John Breaux

Mr. BREAUX

Mr. BREAUX. Will the Senator yield on that point?

Mr. BREAUX. The point is it is for the last 30 years under the existing law the President having to make this decision, that it has always been possible to go to Federal court under Federal law if someone thought the President hadn't met the existing standard. They could take him to court. We are not changing that at all. In the last 30 years there has been one case. The one case ultimately said the President was within his authority to do exactly what he wanted to do-- one case in 30 years. The existing law says the standard the President has to meet is always subject to going to court saying he didn't meet the standard. We are not changing that at all.

Mr. BREAUX. May I make one final point and then I will sit down.

Mr. BREAUX. I think we are probably not going to agree on this. I suggest to the distinguished ranking member, what we need around here is a little law and order, and perhaps we could go ahead and vote on it. We could resolve it very quickly. Let's just vote on it and then move on to the next step.

Mr. BREAUX. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. BREAUX. I didn't know we had the floor.

Mr. BREAUX. I don't want to belabor this any longer. But I say to the ranking member, there is only one case out of the 30 years where the President's authority was ever challenged to do what he did in moving employees around. And in that case, which was a case in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, on the question of whether the President had proved the reason for making the decision that he made, the court said--I will have it printed in the Record-- The executive order under review cited accurately the statutory source of authority therefor, and purported to amend an earlier order that indubitably was . . . proper. . . .The act does not itself require or even suggest that any finding be reproduced in the order. I would say, in layman's language, that basically said: Look, once the President says I am doing this because the mission and responsibilities have materially changed, he does not have to make a finding. That statement in itself is a declaration that the court looks to only. It does not require any supporting findings or any other determination other than the President citing the statute by which he has made that decision. And that is the only decision we had on this issue by a court of appeals. I ask unanimous consent that decision be printed in the Record.

Mr. BREAUX. It does not.

Mr. BREAUX. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. BREAUX. Just to make two quick points. No. 1, it is very clear that the Nelson-Chafee-Breaux amendment is a supplement and not replacing the original section 7103(b)(1). We are not replacing the language talking about national security. The second point, the debate on the floor has been the question about how difficult it would be for the President to make a showing that the mission and responsibilities of the agency have materially changed. I would say very clearly that the only court case in 30 years that has ever challenged the President's authority in making this determination said very clearly that this section makes clear that the President may exclude an agency from the act's coverage whenever he determines that the conditions statutorily specified exist. This section does not expressly call upon the President to insert any written findings into his exempting order or, indeed, to utilize any particular format for such an order. That is as clear as you can say it. When the President says these conditions exist, that is all he has to show, period. That is the end of it. I hope that will address the concerns of the ranking minority member about the President having to make findings and do things that he is incapable of doing. This case, the only case interpreting this, says he doesn't have to make any findings. It is left up to him. When he says, I have determined that these conditions exist, I can do it, that is not reviewable. The national security statute is still in place. It is still there. It has not been removed. Our amendment is an amendment to the existing 7103. The national security language is still in place. It is not struck by our amendment in any way. The President makes the determination and his determination is not reviewable by court based on the fact that these conditions do not exist. It is very clear.

Mr. BREAUX. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. BREAUX. Will the Senator yield on that point?

Mr. BREAUX. For one moment, just to respond specifically to the language in the existing statute that says the President can, if he does certain things. Our language says, he cannot do it unless he does certain things. The end result is exactly the same. Our language says that if the President makes a determination that these things exist, he can do whatever he needs to do in this area. The language in the existing statute simply phrases it differently, by saying the President can do this if he shows the following. The end result is exactly the same.

Mr. BREAUX. There are two different points to be made here. The first point is, the way the language was drafted it was intended to do the same thing by saying the President can take action if he does certain things. The answer to that question is, absolutely, yes. It is phrased differently. One is in the negative. One is in the positive. But the end result is that the President can do these things if he shows the following. The amendment we have says, for the first time in history, you are not talking about moving 5 people or 10 people or 100 people; you are talking about moving thousands and thousands of people. Over 100,000 people are going to be changed. At least we ought to show that the majority of them have something to do with this issue. That is an additional requirement. It is one that he determines.

