John Breaux

Mr. BREAUX

Mr. BREAUX. This amendment I have sent to the desk is on behalf of our colleague on the Republican side, Senator Snowe; on behalf of the ranking member of the Senate Finance Committee, Senator Baucus; and also on behalf of our Republican colleague, Senator Voinovich from Ohio. I remember that a great Chinese philosopher once said: May you live in interesting times. I would also add today that we are actually living in very confusing times. The bombs began to drop on the country of Iraq last night. We have over 200,000 men and women engaged in a war in a far off country. We have a country that is presently on orange alert, the second highest in our country's history. We have a war, and we do not know how long it is going to last, whether it be 4 days or 4 weeks or 4 months. We have a war and we have no concept of how much it is going to cost. We have estimates from $50 billion, $60 billion, $100 billion, depending on how long the conflict lasts. We have a financial situation in this country where we have a $300 billion deficit that is now facing us in the short term. Yet we have a budget recommending that we now take the action of cutting revenues to pay for the cost of the war by about $1.36 trillion, of which the budget request adds $726 billion be protected by the process of budget reconciliation which would prevent any effort to filibuster that, on behalf of our Republican colleagues. In addition, we all know in this Congress we are faced with additional costs in health care, particularly in the Medicare Program where we are attempting to add a prescription drug benefit plan to a Medicare Program which is desperately in need of additional funds. We have all of our Governors and all of 50 States saying how they do not have enough revenues to adequately run their State Medicaid Program. Indeed, it is not only interesting times, it is very confusing times in the sense of trying to rationalize how we as a nation, with the pending demands we have on our society, financial demands that are legitimate and pressing, especially the conduct of a war in the country of Iraq, and at the same time we are asking to cut revenues by a total of $1.36 trillion. I remember back when we looked at the last major tax reduction and tax cut in this country, back in the year 2001. We passed and ultimately enacted a $1.35 trillion tax cut. Times were different. Times were not as confusing. In those days we had a $5.6 trillion surplus. We had $5.6 trillion more in the Federal Treasury than we needed to operate and serve the people of this country. When you have a surplus of that magnitude, it is appropriate that you give some of the money back to the taxpayers of this country. We had a surplus. We were not at war. Conditions were different. Times were different. They were not confusing. We knew what we were facing. Today that has changed, completely, totally, 180 degrees. We are at war, Medicare is on the verge of collapse, Medicaid is in fact collapsing, and we have a deficit, not a surplus. Yet we are faced today with a proposal that says in those conditions, one of the most important things we can do is cut revenues, and cut revenues not by an insignificant amount but, rather, by a total of $1.36 trillion over the next 10 years. I know of only a small number of people who say that makes common sense. What business that is in debt and losing money would declare a dividend? What government that is facing war, and in fact is in war, with a net deficit of over $300 billion in 1 year, would say we need less revenues to meet our demands when in fact just the opposite is true: That is the issue that is facing us. Some Members on the Republican side of the aisle think the number of the tax cut at $726 billion in this budget under reconciliation protection is just the right number. There are some on our side who think, no, we should have no tax cut until we know what the costs and demands are in our society. They would suggest we should have a zero tax cut until we know the cost of the war, and how much we are going to need for Medicare and prescription drugs and Medicaid, and how much we are going to have to pay for homeland security. They take the position that until we know those answers, we should not be reducing and cutting and slashing the revenues that we need to run Government. Tax cuts are popular, but they also have to be realistic. Tax cuts are not free. We do not just eliminate $726 billion in revenue and think it is going to come out of the sky. In fact, we have to pay for it. And to pay for provisions in this legislation is simply adding to the deficit of this country at a time of great demands and at a time when we do not know what the future holds. I think that is not good policy. I would prefer no tax cut at this time, but that is not politically possible. So what my colleagues and friends, in a bipartisan fashion, have tried to do is to say there must be some meeting of the minds, somewhere in the middle, between $726 billion in tax cuts and zero in tax cuts. That is why two Democrats and two Republicans--who have worked weeks and weeks together to come up with this--are now presenting this amendment to our colleagues in the Senate. We have met with economists. We have met with tax experts. We have met with the Chairman of the Federal Reserve, Alan Greenspan, to get his ideas and to get his suggestions about what we need to do. What we have before the Senate now is a reflection of that. It is the only bipartisan amendment being offered that I think has a realistic chance of passing. It is clear in my mind, for those on my side of the aisle who would prefer zero in tax cuts, that if they do not vote for this amendment, with a $350 billion tax cut, they in effect are voting for a $726 billion tax cut. Because it is clear in my mind, and I think in the minds of others, that if our amendment does not pass, the tax cut that remains is $726 billion. I know for those who say, I don't want any, it is difficult for them to vote for $350 billion. But let me say to them, what they are doing, in doing that, is reducing the tax cut by a substantial amount and a significant amount. In fact, they would be reducing the tax cut by $375 billion by voting for our amendment. They would be reducing the Federal deficit by $464 billion. That is not insignificant. It should be more, but this is what we have the potential, and the political reality, of accomplishing. So for those on my side, it is very important to understand, if this amendment does not pass, the likelihood of what passes is much larger and increases the deficit substantially. By voting for our amendment, you have a chance to reduce the Federal deficit by $464 billion over the next 10 years. That is real progress for people who believe in economic balanced budgets. It is, in fact, the conservative thing to do, I say to my Republican colleagues, because you don't spend money you don't have. Whether it is for a tax cut or whether it is for some spending program, they both have the same results. We have to pay for them. So I think what we offer today is an amendment that should, hopefully, find comfort and support from both sides of the aisle. That is what we have attempted to do. And that is what this amendment, in fact, does. I know some would like a much larger tax cut, but in looking at what we have offered, I think it does represent a tax cut, so that we in the Finance Committee, and later in the full body, will be able to craft something that has meaning, that really adds stimulus to the economy. And we would support that. That type of program can pass with a significant number of Democratic votes joining with our Republican colleagues in a bipartisan fashion. It should not be all or nothing. That is too risky. It is too irresponsible. So what my colleagues and I have offered together is a compromise, a bipartisan compromise, which I think makes a great deal of sense for everyone who is concerned about the future of this country. It is difficult in challenging times. These are confusing times. These are uncertain times. And in these times, I would suggest the right course of action is to be a little more conservative with how we spend our Nation's money, as we prepare to face obligations which no one can be certain how large or for how long they are going to continue. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, I yield time, on behalf of the ranking member, to the distinguished Senator from Maine, Ms. Snowe.

