Police Department, Bluefire

Partners, Blum, Shapiro & Company, P.C., BMC Software, BMW

Manufacturing Corp., Boeing Aerospace, Boeing Electron

Dynamic Devices, Inc., Boeing Satellite Systems.

Boise Cascade, Boise Police Department, Booz-Allen &

Hamilton, Bose Corporation, Bradley-Morris, Inc., BRAVO!

Development Inc., Brighton School District 27J, Bristol-Myers

Squibb, Britton Engineering & Land Surveying, Inc., Brooks

Automation Inc., Broward County Sheriffs Office, Broward

County, Florida, School Board, Brown & Williamson Tobacco

Company, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, Burlington

Northern Santa Fe Railroad, Burnet County Sheriff's Office,

CACI, Inc.--Federal, Caddo Parish Schools, La., Calamos Asset

Management, Inc., Canadian National Railroad.

Canon Business Solution, Cantey & Hanger, Cape May County

Municipal Utilities Authority, Capitol One Financial,

Capsugel/Pfizer, CAREFLITE, CASAS International, Caterpiller,

Inc., Catholic Finance Corporation, CDW Computer Centers,

Cendant owns [Avis & Budget rent a car agencies], Cendant

Mobility, Cendant Mortgage, Cendent Corporation, Center of

Applied Technology North, Centex Rooney Construction, Central

Arkansas Veterans Healthcare System, Central Connecticut

State College, Cerner Corporation, Cerritos College.

Charles Schwab, Charter Consulting, Inc., Chautauqua and

Erie Telephone, Cheaptickets, Chesapeake Biological

Laboratories, Chesterfield County, Computer Sciences

Corporation, Comsewogue School District Board of

Education, Con-Way Central Express, Con-Way Western

Express, ConAgra, Concurrent Technologies Corporation

(CTC), Conectiv Power Delivery, Congentrix Energy,

Congress Title, Connecticut Light & Power Company, Conoco,

Conoco-Phillips, Consolidated Edison of New York, Cook

County, III.

Cooley Manion Jones LLP, Coors Brewing Company, Copperfield

LLC., Cornerstone Retirment Community, Corriher--Lipe Middle

School, Country Insurance & Financial Services, County of

Santa Clara, Environmental Resource Agency, Parks &

Recreation, Covance, Inc., Coweta County Sheriffs Department,

Cox Communications, Cranston Print Works Company, Crowley

Middle School, CSX Corp., Cummins, Inc., Curtiss-Wright

Corp., CVM, Inc., D. H. Griffin Company, D. Miller &

Associates, PA, Daimler Chrysler, Daphne, AL P.D. (and City

of Daphne).

Dassault Falcon Jet--Wilmington Corp., Data Base Accounting

Solutions, Inc., Data Search Systems Incorporated, Davidson

County, Tenn., Davie Police Department, DeKalb County School

System, Delaware, Dell Computers, Delphi, Delta Faucet

Company, Department of Environmental Protection, Department

of Labor/Wage & Hour Division, Department of Military of

Affairs, Designer Checks, Deutsche Bank, DeVry Inc., Digital

Partners Inc., DirectEmployers Association Inc., Discover

Card Services, Discover Financial Services, Discover

Financial Services, District of Columbia (Washington, DC).

FISI Madison Financial, Fleet Bank of Hartford, FIeetBoston

Financial, Fleming Companies, Inc., Flik International,

Florida Blood Services, Florida Power & Light Company,

Florida State Gov., FMC Technologies, Food Lion, Ford Motor

Company, Forensic Technology Inc., Forest Grove School

District, Forrest Exterminating Service Inc., Fort Wayne

Metals, FOX Broadcasting Company/News Corp., Fox Valley Tool

& Die, Frankfort Fire Department, Franklin County Sheriff's

Office, Columbus, Ohio, Freddie Mac.

Freightliner Trucks, Frito Lay Corporation, Frontier

Telephone of Rochester Inc., Fujitsu Network Communications,

Full Association Business Service, Inc., Galileo

International, Gardonville Cooperative Telephone Association,

GEICO Direct, Gen-Probe Incorporated, General Dynamics,

General Dynamics Land Systems, General Electric, General

Motors, George's Restaurant, Georgia Power Co., Georgia Power

Company, Georgia-Pacific Corporation, Giant Food Inc.,

Gilbane Building Company, Giles County Sheriffs Department.

Glastonbury, Conn., Glaus, Pyle, Schomer, Burns & DeHaven,

Inc., Glendale, Calif., Globe Motors, Inc., Goldman Sachs,

Goodrich Corporation, Goodrich Corporation- Landing Gear

Division, Goodwill Industries--South Eastern Wisconsin,

Goodyear Tire & Rubber, Graco Minnesota Inc., Grainger, Grand

Traverse County, Grapevine, Texas, GrayRobinson, Great Salt

Lake Council Boy Scouts of America, Greater Baltimore Medical

Center.

Jackson Township, Jacksonville Sheriffs Office, James City

County, Jamestown Public Schools, JCPenney Home Office, JE

Dunn Construction Company, Jedi Computing, Jefferson Parish

Sheriffs Office, JM Thomas Forest Products, John Peter Smith

Hospital, Johnson & Johnson, Jones & Carter, Inc., Jones Day,

JP Morgan Chase, JP Morgan Chase Custody Services, Inc., JSA

Inc., Kaman Aerospace Inc., Kaufman & Canoles, P.C., Kell

Container Corporation, Keller Police Department.

Kennesaw State University, Kenton County Airport Board,

Kerr-McGee, Kessler sign company, Kettering City Schools,

Kettering, Ohio, Key Corporation, KeyCorp, KIC Chemicals,

Inc., Kocourek Chevrolet, KORYAK Consulting, KPMG LLP, KRA

Corporation, Kraft Foods-Maxwell House, Kronos, Inc., Kwik

Trip Inc., L G & E Energy (KY), L-3 Communications, Labor

Ready, Inc., Lake County Captains Professional Baseball.

Lake County Metropolitan Enforcement Group, Landstar

System, Inc., Lang Wyatt Construction, Las Vegas City, NV.,

Lauerman's #2 Saloon, Lawfirm of Sacks & Sacks, LD Clark

Excavating, Lebanon Township Committee, Leviton Manufacturing

Co. Inc. (NY), Liberty Mutual, Liberty Technology-Magnet High

School, Liorente Investigations, Lisle-Woodridge Fire

District, Live Oak Police Department, Lockheed Martin,

Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Company.

Miami--Dade County, Fla., Michelin North America, Micro

Vane (MI), Microsoft Corporation, Mid-States Ford Inc,

Mideast Aluminum Division of Indalex, Midlands Orthopaedics,

P.A., Military Resale Group, Inc., Miller Brewing Company

(WI), Mind & Media, Inc., Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky

and Popeo PC, Mirant, Mission Critical Linux, Mississippi

Board of Nursing, MK Diamond Products, Inc., Modesto City

Schools, Monster Worldwide/Monster Government Solutions,

Montefiore CMO, Montello School Department, Monterey Bay

Aquarium.

Morgan Stanley, Morgantown (WV) Utility Board, Morrison &

Foerster LLP (CA), Morton Plant Mease Primary Care, Inc.,

Motorola, Inc., Munhall Area Prehospital Services, Munters

Corporation, Mutual of Omaha, NASDAQ, Nashville, Tenn.,

Nassau County Police Department, Nassau County, NY, National

Association of Securities Dealers, National City Bank,

National City Corp, Cleveland, OH, National Information

Consortium USA, National Park Service, NationsRent,

Nationwide, Natural Resources Conservation Service.

Navy Engineering Logistics Office, Navy Federal Credit

Union, Navy Public Works Center, Nebraska Public Power, Neill

Corporation, Nestle Frozen Food Division, NetJets, Inc.,

Nevada Highway Patrol, New Britain, Conn., New York City

Housing Authority, New York City Police Department, New York

Life Insurance, New York Stock Exchange, Nicor Gas, NiSource

Corporation, Nissan North America, Inc.