Mr. BREAUX

Mr. BREAUX. Madam President, I support the amendment to the Gramm- Miller amendment which has been offered by our good friend and colleague Senator Nelson, and by my colleague Senator Lincoln Chafee. It is very clear the Senate, as we debate homeland security, has reached a point where we are at a logjam. I, for one, and I think the vast majority of our colleagues, strongly support the creation of a Homeland Security Department, and why is very simple. In light of today's terrorist threat to this country, we can no longer continue to operate and protect our Nation's security in the way we always have. In the past, too often the right hand did not know what the left hand was doing, and vice versa. It is clear, from the evidence that has now been presented, we have agencies within our own Government that had certain amounts of information that was important information, but information they did not adequately share with other Departments and agencies within our Government. It is nice to have individual agencies know a little bit about the intelligence of an international threat, but if they do not share that information with other Departments within our Government, and they do not put all of the information gathered into one single place where people can look at it and analyze it, it is really not very effective information. It is certainly not as effective as if we have the collective wisdom of all of the various intelligence-gathering agencies within our Government. The point has very accurately been made if the CIA has information the FBI does not have, if the Immigration Service has some information neither one of the other agencies has, that is not a very effective situation. If you throw in information that agencies such as the Drug Enforcement Administration, the Immigration and Naturalization Service, and local police and State police have, if each one of them keeps that information to themselves, we are not providing the service we should to the American people. For the first time, the creation of a Homeland Security Agency is going to say to all of these collecting agencies that gather the information that is so important, we should absolutely share it and involve each other in what that information is all about, and that is what the Homeland Security Agency does very effectively. All of those, Republicans and Democrats together, who have worked very hard to bring this legislation to the floor have done a good job. This is good legislation. It is important legislation. What this legislation does is simply say to the American people after 9/11, we are going to create a new agency in our Federal Government to ensure our ability to better protect the rights and freedoms of all American citizens than we have in the past. There are actions that have to be taken in times of national emergencies that are not normal, such as during this period of special concern. One of the powers that is necessary for a President to have is the ability to move agencies, departments, and individuals as quickly as possible, to the best position to serve the American public. The President currently has the authority to say if it is important for national security that some of the collective bargaining rights of some of these employees of the Federal Government have to be temporarily set aside. He can exercise that authority now, and he has exercised it in the past. It has not been only this President but it has gone back, I think, all the way to President John Kennedy. We are in that type of a situation. With the creation of a new Homeland Security Agency, however, we are talking for the first time about creating a new agency where thousands of employees may be taken out of one position and put into the Homeland Security Agency. Somewhere between 40,000 and 50,000 who have collective bargaining rights where they are currently working, if they are transferred to a new Homeland Security Agency, for the first time may have those collective bargaining rights taken away. How ironic it would be if the agency we are creating to protect the rights and freedoms of Americans is the agency that is utilized to take away the rights of American citizens to collectively bargain without the appropriate justification for doing so. I do not think anyone would want to say that is their desire. This Homeland Security Agency is designed to protect the rights and freedoms Americans have gained. Some may argue about the wisdom of having collective bargaining rights, but it is a right American citizens have. So the question before this body now is: How do we give the President the authority to do what is necessary in this new Homeland Security Agency, which I support very strongly, while at the same time ensuring while we take rights away from American citizens, it is only done under the most unusual circumstances, and if it is necessary it be done, it be done very carefully so everyone will understand how this transaction is taking place? What brings us to the floor today is this suggestion my good friends, Senator Nelson and Senator Chafee, and myself, have worked on to try to say, yes, we support homeland security, but we also want to make sure we protect the rights and freedoms of our own American citizens. It is interesting to note, if people would only take the time--and I have said this so many times. I have said this to my good friend, the chairman, Senator Lieberman--if all of us had the time to read the legislation and see the actual differences between the two versions, they would find the differences are far less than the similarities, particularly when it comes to this very issue which is causing this problem right now. If we look at the current authority of the President of the United States with respect to what he can do to remove collective bargaining rights of American workers when he transfers them, it is almost similar, if not identical, to what our suggestion is to break the logjam. For instance, under the current law of the United States, under 5 U.S.C. section 7103, this is what people are saying, do not take away the President's authority. The current law says the President may issue an order excluding any agency or subdivision thereof from coverage under this chapter--meaning take away their collective bargaining--if the President determines, first, that the agency or subdivision has as a primary function intelligence, counterintelligence, investigative or national security work; and, second, the provisions of this chapter cannot be applied to that agency or subdivision in a manner consistent with national security requirements and considerations. What that says is the President can take away their collective bargaining rights now only if he makes a determination that these two things are present. How do we handle it in our amendment, which I think can generate more than a majority? Simple. Our legislation says no agency can have their collective bargaining rights taken away, unless it is shown that the mission and responsibilities of the agency or subdivision materially change, and, second, that a majority of the employees within the agency have as their primary duty intelligence, counterintelligence, or investigative work directly related to terrorism investigation. I will argue with anyone who wants to say that this somehow hampers the ability of the President to take away collective