Mr. BREAUX

Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, I thank Senator Landrieu and Ms. Kate Eltrich of her staff for their good work in crafting the District of Columbia provisions of the Omnibus Appropriations bill. I was very pleased to see that the bill included $2,800,000 to continue improvements on the historic Potomac Southwest Waterfront. It is my understanding that this appropriation will be used to fund certain improvements and repairs to the portion of the Southwest Waterfront currently leased to the Washington Marina.

Mr. BREAUX. I thank the Senator for providing her understanding and clarification of this issue.

Mr. BREAUX

Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, I would like to clarify a provision of the omnibus appropriations bill that was included as a result of legislation I have been working on since the last Congress. In the transportation section of the omnibus, language was included to help provide for tighter restrictions on the waiver process currently in place at the Transportation Security Administration. Specifically, with this language I was seeking to make sure that venues, events and stadiums across the country are safe for the thousands in attendance. However, there are certain airships which are particularly well suited to assist law enforcement in providing sustained airborne surveillance over and around stadium or other events. It was my intention when crafting this language that blimps operating in this capacity should not be prevented from applying for a waiver from TSA. In fact, under the legislation, the Secretary may grant a waiver for blimps which are being operated for event safety or security, including those which are capable of providing immediate on-call airborne security camera surveillance services at the stadium or event. It was never my intention to prevent this type of security enhancement from being utilized because these types of airships can and do provide significant security protections for large venue events. I am in possession of a letter from the city of Anaheim which states that these air operations ``were a major component of the security plan'' as they hosted the 2002 World Series. I ask unanimous consent that this be printed in the Record.

Mr. BREAUX

Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, I would like to clarify a provision of the omnibus appropriations bill that was included as a result of legislation I have been working on since the last Congress. In the transportation section of the omnibus, language was included to help provide for tighter restrictions on the waiver process currently in place at the Transportation Security Administration. Specifically, with this language I was seeking to make sure that venues, events and stadiums across the country are safe for the thousands in attendance. However, there are certain airships which are particularly well suited to assist law enforcement in providing sustained airborne surveillance over and around stadium or other events. It was my intention when crafting this language that blimps operating in this capacity should not be prevented from applying for a waiver from TSA. In fact, under the legislation, the Secretary may grant a waiver for blimps which are being operated for event safety or security, including those which are capable of providing immediate on-call airborne security camera surveillance services at the stadium or event. It was never my intention to prevent this type of security enhancement from being utilized because these types of airships can and do provide significant security protections for large venue events. I am in possession of a letter from the city of Anaheim which states that these air operations ``were a major component of the security plan'' as they hosted the 2002 World Series. I ask unanimous consent that this be printed in the Record.