Phillip Morris, Phoenix Metals Company, Phoenix Police

Department, Piedmont Natural Gas, Pilkington North America,

Pinellas County Government, Pittston, Plateau Valley School

District #50, PNC Bank, Police and Fire Financial Services,

Portion Pac, Post, Buckley, Schuh & Jernigan, Inc., Post-

Newsweek Stations, Inc. / The Washington Post Company, PPG

(Pittsburgh Plate Glass), Pratt & Whitney, Praxair, Inc.,

Precision Castings of Tennessee, Inc., Premier Yachts,

PricewaterhouseCoopers, LLP, Prince Frederick Motors.

Prince George's Fire and EMS Department, Prince William

County, Va., Principal Financial Group, PrivatAir Group,

Produer's Cooperative Association, Progress Rail Services,

Progressive Escrow and Closing, Provident Bank, Providian

Financial, Prudential Financial, PS Doors, Public Service

Company of New Hampshire, Public Services Group, Publishers

Printing Co., Quaker Oats, Qualex, Inc., Quiet Light

Securities, Quincy District Court, Qwest Communications,

Rainey, Ross, Rice & Binns.

Raytheon, Raytheon Systems Engineering Project AUTEC, RCI

(resource communication), Regal Ware, Inc., REMEC Broadband

Wireless, Rentacom, Republic Airways, Reynolds & Reynolds,

Reynoldsburg Police Department, RHDonnelley, Rhodia, Inc.,

Rich Township, Richard B. Russell Lake and Dam, US Army Corps

of Engineers, Richard Childress Racing, Richmonf Financial

Group, Riverside County Sheriffs Department.

Skowhegan Savings Bank, Slidell Memorial Hospital, Smurfit

Stone Container Corporation, Sodexho, Solar Turbines Inc.,

South Brunswick Township Police Department, Southampton

Sheriffs Dept., Southeast Missouri State University, Southern

California Edison, Southern Connecticut State College,

Southern Fabricators, Inc., Southern New England

Telecommunication Corp., SouthTrust Bank, Southwest Airlines,

Southwestern Bell Telephone, Space Gateway Support,

Spartanburg Forest Products, Speedway Motorsports, Sprint,

St. Charles County Ambulance District.

St. Joseph's Medical Center, St. Onge Company, St. Vincent

Healthcare, Stabilus, Stanley County Sheriff's Office,

Staples, Inc., Starcom Worldwide, State Attorney, 8th

Judicial Circuit, Florida, State Farm Insurance, State of

California, State of Maryland (Patuxent Institution), State

of New Jersey, State of New Jersey OIT, Stockton Banking

Center, Student Health Services, UNCG, Subaru of Indiana,

Subaru of Indiana Automotive, Inc., Supervalu, Supreme Court

of Guam, Survival Incorporated.

Sweetwater Police Department, Sybase, Inc., SYColeman,

Synovus, Systems Research and Development, t.w.phillips Gas

and Oil, Tampa Preparatory School, TAP Pharmaceuticals, Inc.,

Target, Target Distribution Center, Tarver Abstract Company,

TASC, Inc., Technology Concepts & Design, Teledyne Brown

Engineering, Tellabs Operations Inc., Tennessee Valley

Authority.

UBS Wealth Management, Ulbrich Stainless Steel and Special

Metals, Inc., Unilever Bestfoods, Union County, North

Carolina, Union Hospital of Cecil County, Union Pacific,

Union Pacific Railroad, Unique Security--Silver Star

Security--Champion Security, Unisys Blue Bell, United

Cerebral Palsy, United Parcel Service (UPS), United Space

Alliance, LLC, United States Department of Agriculture,

United States Mint, United States Postal Inspection Service,

United States Postal Service, United States Probation Office,

Universal Forest Products, University Hospitals of Cleveland,

University of Pittsburgh Medical Center.

University of South Florida Foundation, UniversityCare,

University of Maryland Medicine, UPS Revenue Recovery

Englewood Hub, US Conec LTD, USAA, USDA Forest Service,

Curlew Job Corps, USI Inc, USPS Columbus Ohio, VA Medical

Center San Francisco, VAHR-EO, Vanasse Hangen Brustlin, Inc.,

Vanderbilt Medical Center, Ventera Corporation, Veridian,

VERITAS, Verizon, Verizon Washington D.C., Inc., Veronica

Connor Middle School, Victoria's Secret, Village of

Wellington.

VISA, Visteon Corporation, Volvo Penta of the Americas, W.

W. Grainger, Wachovia Bank, Wal-Mart Stores Inc., Wal-Mart

Stores, Inc--Private Fleet, Walgreen, Wallkill, NY,

Washington, Washington Mutual Bank, Washington State Prison,

Waste By Rail, Inc., Waste Management Inc., Wausau Imports,

Inc., We Energies.

Webster Cantrell Hall, Weis Markets, Wellmark Blue Cross

Blue Shield of Iowa, Wells Fargo, Wesley United Methodist

Church, West Virginia, WestAM, Westar Energy Inc.,

Westchester County, NY, Western Financial, Western

Massachusetts Electric Company, Western Oklahoma State

College, Westinghouse Electric Company, Westinghouse Savannah

River Company.

Westport Fire Dept., Westvaco, Weyerhaeuser, Wilkes-Barre

City Police Department, Wisconsin State AFL-CIO LETC, Wizcom,

World Financial Group, Wright Express, WWBT NBC 12, Wyeth,

Xenobiotic Detection Systems, Inc., Xerox, Yankee Gas

Services Company, Yearout Mechanical and Engineering, Inc.,

Yosemite Waters.

Mr. President, I rise to endorse S. Con. Res. 141 offered by Senator Domenici recognizing the essential role that nuclear power plays in our society.

The U.S. Senate must recognize the important role that nuclear energy plays in our Nation's economy, our Nation's energy independence and security, and our Nation's environmental goals. And, we need to acknowledge that like nearly every other source of energy, nuclear power needs our help to continue playing its important role in our Nation's energy policy.

Nuclear energy currently generates electricity for one in every five homes and businesses today. It is important not only in Louisiana, where two nuclear plants produce nearly 17 percent of my State's electricity, but also in States such as Connecticut, Illinois, New Hampshire, New Jersey, South Carolina and Vermont where nuclear generates more electricity than any other source. Nationwide, 103 reactors provide 20 percent of our electricity--the largest source of U.S. emission-free power provided 24-7.

Nuclear energy is also vitally important for our environment and our Nation's clean air goals. Nuclear power is the Nation's largest clean air source of electricity, generating three-fourths of all emission- free electricity. For future generations of Americans, whose reliance on electricity will increase and who rightfully want a cleaner environment and the health benefits that cleaner air will provide nuclear energy will be an essential partner.

Just this past Sunday, the Washington Post highlighted the problems that the Shenandoah National Forest now faces with pollution. Think how much worse our Nation's air pollution would be if nuclear energy did not generate one fifth of our electricity.

According to the Department of Energy the demand for electricity is expected to grow by 40 percent by 2020. In order to continue producing at least one-third of our total electricity generation from emission- free sources, we must build 50,000 megawatts of new nuclear energy production. If we do that, we are just preserving our current levels of emission-free generation, not improving them.

And, we need to recognize that nuclear power, by providing a stable, dependable source of electricity, is vital to our Nation's energy security and independence. Nuclear power is essentially an American invention. We generate nearly a fourth of the world's total nuclear power and we can do so with domestic energy sources. Hydrogen holds the promise of helping us lessen our dependence on imported oil and nuclear power is one of the most promising ways that we can produce hydrogen economically and efficiently.

There is a nuclear power renaissance in the making. Three of the Nation's leading nuclear power operators have already applied for an early site permit to build a new nuclear plant next door to an existing nuclear plant they operate, testing the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's new licensing process for the first time. Also, just a few months ago, nine nuclear operating companies and the two major U.S. power reactor manufacturers formed the NuStart Energy consortium to apply for a construction and operating license, COL, to test the regulatory process for actually building and operating the next generation of nuclear power plants.

These are positive signs that the U.S. nuclear power industry is alive and ready to build and operate the next generation of nuclear power--still without emitting any air pollutants, increasing our energy independence, and using the safest designs ever.