bargaining rights. Under our suggestion, the President, as under current law, has to make a determination that these people are important to intelligence gathering. That is easy for the President. And also that the mission and responsibilities of the agency from which he wants to take these rights away have materially changed. I think that is a very easy thing, under the circumstances that exist today for the President to be able to reach that standard. It is interesting that under the current law there is no appeal from the workers to go to the NLRB or any kind of labor agency. But there is no appeal under our provision to go to any kind of NLRB or agency at all. Some of my friends on the Republican side say, yes, but those workers could take the agency to court. That is true. But that is also true under current law. If someone under current law thinks the President has not made this determination correctly, they have the right to go to court. I don't know that it has ever been done. If so, I think maybe once it was not successful. But they have that right today. It is not appropriate to say we are going to create this new agency but we are going to give workers less rights than they have today. Some have also suggested they show that mission and responsibilities of the agency have materially changed. That would never fit today's circumstances. The example they give is, we may have an immigration agency working in south Texas that is all of a sudden going to be transferred to the new agency to look after immigrants who are coming from suspected terrorist areas of the world and that their mission will not materially change. They will be doing the same work in a different agency and, therefore, not meet the test of having their work materially change because they will be doing the same type of work. That does not create a problem. It is the intent of the authors of this to clearly say it is our intent when you are transferring people who are doing immigration work in border towns, protecting our States under normal circumstances, that they have to do that type of work to stop international terrorists at a time we have been attacked by terrorists from other countries is materially changing what they are doing. They are now looking out after foreign terrorists who are trying to attack the United States and do grave harm to this country. Their work has materially changed. The President makes this determination under our amendment, as he does under current circumstances. There is no appeal from the workers to be able to go to any NLRB-type of organization and plead their case. I plead with folks at the White House who have looked at this, take another look at it. Read what the current law says. Read what our suggestion is on collective bargaining. You will find there is not any difference that is worth objecting to if we are able to get this through the Senate with a large majority. It is not a good idea, I suggest, to have a 50/50 vote on homeland security and have to ask the Vice President of the United States to come to this Chamber to break the tie, to barely get this through the Senate. What type of unanimity does that show the American people as we pass homeland security? This amendment should pass with 75, 80, or 90 votes at least. Our suggestion in the Nelson-Chafee-Breaux amendment would allow us to have a huge vote in support of this proposition. The second area we have addressed in our amendment is important. The question is, Do you give the President flexibility to move people around, to change, perhaps, how they get paid, or to change their functions because now there is a question of national security? We have done that in our amendment. We have clearly spelled out the fact that they have the authority to have management flexibility. We have taken the larger part of the so-called Portman-Quinn amendment offered in the House which gives management flexibility to the President. I happen to think he should have management flexibility, but certainly not unlimited. He should have it in the areas he needs it. We have offered that. The Portman language in the Senate gave him management flexibility in six different categories. We have said that we will take four of those six categories and give him the flexibility he needs to make the decisions he would like to make in moving these people around. The President should have that in terms of the national emergency. We give him the authority that he needs, like in Portman-Quinn. The only suggestion is, you should not be able to do it, like you cannot today, without some involvement of the workers. You ought to at least sit down with them and discuss with them as you do in other agencies--such as the IRS, the FAA. Under current law, you sit down and talk with the people you are going to be moving around to get their support, to get their ideas, to get their suggestions about how it can be made to work in a more efficient manner. What type of managers want to dictate to the employees that he will do this, that, and the other, and oh, by the way, I want you to be a loyal worker after I do this? Our legislation requires that in making these management changes, they shall be worked out with the representatives of the workers and the Secretary, that they would enter into a written agreement to approve the management flexibility that the Secretary thinks he needs. The point is, if they do not reach an agreement, do the workers have a veto? Absolutely not. As under current Federal law, as under the Internal Revenue Service when we gave them management flexibility, this body and the other body voted and approved when they cannot agree on management flexibility, you bring in the Federal Service Impasse Panel and they will have the authority under the Federal Service Impasse Panel--if the parties cannot arrive at an agreement, they have the authority under our amendment, as under current law, to take whatever action is necessary to resolve the impasse. That means if they want management flexibility, they sit down with both sides and discuss it. If the two sides cannot agree, they bring in the Federal Service Impasse Panel and they make the decision. It is a binding decision. What is this Federal Service Impasse Panel? Is this an arm of the AFL-CIO? A new creation? No, it exists in Federal law today. There are seven people on it. Guess who appoints the seven. The President of the United States. He appoints every single member of the Federal Service Impasse Panel that will look at what the President is trying to do, and if the people cannot agree, his appointees, all seven of his appointees, unanimously appointed by the President of the United States, put into effect what they think is appropriate and improper. I don't think that is something that is bad at all. That is current law for the Federal service workers right now when they are being moved around. I suggest if we could adopt the Nelson-Chafee-Breaux amendment we could put this aside. This bill has to go to conference with the other body. There will be further negotiations on this issue. Hopefully, we can come back with something that leaves the Senate, first, with a very large vote, instead of 50/50, and then come back in a fashion that will also generate the type of support that I think is critically important. I ask for a ``yes'' vote on my amendment, and I yield the floor.