Today 29 new plants are being built around the world in 16 counties-- most using a design that originated here in America--but not one of them is in the U.S. That must change.

I urge my colleagues to support this critical resolution which will further promote a vital source of energy while helping to pave the way towards improving our Nation's energy security.

Mr. President, I am very pleased to join Chairman DeWine while the Senate considers passage of the fiscal year 2005 District of Columbia appropriations conference report. The bill totals $560 million, which is an increase of $18.3 million from fiscal year 2004. The conference agreement represents a concerted effort of the House and Senate members to complete a bi-partisan bill only 6 days into the new fiscal year. This is a true win for the District of Columbia, whose budget has been delayed in Congress past December and January in recent years.

During our 3-year term as chairman and ranking member of the D.C. Appropriations Subcommittee, Senator DeWine and I have met many challenges to stay in our allocation and deal appropriately with controversial issues. Above it all we have remained great friends. The conference report meets the District's current needs in security, criminal justice, education, and child welfare.

The conference report funds the three criminal justice functions transferred to the Federal Government for funding and oversight in the National Capital Revitalization and Self-Government Improvement Act of 1997. These functions, the courts, offender supervision, and defender services, are funded at a level which will meet the needs of FY 2005, though it was necessary to reduce funding in order to support other priorities of the Mayor and Council of the District.

The conferees recommend $190.8 million for the D.C. Courts, of which $56 million is for capital improvements which we believe will be sufficient to continue restoration of the historic Old Courthouse and planning for the new Family Court facility. I was pleased to attend the ribbon cutting just a few weeks ago for the renovated interim space of the Family Court, which we funded last year. The courts have done a tremendous job of improving how the court operates, as well as improving the points where residents interact with the court--the training of their staff and the aesthetic of space. It is so important, especially for children visiting the court, to have a space that welcomes them and enables confidence in the justice system. The courts are to be commended for doing so much with small increases and we have confidence they will be able to continue this year.

In addition, $180 million is included for the Court Services and Offender Supervision Agency which is responsible for all adult offenders reentering the community from prison. This agency has a critical role in public safety in the District and we have worked to ensure they have the tools needed to do their job. Chairman DeWine championed an initiative to lower the caseload ratios for special population offenders and expand use of technology to ensure offenders are meeting their parole requirements. The conference also includes $38.5 million for defender services which represents indigent defendants in the District. It is our intention this level will enable the courts to increase the pay of lawyers from $50 to $60 per hour, an increase which was started 3 years ago.

Outside of the Congress' responsibility for the main criminal justice functions in the District, the bill also funds several key initiatives which the House and Senate have launched to contribute to improving education and the welfare of children in the District. I want to recognize Senator DeWine's commitment to abused and neglected children in this city, including $5 million for early intervention services,

mental health services, and to support foster parents. Through Senator DeWine's commitment the status of children in the child welfare system has improved greatly, and with his sure hand I am confident it will continue to improve. There is much work to be done. In addition, $6 million was included in the conference report on behalf of the House Chairman Rodney Frelinghuysen to renovate school libraries in the District of Columbia public schools which will enable many more of the 65,000 student in the system to enjoy books and technology.

Great communities need great schools. This bill includes $26 million for public education in support of the committee's goal to improve education in the District, evenly divided between traditional public schools and public charter schools. A new superintendent has been hired for the D.C. Public School system, Dr. Clifford Janey, and we are excited about his energy to reform and improve and want to support his efforts as strongly as possible. This bill includes certain tools to contribute to Dr. Janey's work.

In our public schools we must recognize and reward excellence. We must acknowledge and eliminate failure. This bill directs a total of $4 million for a new incentive grant program for public education improvement in both traditional public schools and public charter schools. These grants will be awarded to the principal of high- performing or significantly improved public schools to reward their good work. A reward is a powerful incentive to build on success and meet some of the areas which can make their school thrive. I want to take this opportunity to recognize the House chairman and ranking member for their support of this new program which will contribute to reinvigorating our public schools.

The second prong of the School Improvement Fund, $13 million for public charter schools, is a contribution to strengthen the chartering system. With 42 charters granted to date, the highest number of charter schools per capita, is a leader in the effort to use charter schools to spur system-wide improvement from within our system of public education. Senator DeWine and I maintain our commitment to serve as a full and equal partner in this endeavor.

Strengthening charter schools, which were created in the District by Congress in the 1995 School Reform Act, is a primary tenet of our work to improve education. Pursuant to Section 120 of P.L. 106-522, the FY 01 DC Appropriations Act, the local government is prohibited from amending the School Reform Act. Therefore, Congress has continued our oversight responsibility of the charter school law this year. The bill fortifies the environment where strong, accountable, academically excellent charter schools flourish.

Finally, the conference report begins a new investment in the administration of justice in the District by contributing $8 million to the construction of a new forensics lab, a top priority for the Mayor and council. This laboratory will alleviate contract pressure D.C. imposes on other Federal agencies, such as the FBI, to complete local forensic work and ensure timely processing of lab work, such as DNA tests. The bill also contributes to security and emergency preparedness in the Nation's capital with $21 million to bolster the police and first responders. This includes the annual payment of $15 million for security of Federal installations in the city and to enable the police presence now required. The conferees also provide $6 million to complete the Unified Communications Center which will coordinate all first-responders in the capital region. In addition to all of the important investments in the District, there is $7.8 million for cleaning up the Anacostia River and providing recreation for the entire region and $2.5 million for transportation improvements.

I would like to close by thanking the Mayor of the District of Columbia, Anthony Williams, the entire Council, particularly the Chair Linda Cropp, and the D.C. Delegate to Congress Eleanor Holmes Norton for their many contributions and advice in developing this bill. The D.C. Appropriations Subcommittee has a unique role to fund certain aspects of the city government and we could not do that well without the guidance of the elected representative of the city's residents. They are great partners for Chairman DeWine and I to ensure the bill meets the needs of the District. I am especially pleased this year that we are passing the final budget so early in the fiscal year, because the city's local budget, nearly $8 billion, of locally-generated tax dollars, must be approved as part of this bill.

I appreciate the chairman's consideration and our ability to work together so well. And finally, no bill could be completed without the diligent work of our staff, Mary Dietrich for Senator DeWine and Kate Eltrich and Kathleen Strottman on my staff. This year has been blessed by a comity not often observed in the Congress in regards to our Capital City, and I thank all my colleagues for their commitment to a positive year and a first-rate bill for the District.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak 10 minutes as if in morning business.

Mr. President, I know the issue the Senator from California raised is very important and will be considered as we go forward in our debates, as our session wraps up. The Senator from Connecticut and the Senator from Maine have done an outstanding job in managing the underlying bill and helping us come to grips with some of the new fundamental changes necessary to reorganize our intelligence communities to face the challenges confronting our Nation. I do not want to take too much time away from that very important debate. But I did feel compelled to come to the floor and raise an issue regarding our military families, especially the families of our National Guardsmen and Reservists. They, too, are so critical to meeting and defeating enemies on the home-front and in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Because we call on thousands of Active men and women in our armed forces, as well as reservists in our Guard and Reserve, to be in the forefront of the battles in Iraq and Afghanistan, I thought it was important to come to the floor to share some information that will disappoint people in Louisiana and across the United States.

Right now, somewhere in this Capitol, there is a conference meeting trying to finalize a tax relief package that we refer to around here as FSC/ETI. It is a necessary change in our Tax Code because of some trade decisions that were made relative to the way Europe and America conduct trade and impose taxes and fees on imports and exports. For several months, members of the Senate Finance Committee and Members of the House Ways and Means Committee have been working to reach a final agreement. Different amendments have been added and subtracted as a means to bring the bill closer to final passage.

One of the amendments that I thought was one of the most important amendments in that bill--one that my colleagues in the Senate, Republicans and Democrats, agreed to unanimously called for tax credits to be made available to employers who continued to pay the salaries of their employees if those employees had been activated for duty in the National Guard and Reserves. The Senate agreed that if we were going to give tax relief and a trade fix for corporations and for businesses, then we should also find space in that bill to provide tax relief in some way to the patriotic employers who are trying to help their employees in the Guard and Reserve make ends meet. We should do that so the men and women who put the uniform on every morning and run those patrols ferreting out insurgents and terrorists in Iraq would not have to take a pay cut to do their job to defend America. We want those troops focused on the war-front, not whether bills have been paid on the home-front.

Americans might be shocked, because I am shocked, and I am disappointed, that our Government has not yet found a way to make sure that when we call up the men and women basically out of their regular life--as doctors or lawyers or truck drivers or nurses or teachers or government workers or firefighters or police officers--and ask them to leave their families, leave their jobs, leave their businesses and go fight on the front line for us, that we have not found a way to make sure they can do that without taking a pay cut. The GAO has documented that 41 percent of the Guardsmen and Reservists fighting for us--being called away from their homes, away from their families, and putting their lives in peril and great danger--are doing so with a pay cut. We need to provide them a helmet and a gun and a flak jacket and some protection. But I think we also should make every effort to ensure their families back-home have some stability. We should take steps so that the troop in Falujah knows his employer can take care of his family.

If this Congress and the President were not already enacting trillions in tax cuts and we were adhering to a plan of fiscal responsibility, I might be able to look these families in the eye and say, ``Sorry we have a budget deficit. We are doing the best we can.''

But do you know what the shame of it is? There is a conference meeting somewhere in this Capitol giving out tax relief to people who already have a lot of money, to corporations some of which may be on the front line but many of which are not, and we have the Republican leadership on the House that says we cannot afford a tax credit to benefit patriotic employers, our Guardsmen and Reservists, and their families. We are asking our men and women in unifrom to bear 100 percent of the risk and burden of fighting the war on terror. Yet in all the tax relief in the Republican-drafted plan, the Republican- leadership plan drafted by Chairman Thomas, we can't find one penny to make sure the military families get a full paycheck. The cost of my amendment amounts to less than .1 percent of all the Bush/Republican tax cuts enacted since 2001. My amendment is even offset, but the Republican leadership simply refuses to help military families.

Since 2001, the Republican leadership has passed over $2.1 trillion in tax cuts and tax breaks for the wealthiest Americans. I supported some of these tax cuts but the major beneficiaries have been wealthy individuals who had already accumulated great assets, and corporations. Direct support for military families has been less than .1 percent, or $1.37 billion, of the $2.1 trillion in tax cuts.

If you remember, in 2001, we had one bill for tax cuts which we called the Military Family Relief Act. It amounted to $1.37 billion out of $2.1 trillion. So the bulk of the tax relief is going to people who are not on the front line. Only limited help is going to the people on the front line.

You can see the graph here, $2.1 trillion to everybody else who is not in uniform and $1.37 billion to the military families who are fighting the battle. I don't understand how we are fighting this war. Maybe somebody can explain it to me.

At least people say: Senator, you must not understand that much of these tax cuts get to the military families; it is just not directly. If they have children, they might get the child tax credit. I understand that. But 75 percent of the enlisted men and women in our armed services make less than $30,000 a year. A staff sergeant with 8 years of experience makes $30,000 a year. So if you don't write them directly into the bills--because the bills are skewed to those individuals and families making over $75,000, mostly $100,000, $200,000, $300,000--the military families don't get to take advantage of tax cuts.

Time and time again, every time a tax bill passes this Congress, the military family is left on the cutting room floor. In 2001, we passed the Economic Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act, $1.6 trillion-- direct support for military families was $0.

In 2002, we passed the Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act, $41 billion--military families, $0.

In 2003, we passed the Jobs and Growth Reconciliation Act, $230 billion--direct support for military, $0.

This year we passed the Working Families Tax Relief Act, $146 billion--direct support for military families, $0. This $146 billion had no offsets.

Now we have a conference in this Capitol putting together an $81 billion tax bill. And the amendment, the one little amendment we put on to encourage employers to keep the salaries up

for the Guard and Reserve when they are fighting in Iraq, was taken out because we can't afford it. When it left the Senate, we had paid for it. There are plenty of ways the House Republicans could pay for it, today, but helping military families is not in their interests. We could close a loophole that allows companies to leave the United States for the purpose of reorganizing themselves so they do not have to pay taxes. We could close that loophole and gave it to the men and women putting on the uniform to defend our country. These soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines aren't fleeing the country to avoid paying taxes, yet we don't get tough on the corporations that are leaving the country to avoid taxes. They take every benefit of what this nation has to offer, including the blood and sweat of our troops, and pay nothing in return. But, some in Congress want to put these corporations in front of our men and women in uniform.

Let me also say I am ashamed for our Government that we have not yet closed our own loophole when a Federal Government worker takes off the Government suit or dress or uniform and puts on the military uniform and goes to fight on the front lines of Iraq. The US Government, as an employer, does not fill the pay gap for Federal employees.

Mr. President, 41 percent of the guardsmen and reservists who are fighting in Iraq take a pay cut to fight and we keep passing appropriations bills and tax cuts to give everyone in the world a tax break, except our military families. And, our poor military families ask for help and we have the Republican leadership in the House telling them: Sorry, there is no more money.

I just got back from Fort Polk a couple of weeks ago, where I have 4,000 maybe 5,000 families in Louisiana whose primary breadwinner has stopped winning bread at home and gone over to Iraq to help fight this war. I promised them that I was not going to just come on home without a fight or without raising this issue for the 5,000 families in my State and for the thousands of families around this country who do not ask for much. They ask for good training. They ask for equipment. And they are asking that they don't take a pay cut when they go to fight. They are not asking for a pay raise; they just don't want a pay cut. They'll get that pay cut if we let this last tax bill go out of here without fixing this provision or without giving some tax credit to companies, many of them small businesses, who continue to pay their activated Guard and Reserve employees.

You can understand why a small business sometimes can't afford to continue to pay the guardsmen and reservists 100 percent of their salary and then have to pay 100 percent of the salary for a replacement.

We are asking for a tax credit for these employers so they can voluntarily, if they want, continue to pay the salary of their Guard and Reserve, take a tax credit so we would basically share that expense among everyone and allow that guardsman and reservist to get a full paycheck.

I repeat for the record, the GAO reports that 41 percent of the guardsmen and reservists called to active duty take a pay cut. We could fix that, but for some reason we do not want to, we do not think we should, or we do not have the money. Yet at the same time we are fixing a lot of things for a lot of people and passing one appropriations bill and one tax bill after another.

Forty percent of those serving in Iraq and Afghanistan are Guard and Reserve; 410,000 families or individuals have been activated since September 11. We probably have a few more thousand to activate until we get it right in Iraq.

We can pay for this, as I said, by closing loopholes, but the Republican leadership said, ``No.'' We cannot not pay for it. They have passed tax bills out of here and chalked it up to more debt. This would not be that much to add for people assuming 100 percent of the risk to defend this Nation, but they do not choose to do that, either. Right now, as I speak, 3 o'clock today, it is not in the bill.

I hope these words are traveling through this Capitol. I hope there are people listening and phones start ringing to include the military families in this FSC/ETI bill that is moving through conference so this tax relief can be given and the pay gap can be closed. If you are on the front line, taking 100 percent of the risk, the last thing you need to take is a pay cut.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, it has been said that ``ignorance, allied with power, is the most ferocious enemy justice can have.'' Sadly, this great body, in which I am so proud to serve, once allied its power with ignorance. In so doing, it condoned unspeakable injustice that diminished the role of the Senate, and heaped untold suffering on Americans sorely in need of our protection. I am referring to the Senate's role in the decades long campaign to end lynching in this country. On three separate occasions, our colleagues in the House of Representatives passed anti-lynching legislation with overwhelming majorities. On all three of those occasions members of this Chamber blocked, or filibustered the consideration of that legislation.

Between 1882, when records first began to be collected, and 1968 four thousand, seven hundred and forty-two Americans lost their lives to lynch mobs. The experts believe that undocumented cases might double that figure. The vast majority of those killed--three thousand, four hundred and forty-five Americans--were African American. Sadly, a disproportionate number of those deaths occurred within my home region of the South, but 46 of the 50 States experienced these atrocities. Lynching was truly a national problem deserving the attention of the national legislative bodies.