Mr. BREAUX

Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, I take a moment to speak to legislation that has been introduced by myself along with a number of bipartisan colleagues, which is entitled the Elder Justice Act of 2002. The legislation has been introduced by me along with Senators Hatch, Baucus, Collins, Carnahan, Smith of Oregon, Lincoln, Bond, Torricelli, Nelson of Florida, and also Senator Stabenow. I will take a minute to just describe the problem we have in this and outline the features of the legislation. I think there are probably few pressing national concerns of social issues that are as important and also ignored as much as elder abuse, elder neglect, and also the exploitation of elder Americans. This abuse of our seniors takes many different forms. It could be physical abuse, sexual abuse, psychological abuse, and it could also be financial abuse. The perpetrator may be a stranger you have never heard of or never seen; it may be an acquaintance; it may be a paid caregiver in some institution; it may be a corporation; and, unfortunately, far too often it can be a spouse or another member of the elderly person's family. Elder abuse happens everywhere--in poor, middle class, and upper income households; in cities, suburbs, and in rural areas. It knows no demographic or geographic boundaries. The cost of such abuse and neglect is extremely high by any measure. The price of the abuse is paid in needless human suffering, inflated health care costs for everyone, depleted public resources, and the loss of one of our greatest national assets: Of course, the wisdom and experience of the elders in our country. With scientific advances and the graying of millions of baby boomers, this year the number of elderly on the planet will pass the number of children on the planet for the very first time. Although we have made great strides in promoting independence, productivity, and quality of life, old age still brings inadequate health care, isolation, impoverishment, abuse, and neglect for far too many elder Americans. Studies we have looked at in our Aging Committee, which I have the privilege of chairing, conclude that elder abuse, neglect, and exploitation are widely unreported. These abuses significantly shorten the lives of older Americans. A single episode of mistreatment can ``tip over'' an otherwise independent, productive life, triggering a downward spiral that can result in depression, serious illness, or even death. Too many of our frailest citizens suffer needlessly and cannot simply move away and escape from the abuse. Frequently, they cannot express their wishes or their suffering. Even if they can, they often do not because they fear retaliation. Congress has passed comprehensive bills to address the ugly truth of two other types of abuse--child abuse and crimes against women. These bills have placed these two issues into the national consciousness and addressed the issues at the national level. These laws created new Federal infrastructure and funding--focusing resources, creating accountability, and changing how we think about and treat the abuse of women and children. Most jurisdictions now have established coordinated social service, public health, and law enforcement approaches to confront these abuses. It is interesting when we look at how Federal dollars are being spent in the area of abuse and neglect. On the chart, the area in red represents the money being spent with regard to child abuse--$6.7 billion on various programs. On the other hand, if you look at what we are doing in the area of spousal abuse, domestic abuse, it is about $520 million. When you look at how much we are spending on the question of elder abuse, it is only a very small amount in comparison-- approximately 2 percent of the money that is spent on trying to alleviate, understand, and prevent abuse. It is focused on the fastest growing segment of our population, where in our hearings in the Aging Committee we have found it is a substantial and real problem. I am not saying domestic abuse and child abuse should be terminated from the standpoint of spending money to prevent it. Of course not. It is a high priority. What we are saying is that we need more attention on the question of how we treat, as a society, the elderly in our country, which is the fastest growing segment of our population. Despite dozens of congressional hearings over the past two decades on the devastating effects of elder abuse, neglect, and exploitation, interest in the subject has risen and fallen, it has waxed and waned. To date, no Federal law has been enacted to address this issue of elder abuse in a comprehensive fashion. In these hearings we had in the Aging Committee, elder abuse was called a disgrace, a burgeoning national scandal. Indeed, we found no single Federal employee working full time on the issue of elder abuse in the entire Federal Government, in any Department, anywhere. I think the time has come to provide seniors a set of fundamental protections. That is why, along with the colleagues I listed, we have introduced S. 2933, the first comprehensive Federal effort to address elder abuse in the United States--the Elder Justice Act of 2002. Our bill will elevate elder abuse, neglect, and exploitation to the national stage in a lasting way. We want to ensure that there is Federal