Frederick Douglas seems to have captured the real reason for this dark period of our national history. These acts of terrorism were not so much an admission of African Americans' weakness, but of their perseverance--and indomitable spirit. Douglas wrote: It is proof that the Negro is not standing still. He is not dead, but alive and active. He is not drifting with the current, but manfully resisting it . . . A ship rotting at anchor meets with no resistance, but when she sails on the sea, she has to buffet opposing billows. The enemies of the Negro see that he is making progress and they naturally wish to stop him and keep him in just what they consider his proper place.

It was, in short, the ability of African Americans to overcome Jim Crow laws, to overcome share-cropping, to overcome second-class citizenship that provoked such savagery. Its an old story that repeats itself throughout human history. Whether it was the Israelites in Egypt, the colonial empires in Africa or America's own history of Apartheid, rulers that assume superiority inevitably prove themselves models of mankind's basest instincts.

It should also be noted that this was not only an outrage committed against African Americans. The effort to dehumanize people on the basis of race or ethnicity did not limit itself to black Americans. In fact, the single largest incident of lynching occurred in my home state, in my home town of New Orleans. Yet, the victims were not black. They were Italians. On March 14, 1891, 11 Italian immigrants were lynched in the City of New Orleans. These immigrants too were thought to

be less than human, and were simply rounded up as a group of the ``usual suspects'' following the murder of Police Superintendent David Hennessy. Already edgy from a media prompted mafia scare, a mob surrounded the prison and eventually battered down the doors. An armed group of twenty five men overtook the guards and summarily riddled the bodies of the 11 Italian prisoners with bullets. Their bodies were hung on lampposts outside the prison. Eyewitnesses described the cheering of the crowd as deafening.

Of course, the attacks on that day are an example of mob justice and its irrational prejudices. However, in nearly 25 percent of all lynchings the motivations of the attackers came down to a bald attempt to maintain a caste system in this country. The NAACP cataloged the reported motivations for these forms of attack. They included: using disrespectful, insulting, slanderous, boastful, threatening or incendiary language; insubordination, impertinence, or improper demeanor, a sarcastic grin, laughing at the wrong place, a prolonged silence; refusing to take off one's hat to a white person or to give the right-of-way when encountering a white on the sidewalk; resisting assault by whites; being troublesome generally; disorderly conduct, petty theft or drunkenness; writing an improper letter to a white person; paying undue or improper attention to a white female; accusing a white man of writing love letters to a black woman; or living or keeping company with a white woman; turning or refusing to turn state's evidence; testifying or bringing suit against a white person; being related to a person accused of a crime and already lynched; political activities; union organizing; conjuring; discussing a lynching; gambling; operating a house of ill fame; a personal debt; refusing to accept an employment offer; vagrancy; refusing to give up one's farm; conspicuously displaying one's wealth or property; and trying to act like a white man.

In many instances, lynchings were little more than a way to remove an economic competitor and confiscate his property. This was true in a number of cases in Mississippi involving successful African American landowners, and in one notorious Hawaiian case involving a Japanese immigrant competing with established white businessmen.

Many of my colleagues might wonder why now? After all, some of these incidents are over a century old. There are two reasons. First, this aspect of American history is not well known or understood. As reconstruction concluded in the South, a very ugly struggle to reassert the social structure that preceded the Civil War took place. A great deal of it occurred with the tacit consent of the Federal Government, and the most part, the media either shared in the common prejudice, or simply ignored what was occurring.

Fortunately, we have the publication of the book ``Without Sanctuary'' by James Allen, Hilton Als, Congressman John Lewis, and Leon F. Litwak to serve as a focal point for our attention to this neglected history. This is a difficult book to examine. It serves as a catalog of inhuman crime perpetrated by very ordinary citizens. Looking at anything so tragic as the victims of these crimes would be disturbing, but that is not what will leave a lasting impression. It is the festive attitude, the smiles and smirks on the crowd gathered around the victim. They clearly take a perverse pride in this act. Hannah Arendt, the famous political philosopher, subtitled her book on Adolph Eichman's war crimes trials ``A Report on the Banality of Evil.'' When you look at the expressions on the faces of the murderers in these photos, that is all you can think about. These are not crazed killers, these are rational people going about their everyday lives, and committing unspeakable acts in the process.

Photos like these serve to remind us that a healthy society is not something that is built up over time, and then like a great monument, exists for centuries. Rather, a healthy society is a thin levee that must be constantly improved and maintained to hold back the worst instincts of mankind. I think the horrible pictures that came from Abu Gharib prison served as a reminder of this lesson. This book is even greater testimony that atrocities are not events that only occur in far off places. They can and have occurred here in the United States.

The only way to maintain a healthy society is to acknowledge and discuss our mistakes. No one would defend the Senate's filibuster of anti-lynching legislation today. I would like to think that any Senator who did so would quickly be looking for another line of work. However, despite the change of attitude we have taken no action to remedy our wrong. That is the purpose of this resolution today. I would like to extend my deep thanks to my courageous colleague, the Junior Senator from Virginia. He seemed to instantly understand the significance of this effort, and I believed it was vitally important to proceed with this resolution in a bipartisan manner. His input and drive have made this effort much more successful than it otherwise would have been.

It is our intention to submit this legislation today, and use the recess period to confer with our colleagues about it. When we reconvene next year, we will resubmit this resolution, and at that time, we hope to have the co-sponsorship of every member of this body. Then, we will endeavor to enact the resolution to commemorate Black History month.

I said ignorance allied with power is justice's most ferocious enemy. Yet imagine what truth allied with power can bring. For over 50 years, African American achievement was seen as a threat to the majority of people in this nation. It is time to close the book on that tragic period and begin to celebrate the achievements of black Americans as accomplishments that have bettered us all. I believe that this resolution of apology will be an important symbolic step in this process of healing and growth.

Madam President, I would like to commend Chairman McConnell and ranking member Leahy for drafting a Foreign Operations Appropriations bill that provides a generous amount of foreign assistance to help vulnerable people around the world. Their bi- partisan efforts have resulted in a strong bill that addresses many of the needs that exist across our globe.

I would like to discuss a crisis that is growing in West Africa and that is the crop destruction occurring from a rampant outbreak of desert locusts during harvest season. When we talk of improving living conditions in Africa, we must first look at whether Africa has enough food to sustain its needs. Regrettably, civil wars, poor agricultural practices, poor weather conditions, or pests and vermin leave Africa on the brink of hunger all too often. Today, the United Nation's Food and Agriculture Organization reports the Sahel in West Africa is under invasion from desert locusts. Locust swarms have infested nearly four million hectares. Wide-spread crop damage has been reported, and the FAO fears West Africa's food supplies and food security may be in jeopardy. If action is not taken, millions of people could face famine and starvation.

The international community is only now beginning to realize the gravity of this crisis. Donor nations have pledged $37 million to the FAO's efforts to eradicate the desert locust in West Africa. The United States has committed $4 million in Fiscal Year 2004 pledges, and I am grateful for this contribution. However, the FAO says these pledges fall short of the $100 million necessary to stem this locust infestation. So much more needs to be done.

As we move the FY 2005 Foreign Operations bill to conference, I would hope that Congress and the Executive branch would take a further look at the gravity of the situation is in West Africa. Senator Leahy, I know how committed you are to the economic development of Africa. I hope you would join me in calling on the State Department and the U.S. Agency for International Development to make an even greater contribution to the FAO or direct contributions to nations suffering from locust infestations. Moreover, can we agree to work together in conference to identify FY 2005 funds to ameliorate the crisis in West Africa? Without significant action by the U.S. and the world community, the locusts will only continue wreak havoc in West Africa. After all, FAO predicts locusts hatches will continue through the Fall and spike, once again, in the Spring.

Thank you Senator Leahy for your consideration of my requests.

Madam President, I would like to commend Chairman McConnell and ranking member Leahy for drafting a Foreign Operations Appropriations bill that provides a generous amount of foreign assistance to help vulnerable people around the world. Their bi- partisan efforts have resulted in a strong bill that addresses many of the needs that exist across our globe. I would like to take this opportunity to present two items that I respectfully request our committee address in conference negotiations of this bill with the House. These items refer to allocations for the United Nations Development Fund for Women UNIFEM.

UNIFEM works in more than 100 countries to invest in women to reduce poverty, end violence against women, combat HIV/AIDS, and support women's roles in conflict prevention and reconstruction. This investment in women contributes to a more stable world for all countries.

Despite our contributions for UNIFEM's work and mission, the United States has yet to step forward and provide adequate core support to UNIFEM. Our current contribution is $1 million annually, less than countries like Belgium, whose size and population are less than some of our states. In fact, our total support for UNIFEM is 6 percent of their budget, a considerable distance from the average of 22 percent that the United States contributes to other UN agencies. Additionally, the UNIFEM Trust Fund in Support of Actions to Eliminate Violence Against Women--a key support mechanism for local groups fighting violence--has never received a US government contribution.

As you know, the House has passed a Foreign Operations Appropriations bill that includes greater funding for UNIFEM than is included in the proposed Senate bill. Specifically, the House report says, ``The Committee supports a total of $3,000,000 for the United Nations Development Fund for Women (UNIFEM) including a $2,000,000 contribution to the Fund and a $1,000,000 first time contribution to the Trust Fund in Support of Actions to Eliminate Violence Against Women. This level is $2,000,000 above the request and $2,006,000 above the level provided in the 2004 act.''

I respectfully request that the Senate work to adopt the House recommended support levels for the United Nations Development Fund for Women--UNIFEM--and the UNIFEM Trust Fund in Support of Actions to Eliminate Violence Against Women. Specifically, in conference, I hope the Senate will favorably consider the addition of $500,000 to the $1.5 million that is presently allocated to UNIFEM, for a total of $2.0 million. Second, I respectfully ask that the Senate conferees consider the addition of $1 million as a first time contribution to the UNIFEM Trust Fund in Support of Actions to Eliminate Violence Against Women. Again, these additions would reflect the sums allocated in the House Foreign Operations Appropriations bill and provide critical assistance to women throughout the developing world.

I hope that Senator Leahy will work in conference to take actions that are necessary to ensure that the House recommendations are adopted in the final passage of this law.

I thank Senator Leahy for his consideration of my requests.

Mr. President, I am pleased to join Chairman DeWine in presenting the bipartisan fiscal year 2005 District of Columbia appropriations bill to the Senate. The bill totals $560 million, which is an increase of $18.3 million from fiscal year 2004. The chairman and I moved this bill through the full Appropriations Committee on Tuesday, September 21 by a near-unanimous vote with no controversial amendments. During our 3-year chairman and ranking membership of the D.C. subcommittee, we have met many policy and partisan challenges and remained great friends. This year is truly an achievement of the chairman's bipartisan lead of this bill. We continue to marry our interests in strengthening education and child welfare in the District.

Great communities need great schools. This bill includes $26 million for public education in support of the committee's goal to improve education in the District. Fifty years after the landmark Brown v. the Board of Education decision of the Supreme Court, 3 years after enactment of the significant No Child Left Behind Act, we are still working to shape the two-sided face of public education, excellence and failure, into a more equal experience for children. The District's schools have been mired in years of changing superintendents, management and oversight challenges. A new superintendent has been hired, Dr. Clifford Janey, we are excited about his energy to reform and improve and want to support his efforts as strongly as possible. This bill includes certain tools to, hopefully, contribute to Dr. Janey's work.

In our public schools we must recognize and reward excellence. We must acknowledge and eliminate failure. This bill directs a total of $7 million for a new incentive grant program for public education improvement in both traditional public schools and public charter schools. These grants will be

awarded to the principal of high performing or significantly improved public schools to reward their good work. A reward is a powerful incentive to build on success and meet some of the areas which can make their school thrive. These grants could be for a specialized librarian, new books, and bonuses for excellent teachers, or even to support sports and recreation with a new basketball court. It is entirely up to the principal to decide. In addition, the bill includes $5 million to support the very successful D.C. program to reconstitute the schools designated as in need of improvement by the standards of the No Child Left Behind Act. The Transformation School Initiative has successfully breathed new life into 15 of the lowest performing public schools in the District with innovative ways to reinvigorate teachers, reinvest parents, and get kids exciting about going to school and excited about learning. We are very pleased to support these programs with $13 million for public schools as part of the $40 million School Improvement Fund created last year.

The second prong of the School Improvement Fund, $13 million for public charter school, is supported by robust support to strengthen the chartering system. With 41 charters granted to date, the District has achieved the distinction of having the highest number of charter schools per capita. As such, the District is in a position to serve as leader in the effort to use charter schools to spur system-wide improvement from within our system of public education. Senator DeWine and I maintain our commitment to serve as a full and equal partner in this endeavor.

It is important to note that while the primary reason for the rapid growth in the number of charter schools was the unmet desire of education reformers to find a way to ``step out of the box'' that had become our public school system, charter schools are by definition independent public schools. With their relative autonomy, charter schools are a way to provide greater educational choice and innovation while not abandoning the public school system. Recent studies show that the existence of a charter school in a district not only increases the quality of education available to the students served directly by the charter school but in all surrounding public schools. In addition, charter schools provide a healthy dose of competition into the public school system and have the effect of accelerating reforms and improvements in traditional public schools.

Despite the increased challenge of educating students with the greatest need, objective surveys and reports show that the academic progress among charter schools students outpacing that of their cohorts in traditional public schools. Those successes included gains in reading and math performances; test scores higher than district, state and neighborhood schools; increased parental involvement; and higher attendance and fewer disciplinary problems.

Strengthening charter schools, which were created in the D.C. by Congress in the 1995 School Reform Act, is a primary tenant of our work to improve education. Pursuant to Section 120 of P.L. 106-522, the Fiscal Year 2001 DC Appropriations Act, the local government is prohibited from amending the School Reform Act. Therefore, Congress has continued our oversight responsibility of the charter school law this year. The bill fortifies the environment where strong, accountable, academically excellent charter schools flourish.

This bill includes language which will encourage public schools to convert to charter schools. The 1996 School Reform Act allows for traditional public schools to petition to convert to a public charter school, if the teachers and parents in the community want a more responsive and engaging school. However, to date, only one school, Paul Junior High, has exercised that option. We are not trying to say that every public school should be a charter school, but we support if the community of a particular school sees a benefit in becoming a charter school and can gain a majority consensus of that community, a conversion is possible.

In addition, we toughen oversight of chartering boards to better screen applications and strengthen oversight of existing schools. We think this will make a stronger public charter school community, and should not create any additional bureaucracy which would tamp down reform. Finally, we included language which will improve access to facilities for charter schools, which can be their greatest challenge. The buildings in which children learn are just as critical as the other tools available to make these kids a success.

Under the kind leadership of Chairman DeWine, we have also invested in the welfare of the most vulnerable children in the District, those in the custody of the abuse and neglect welfare system. Just in the last week, the District has suffered the loss of another child, Angel Fleming, who was put in the custody of the Child and Family Services Agency.

The bill supports our priority of reforming child welfare by providing the tools necessary to the foster care system with $5 million. We are funding for early intervention services to try to keep kids with relatives, rather than send them to temporary foster care homes. The bill also continues to ensure that all kids in foster care get mental health assessments and services. Finally, Senator DeWine has ensured that an area often forgotten, foster parents, receive the respite services necessary and promote grassroots foster parent recruiting and training efforts.

This bill meets our Federal responsibility to the criminal justice system and infrastructure investments requested by the mayor and council. The new family court, which embraces the ideal of one family- one judge, is fully funded and we continue to provide for their new building. In addition, the bill initiates a new investment in the administration of justice in the District by contributing $8 million to the construction of a new forensics lab. This laboratory will alleviate contract pressure D.C. imposes on other Federal agencies, such as the FBI, to complete local forensic work. The bill also contributes to security and emergency preparedness in the Nation's capital with $22 million to bolster the police and first responders. In addition to all of the important initiatives in the District this bill invests in, there is $13 million for cleaning up the Anacostia River and providing recreation for the entire region and $5 million for transportation improvements.