leadership to provide resources for the services, prevention, and enforcement effort to those on the front lines. You know, a crime is a crime, no matter who the victim is, or wherever the victim happens to be, or whatever the age of the victim is. Crimes against seniors must certainly be elevated to the level of child abuse and crimes against women. It is clear, in confronting child abuse and violence against women, that the best method of prevention has been a two-pronged approach-- through both law enforcement and social services. With offices in the Department of Health and Human Services, HHS, and the Department of Justice, our legislation will ensure a combined public health-law enforcement coordination at all levels. In addition, because elder abuse and neglect have been virtually absent from the national research agenda, our legislation establishes research centers of excellence and funds research projects to fuel future legislation that may be necessary. These measures lay the foundation to address, in a meaningful and lasting way, a devastating and growing problem that has been invisible for far too long. We can no longer neglect these difficult issues afflicting frail and elderly victims--American citizens. This effort takes numerous steps to prevent and treat elder abuse. It improves prevention and intervention by funding projects to make older Americans safer in their homes, facilities, and in their neighborhoods, to enhance long-term-care staffing, and to stop financial fraud before the money goes out of the door. It enhances detection by creating forensic centers and develops expertise to enhance detection of the problem. It bolsters treatment by funding efforts to find better ways to mitigate the devastating consequences of elder mistreatment. It also increases collaboration by requiring ongoing coordination at the Federal level, among Federal, State, local, private entities, law enforcement, long-term care facilities, consumer advocates, and families, to bring all of these agencies together in a coordinated fashion. It aids prosecution by assisting law enforcement and prosecutors to ensure that those who abuse our Nation's frail elderly will be held accountable, wherever the crime occurs and whoever the victim happens to be. It also helps consumers by creating a resource center for family caregivers and those trying to make decisions about the different types of long-term care providers. The importance of defending our right to live free of suffering from abuse and neglect does not diminish with age. If we can unlock the mysteries of science and live longer, what do we gain if we fail to ensure that Americans also live better lives and longer lives, lives with dignity? More and more of us will enjoy a longer life in relatively good health, and with this gift comes the responsibility to prevent the needless suffering too often borne by our frailest citizens. I appreciate the work of the members of our Aging Committee and our cosponsors and their joint effort with me to put together this legislation. I recommend it be considered by our colleagues and that the Senate proceed ultimately to action on the bill, S. 2933, the Elder Justice Act of 2002. Mr. President, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BREAUX

Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, the West Nile virus has reached epidemic proportions. My home State of Louisiana has seen cases of the disease skyrocket in recent months, with 222 cases and 9 deaths reported to date. But this is not a problem isolated in one State or one region. The Centers for Disease Control, CDC, have reported cases of this mosquito-borne illness in humans in 30 States and the District of Columbia. It is clear, as we have seen in Louisiana, that State governments are overtaxed in money and man-power and simply cannot continue to fight the spread of this disease on their own. The Federal Government needs to work hard and fast to combat this potential public health crisis and assist the hardest hit areas in preventing the loss of even more lives. Earlier this year, my colleagues in the House of Representatives, Congressmen Billy Tauzin and Chris John, introduced legislation that would make grants available through the CDC to help States in establishing and maintaining mosquito control programs and prevent mosquito-borne illnesses. Today Senator Landrieu and I have introduced companion legislation to the House bill, The Mosquito Abatement for Health and Safety Act, H.R. 4793, of the same title in an effort to quickly make resources available to local governments in Louisiana and across the country that have been on the front lines fighting the spread of the West Nile outbreak. Both bills would provide money to improve assessment tools, including surveys of potential mosquito breeding areas, and support research initiatives to develop methods of controlling insect populations that spread disease and pose a health threat to humans. In disbursing grant monies, the CDC would give priority to those areas with reported instances of mosquito-borne illnesses in humans or animals. The country is experiencing an outbreak that is both unfortunate and alarming. Only through improved coordination of state and federal agencies can we begin to address this problem and spare further cases of this deadly disease.