I want to thank the mayor of the District, Anthony Williams, the entire council, particularly the Chair Linda Cropp, and the D.C. Delegate to Congress Eleanor Holmes Norton for their many contributions and advice in developing this bill. They are great partners for Chairman DeWine and I to ensure the bill meet the needs of the District. I appreciate the chairman's consideration and our ability to work together on this bill.

The amendment was ordered to be engrossed and the bill to be read a third time.

The bill (H.R. 4850), as amended, was read the third time and passed, as follows:

(The bill will be printed in a future edition of the Record.)

The Chair appointed Mr. DeWine, Mrs. Hutchison, Mr. Brownback, Mr. Stevens, Ms. Landrieu, Mr. Durbin, and Mr. Inouye conferees on the part of the Senate.

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

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that there be a period of morning business for debate up to 90 minutes, with the first 45 minutes under the control of the Democratic leader and the remaining time under the control of the majority leader or his designee.

Madam President, I rise to speak this morning about a very important issue for the country, particularly for the gulf coast region and the State of Louisiana.

Madam President, as you know, although your State of Alaska is not located in the southern part of the Nation, you and other members of society are well aware of the devastation that occurred to our coastal communities, whether on the eastern coast or southeastern coast or the central gulf.

As is the case this morning, Hurricane Ivan, a category 4 hurricane bearing down on the gulf coast region, according to the latest weather reports and indications based on good research that is being done here by many of our Federal agencies, we can somewhat predict the path of the hurricane. With our most sophisticated systems, radar and weather tracking, pinpointing with some accuracy, there is a projection of where this killer storm, this major storm, may hit. It seems as though it has turned north and is headed right now to the Mississippi-Alabama line, but it could move within the next 12 hours to the east or to the west.

As we wrap up our business here in Washington, the entire gulf coast, and the State I represent, Louisiana being one of those Gulf Coast States, Mississippi and Alabama and the panhandle of Florida, is under a mandatory evacuation. Why? It is because this is a huge storm. It is a category 4. We hope and pray, and there are some indications, that it will change to a category 3. But it is a major storm with high winds of 165 miles per hour.

It is not the first time a storm of this size or intensity has hit the gulf coast. We know by reading history. Several decades ago, some of us actually lived through extremely powerful and killer storms like Camille or Betsy in Louisiana and other States throughout the gulf coast that proved to be very dangerous, with loss of life and billions of dollars in property loss.

We don't have to be reminded that Florida has just been hit in the last 3 weeks twice already. This one will be of historic devastation in Florida, having had three hurricanes hit in such a short period of time.

I want to speak this morning about what we can do here in Washington a little better, with a little more energy, with a little more focus to help the people in Louisiana and throughout the gulf coast area. Not only do they deserve our help, but because of the energy industry and the economic benefits they bring to the whole country, they not only need our help, they deserve our help. They deserve our attention.

As I have stated, the hurricane is to make landfall sometime in early Thursday morning, sometime between 1 a.m. and 6 or 7 a.m.

The people of Louisiana know the devastation this kind of storm can bring. Let me show a picture because I think a picture is worth a thousand words. While this looks terrible and horrible--and it is very frightening, as you can see a woman, standing water rising over her waist, trying to get to safety--this is not a hurricane. This is only a tropical storm. This was Tropical Storm Isidore that hit the gulf coast in 2002. This wasn't a category 1 hurricane. We are talking about severe devastation when a category 3 or category 4 or category 5 hurricane pushes that water out of the gulf, out of Lake Ponchartrain into the tremendously populated areas around the gulf coast.

This is what people have been fleeing from for the last 36 hours. When I say fleeing, I mean all of the interstates going north out of Mississippi, Alabama, and Louisiana, and interstates going west, as people try to leave the east and head for safety toward Houston. They have been, at times, in bumper-to-bumper traffic for hours. People can walk faster than the rate the cars are moving. Luckily, the Governors of these States are very skilled and able, the local elected officials have been through this many times and were quick to see the danger, even though the path could not be predicted, and were quick to call for evacuations days ago. This morning, we received reports that the highways are clearing in some parts along the Gulf of Mexico. Some families spent yesterday 12, 13, 14 hours in automobiles, going less than 5 miles per hour as they tried to find safety and shelter all along the gulf coast to flee a storm of this magnitude.

Again, this is not a picture of a hurricane. This is a tropical storm. That is why people are fleeing in the gulf area.

I will speak for a moment about energy and about what the gulf coast contributes to the energy independence and energy security of this Nation. As millions of people have been leaving their homes to flee to higher ground, 442 rigs or platforms have been deserted by companies in the Gulf of Mexico. When I say deserted, not just, of course, left to wreak havoc, but they have been tied down, secured, supported. All nonessential emergency personnel have had to move out of the Gulf of Mexico. This evacuation represents 50 percent of the manned rigs and platforms in the gulf.

Right now, oil and gas from the Gulf of Mexico and coastal Louisiana represents 60 percent of the entire Gulf of Mexico production. For the time being, that has been shut down because of Ivan. I have discussed with Members of this Senate the importance of our LOOP facility. The Louisiana Offshore Oil Port sits right out on the Continental Shelf, near Port Fourchon Louisiana, and is a superport responsible for the entrance of 1 million barrels of oil a day.

We are in Iraq, in an important battle, but part of our objective there is to secure an oil supply for the region and for the Nation and to use that for the betterment of the people of Iraq, for their growth and development and the security and stability of the world, as well as to fight for other issues. We are fighting to get 1 to 3 million barrels out of Iraq, and right here in the Gulf of Mexico, today, we have a facility that has virtually been shut down because of a hurricane. Nearly a million barrels is being imported in this country, and exported, a year.

Port Fourchon is a small port that sits at the very edge of Highway 1. It is unbelievable to view the picture. This is Highway 1 in Tropical Storm Isidore. That was another storm, not a hurricane. This damage occurs in a tropical storm. We cannot see the highway because it is covered with water. The highway leads down to the gulf. Port Fourchon, the LOOP facility, is right off of this shore where 18 percent of the offshore oil and gas revenues flow into this country through this little road called LA 1 that we have been fighting now for several years. With the leadership of Senator Murray and Senator Reid and others, Senator Jeffords and Members on the Republican side, as well, we have been able to get a designation as a special highway, but we are still waiting for the big bucks to help with lifting this highway and expanding it so we can have a functioning port.

The hurricane is scheduled to hit Mobile or west of Mobile right now. I just spoke to the Port Fourchon Port Director and they expect this highway to be underwater by 1 p.m. today--again. This is the major route of oil and gas into the United States of America. This is Highway 1, Port Fourchon, and the LOOP facility, which is the only facility in the Nation that imports and exports oil and gas at that rate and at that level.

My point is, I hope we will again use this opportunity to focus on the critical infrastructure needs necessary for Louisiana and the gulf coast of Mississippi and Alabama primarily to protect itself not just from homeland security threats from terrorists but real threats of weather.

People might say: Senator, why did they build the port here in the first place? I understand that. If we could do it again, knowing what we know now, perhaps that would not have been done. I will speak for a minute about that because I want people to understand the argument. Men and women are here because the oil and gas is here. If we

could figure out a way to have people live in Chicago and commute every day down to the Gulf of Mexico to get the oil and gas out of the ground, then people would not have to live here, but we have not figured that out yet. So real life men and women and children and families live here. They have to live here to serve as the platform for the oil and gas that keeps the lights on all over the country. Yet we ask them time and time and time again to literally risk their lives to do so, and we cannot find a few million dollars in this budget to lift this highway so either they can get out or they can be safe.

This is a heavy rain. This occurs in a tropical storm in a heavy rain. I don't know what will happen with the hurricane. That is why people are not panicked but are most certainly concerned. This picture shows the main bayou that runs inland. The only way the rigs can get out of the gulf, they can either dock along the ports--Morgan City, New Iberia, Galveston, and come into Houston for some protection, the only way they can get in is through the Mississippi, up inland, through this bayou. They cannot get in when this bridge is down. The people cannot get out unless the bridge is down. So every time there is a storm, the local officials in my State have to say: OK, kids and families, you all go over the bridge. And they hold up the rigs. Then they let some of the rigs through, and they hold up the families trying to get out.