Mr. BREAUX

Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, the West Nile virus has reached epidemic proportions. My home State of Louisiana has seen cases of the disease skyrocket in recent months, with 222 cases and 9 deaths reported to date. But this is not a problem isolated in one State or one region. The Centers for Disease Control, CDC, have reported cases of this mosquito-borne illness in humans in 30 States and the District of Columbia. It is clear, as we have seen in Louisiana, that State governments are overtaxed in money and man-power and simply cannot continue to fight the spread of this disease on their own. The Federal Government needs to work hard and fast to combat this potential public health crisis and assist the hardest hit areas in preventing the loss of even more lives. Earlier this year, my colleagues in the House of Representatives, Congressmen Billy Tauzin and Chris John, introduced legislation that would make grants available through the CDC to help States in establishing and maintaining mosquito control programs and prevent mosquito-borne illnesses. Today Senator Landrieu and I have introduced companion legislation to the House bill, The Mosquito Abatement for Health and Safety Act, H.R. 4793, of the same title in an effort to quickly make resources available to local governments in Louisiana and across the country that have been on the front lines fighting the spread of the West Nile outbreak. Both bills would provide money to improve assessment tools, including surveys of potential mosquito breeding areas, and support research initiatives to develop methods of controlling insect populations that spread disease and pose a health threat to humans. In disbursing grant monies, the CDC would give priority to those areas with reported instances of mosquito-borne illnesses in humans or animals. The country is experiencing an outbreak that is both unfortunate and alarming. Only through improved coordination of state and federal agencies can we begin to address this problem and spare further cases of this deadly disease.

Mr. BREAUX

Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, I rise today to address the injustices the British Crown inflicted upon the Acadian people over 200 years ago. Due to their refusal to take an oath of loyalty to the King of Great Britain that would require them to bear arms against their French ancestors, the British governor exiled them from their homes and confiscated their property in Eastern Canada beginning in 1755. This action caused great suffering among the Acadian people as they struggled to find a new home. Forced from their homes, many left for the American colonies. Ultimately, a small group of Acadians found their way to the Spanish colony of Louisiana in 1764. In the next twenty-five years, over 2,600 made the journey to Louisiana. These refugees ultimately settled in Louisiana and created the Cajun culture which has so richly influenced Louisiana since that time. While Louisiana culture benefited greatly from the Acadian expulsion, the suffering of the Acadian people must never be forgotten. Great Britain is one of our closest allies. We have a long history of cooperation and friendship. It is for this very reason I believe and hope the British government would acknowledge this tragic incident and the difficulties it caused for thousands of my Cajun ancestors.

Mr. BREAUX

Mr. BREAUX. Madam President, I say to my colleagues who have spoken previously on this amendment, I join with them as a cosponsor of this legislation. The previous speaker from North Dakota was absolutely correct when he pointed out this is not a parochial issue. I am not from Montana. I am not from North Dakota. I am not from the Great Plains. In fact, I am as far away from these States as one could probably be and probably still be in the continental United States. Being from Louisiana, we traditionally do not have a lot of problems with drought. As a matter of fact, it is very common for Louisiana to have 8, 9, even 10 inches of rain during the summer months in one afternoon. Our problem in many cases is not drought but too much water. We were jokingly talking about how we could be of help by somehow reversing the flow of the Mississippi River from north to south and changing it from south to north and sending the excess water we frequently have in Louisiana to our friends and neighbors in farms in the Great Plains, the Midwest. That is a novel idea, but it is not going to happen. Until something like that happens, it is very important to be able to try to recognize this is a national issue. Whether one is from South Dakota or from Louisiana, it is very important when farm organizations and groups in one part of the country have a problem that is not through their own making, we in other parts of the country recognize it and help to contribute. One of the provisions that is a defect in the farm bill is that when someone has a disaster, they can receive disaster loans. The last thing a person who has no crop needs is more debt which they would incur by having an additional loan. The program we talked about in the past really does not particularly address the situation where farms are literally wiped out of any production because of a flood or because of a drought, thus preventing them from harvesting a crop. Having a loan in that circumstance does not help the farmer. They cannot pay back the loan if they do not have a crop. It is just that simple. Therefore, in the interest of trying to be of help from a national perspective, this legislation has been brought to the floor. It is absolutely essential. Because of the way the system works, it will ultimately save the Government money. By helping now, we avoid greater debt and greater losses in the future. So I strongly support this effort. We have our own unique problems right now. In my State of Louisiana, particularly in the rice industry, we are looking for ways to help solve some of the problems our farmers are experiencing because of some of the lowest prices in decades. Our farmers are not going to be able to make it, not because of a drought or because of a flood but because of the potential of an economic disaster which Congress should be addressing as well. In the meantime, this is the right thing to do for a disaster that is being caused by a drought. I strongly support it, and I urge my colleagues to support it. I yield the floor.