This is outrageous. We have money in the budget to build this bridge so we can move our infrastructure out of the gulf. And the Presiding Officer understands the magnitude of the barges, cranes, and sheer weight and size of the equipment I am talking about. It is not a Tonka toy. It is not Legos. It is big, heavy equipment that has to be moved at great danger to the men and women who have to move it to save insurance companies money, to save taxpayers money, to save shareholders money for these companies.

Let me talk about what else is going on. Louisiana wetlands are not a beach. I have spent a lot of my life growing up in the gulf area, and I have spent a lot of time on the Florida beaches, and I have never seen anything more beautiful. We in Louisiana support those beaches. We understand the tourism. We are some of the tourists that go there. But our coast is not a beach. We do not have a beach unless you want to count Grand Isle. It is beautiful and wonderful, but does not look like Destin, Florida. It is a lovely small beach. That is about the only beach we have. The rest of our coast is not a beach. It is a wetlands. It is not the wetlands of Louisiana, it is America's wetlands. It has been washing away at an alarming rate. The difference between a major hurricane coming out of the gulf in 1940 and a major hurricane coming out of the gulf this year in 2004 is we have lost thousands and thousands of acres. The size of the State of Rhode Island has been lost in the last 50 years, so the buffer has been shrinking that protects the city of New Orleans and much of the populated portions of Mississippi. That has been lost.

So the people who live on the gulf coast of Mississippi and the southern part of Mississippi and Louisiana are at greater and greater risk because those barrier islands that once existed, those acres and acres and square miles of wetlands, have been eroded. Why? For two reasons. One, we leveed the Mississippi River for commerce, not just to benefit Mississippi and Louisiana but to benefit the Midwest, the Northeast, the West, to open up trade and opportunity up and down that Mississippi River. We had no choice.

If you want to go to before the trade and go to when the country started, we had to anchor the mouth of the Mississippi to literally create the Nation--unless we wanted to stop at the Kentucky border or the Shenandoah Valley, which was a choice at one time. We could have just made the United States go from the east coast to the Shenandoah Valley, and we could have had a wonderful nation right there in the East. But we decided to go West. We decided to go all the way to the Oregon Trail with Lewis and Clark. President Jefferson had a vision, but that vision could not possibly happen without anchoring the security of the mouth of the Mississippi River. So we did. We had to basically try to tame this very wild place, very wet place, very low- lying place.

But we did it not just for ourselves; we did it for the whole Nation, with the Nation's help and support. We did not pay for everything, but we contributed a great deal. Today we continue to give billions of dollars out of the gulf coast in oil and gas revenues and taxes that go to this country. We continue to send our labor and our support and our money to this Nation. Yet time and time again, when Louisiana comes to ask, Could we please have just a portion of the revenue that we send?-- we are not asking for charity; we are asking for something we earned; we are happy to share with the rest of the country to help invest in infrastructure--we are told: We cannot do it this year. We do not have enough money. It is not a high enough priority.

Well, I do not know when it is going to get to be a high enough priority. I hate to say maybe it is going to take the loss thousands of lives on the gulf coast to make this country wake up and realize in what we are under-investing. Again, we lose a football field every 30 minutes. We have lost more than 1,900 square miles in the past 70 years, and the U.S. Geological Survey predicts we will lose another 1,000 square miles if decisive action is not taken now.

Now, we have made good plans in the last several years to save the Everglades. We are well on our way to do that. We have plans underway to restore the Chesapeake Basin, which is an extremely important ecosystem to this part of the country. We have some preliminary plans underway in the Great Lakes. But no area--not the Everglades, not the Chesapeake, and not the Great Lakes--of this great Nation contributes more economically or energy-wise than the wetlands of America that lay to the south along the gulf coast. They do not compare to the energy contribution; they do not compare to the fisheries contribution; they do not compare to the commerce contribution of this Nation or the port contribution when you put it together. Yet we seem to be getting less, not more.

So we have to stop the vanishing wetlands. We have plans in Congress. We are going to continue to push, with Lamar Alexander's help, on the Energy bill. We have a new bill moving through Congress called the Americans Outdoors Act that seeks to dedicate a portion of those revenues for coastal States, even States that do not produce oil and gas off of their coast. I think we should be willing to share some of these coastal revenues for coastal-related issues. Some people disagree.

The people of Louisiana do not mind sharing. It is sort of our natural way. We are happy to do that. We do not even want it all. We just want our fair share. That is what this bill does.

We also have a bill through the WRDA legislation, which is the traditional funding for the Corps of Engineers, the Federal agency primarily responsible to keep the waterways dredged, to keep the levees up as high as possible, to work with our local flood control folks, particularly our levee boards in Louisiana, which are some of the most important public entities we have, that literally keep people dry from heavy rains and from floods and storms of this nature.

But let me also repeat, again for the record, I know every time a hurricane hits in North Carolina or South Carolina or Florida, other people who are not familiar with hurricanes say: Why do the people live along the coast? Why do we let people live along the coast? I think that is a legitimate argument that could be made for resort communities. It is not mandatory they live there. They choose to live there because, of course, the coastlines are very pleasant and beautiful places to live. In fact, Americans really agree with that because two-thirds of the entire population of the United States live within 50 miles of the coast. So that is an issue that could be debated, and we could talk about that.

But Louisiana people who live in Port Fourchon, while they enjoy living there, believe me, and while they love to shrimp and they love to fish, they are there doing a great service for this Nation, working in an energy industry and trying to dig out of the gulf the resources this country needs. Where people live along these bayous, they are fishing and they are contributing to industries. They do not have a lot of fish

in downtown New York. They do not have a lot of fish in Chicago. The only place you are going to catch fish is in the water. So you have to live there basically to catch the fish. They are living there for a livelihood.

In addition, New Orleans itself was settled as the security as this Nation grew. Now people want to say, maybe we should--if a big storm hits--just move New Orleans. I do not know how you move a major metropolitan area. But I also say this about my great city, where I grew up and have represented, still to this day--and in many different ways throughout my life--the people, the city is 9 feet generally below sea level. But we have some of the most sophisticated pumping systems in the world.

In fact, the engineers who built the pumping stations that supply New Orleans with flood control were the engineers who helped Holland and studied in Venice. We do not have halfway pumping systems. We have the best in the world. We have the best engineers, the finest pumping systems. We are an old city, and we spend a lot of our money to keep those pumping systems up to date. In fact, the Federal Government has been a major partner. I am proud to have led the effort. The Southeast Louisiana Flood Control program has invested hundreds of millions of dollars, Federal and State money, to upgrade those pumping systems. So we are not Pollyanna about this. We are not Johnny-come-lately. We have great engineers. We are smart. If fact, we have taught the world how to drain floodwaters because we have been doing it the longest, for over 300 years.

But the city can do just so much, when it has a population that is challenged. We are not the wealthiest State. We are not the richest State. We need our Federal Government to understand that we are happy to share our resources and riches with the world, but we do deserve a greater portion of these revenues to keep our people safe, to keep our infrastructure intact, and, most certainly, to be respectful of what the people of Louisiana and the entire gulf coast contribute to our national well-being and security.

I want to put up another picture. This is another picture of LA 1. This is on a day when you see the traffic backed up. Obviously, there was something wrong with the Leeville Bridge. But this is what the traffic looks like trying to get out before a hurricane: the trucks, the cars, the schoolbuses, trying to leave a place where they were working on behalf of not only themselves but on behalf of this Nation. The least we can do is send a little money to fix this highway and to keep people safe and high and dry in these storms.

Let's pray, Madam President, that Hurricane Ivan does not hit the city of New Orleans directly. I am going to submit a front-page article from the Washington Post for the Record. It is an article about what that might be like. One of our emergency personnel who has been working on an emergency plan has stored several thousand body bags in the event of a major flood in the city of New Orleans. Let's hope that never happens. But I have to say, as a Senator representing the State of Louisiana, the chances of it happening sometime are pretty good. If we do not improve our transportation evacuation routes, invest in protecting this infrastructure, and focusing on reinvesting some of the tremendous wealth that has been taken from this area, and reinvesting it back, we will only have ourselves to blame.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the article entitled ``Awaiting Ivan in the Big Uneasy'' be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for up to 10 minutes.