Mr. BREAUX

Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, I want to bring to the Senate's attention a section of the conference agreement that is extremely important to the future of the U.S. sugar program and to the workers and companies in the domestic sugar industry. As the gentleman from Montana knows very well, I am talking about Section 5203 of the Trade Act of 2002, regarding sugar tariff-rate quota circumvention. The policy established in Section 5203 on sugar tariff rate quota circumvention is very important to the future of the sugar industry in Louisiana and the United States.

Mr. BREAUX. I accept those kind words on behalf of all of the Senators who are working on this issue. Let me explain the problem briefly. The price of sugar on world markets is almost always very low and is often below the cost of producing sugar even in the most efficient sugar industries. This phenomenon is caused by subsidization of sugar exports by the European Union and other governments, and by dumping by companies that must export their sugar at any price to avoid harming their domestic markets. The U.S. sugar program is intended to keep the price of sugar in the U.S. market at a level that assures a reasonable return to U.S. growers, processors and refiners of cane and beet sugar. A primary component of the program is WTO-legal tariff-rate quotas on imported sugar and sugar-containing products under Chapters 17, 18, 19 and 21 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States. These quotas keep world price sugar from disrupting the U.S. sweeteners market and assure countries that are historical suppliers of the U.S. market that they will benefit from U.S. prices. If the tariff-rate quotas do not keep dumped world price sugar off the U.S. market, the sugar program will be severely damaged. Therefore, it is essential that attempts to circumvent the tariff-rate quotas be identified and stopped promptly.

Mr. BREAUX. There are many different kinds of circumvention. For example, designing and importing nonquota sugar-containing products that have no commercial use or using processing technologies that make commercial extraction of sugar from historically traded nonquota products an economically viable source of sugar. A specific example of one kind of circumvention is stuffed molasses, in which sugar is added to molasses outside the United States and removed from the molasses after importation in the United States. Another example is a product that is created by interrupting the normal refining process of raw cane sugar after the first removal of sugar, or first ``strike,'' outside the United States, addition of that product to raw cane sugar while it is being refined in the United States. These are not the only methods used for circumvention. Importers will try variations of circumventing products that were imported in the past, and they will try to devise new methods for circumvention. Section 5203 directs the Secretary of Agriculture and Commissioner of Customs to monitor continuously imports of products provided for under Chapter 17, 18, 19 and 21 of the HTS for indications that products are being used for circumvention. It is my understanding that ``continuously'' means looking at import statistics for each month. If they see anything suspicious, such as significant increases in imports over historic levels or a change in the ports of entry from the historic pattern, they will look into the transactions to assure themselves there is no circumvention or to determine precisely how the circumvention is being carried out. The Secretary and the Commissioner shall report their findings and make recommendations for action to Congress and the President every six months in a public report.

Mr. BREAUX. Thank you, Chairman Baucus for clarifying this issue. You clearly understand the importance we attach to this monitoring, reporting, and recommendation program. I also want to emphasize that we expect the Secretary of Agriculture and Commissioner of Customs to move quickly as soon as H.R. 3009 is signed into public law to establish an effective monitoring, reporting and recommendation program under section 5203. agoa

Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, it is also my intent that the Andean Trade Preference Act not pertain to existing requirements that foreign parties provide a Certificate of Origin for tuna imported into the United States. This certificate, or Form 370, is necessary to verify whether imported tuna qualifies for the ``dolphin-safe'' label. This bill should not affect that process.