Mr. BREAUX

Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, I rise to introduce S. 333, the Elder Justice Act. Despite the rapid aging of America, few pressing social issues have been as systematically ignored as elder abuse, neglect, and exploitation. This abuse of our seniors takes many forms. It can be physical, sexual, psychological, or financial. The perpetrator may be a stranger, an acquaintance, a paid caregiver, a corporation and, far too often, a spouse or another family member. Elder abuse happens everywhere--in poor, middle-class and upper income households; in cities, suburbs, and rural areas. It knows no demographic or geographic boundaries. The cost of such abuse and neglect is high by any measure. The price of this abuse is paid in needless human suffering, inflated health care costs, depleted public resources, and the loss of one of our greatest national assets--the wisdom and experience of our elders. With scientific advances and the graying of millions of baby boomers, this year the number of elderly on the planet passed the number of children for the 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 Americans. Studies conclude that elder abuse, neglect, and exploitation are widely under reported and these abuses significantly shorten the lives of older victims. A single episode of mistreatment can tip over an otherwise independent, productive life, triggering a downward spiral that can result in depression, serious illness, and even death. Too many of our frailest citizens suffer needlessly and cannot simply move away from the abuse. Frequently, they cannot express their wishes or suffering. And, even if they can, often they do not, fearing 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 placed these two issues into the national consciousness and addressed the issues at a national level. The law created new Federal infrastructure and funding--focusing resources, creating accountability, and changing how we think about and treat abuse of women and children. And most jurisdictions now have established coordinated social service-public heath-law enforcement approaches to confront these abuses. But 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 waxed and waned, and, to date, no Federal law has been enacted to address this issue in a comprehensive manner. In these hearings, elder abuse was called a ``disgrace'' and a ``burgeoning national scandal.'' Indeed, we found no single Federal employee working full time on elder abuse in the entire Federal Government. The time has come for Congress to provide seniors a set of fundamental protections. That is why, along with Senators Hatch, Baucus, Collins, Smith of Oregon, Lincoln, Bond, Nelson of Florida, Burns, Rockefeller, Santorum, Landrieu, Jeffords, Harkin, Miller, Stabenow, and Kohl, I am introducing a bill, the Elder Justice Act, the first comprehensive Federal effort to address elder abuse in the United States. Our bill will elevate elder abuse, neglect, and exploitation to the national stage in a lasting way. We want to ensure Federal leadership to provide resources for services, prevention, and enforcement efforts to those on the front lines. A crime is a crime whoever the victim and wherever it occurs. Crimes against seniors must 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 methods of prevention is two-pronged--through both law enforcement and social services. With offices in the Departments of Health and Human Services and Justice, this legislation ensures 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, this bill establishes research centers of excellence, and funds research projects to fuel future legislation. 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. 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 neighborhoods, to enhance long-term care staffing and to stop financial fraud before the money goes out the door. It enhances detection by creating forensic centers and developing 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 increases collaboration by requiring ongoing coordination at the federal level, among Federal, State, local and private entities, law enforcement, long-term care facilities, consumer advocates and families. 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. It helps consumers by creating a resource center for family caregivers and those trying to make decisions about 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 to live longer, what do we gain if we fail to ensure Americans live longer with dignity? More and more of us will enjoy longer life in relative health, but with this gift comes the responsibility to prevent the needless suffering too often borne by our frailest citizens. I appreciate the work of my fellow members and a wide array of groups on behalf of elder justice and look forward to continued support from both sides of the aisle and in both houses to make elder justice a reality for those Americans who need it most.

Mr. BREAUX

Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, I rise to introduce S. 333, the Elder Justice Act. Despite the rapid aging of America, few pressing social issues have been as systematically ignored as elder abuse, neglect, and exploitation. This abuse of our seniors takes many forms. It can be physical, sexual, psychological, or financial. The perpetrator may be a stranger, an acquaintance, a paid caregiver, a corporation and, far too often, a spouse or another family member. Elder abuse happens everywhere--in poor, middle-class and upper income households; in cities, suburbs, and rural areas. It knows no demographic or geographic boundaries. The cost of such abuse and neglect is high by any measure. The price of this abuse is paid in needless human suffering, inflated health care costs, depleted public resources, and the loss of one of our greatest national assets--the wisdom and experience of our elders. With scientific advances and the graying of millions of baby boomers, this year the number of elderly on the planet passed the number of children for the 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 Americans. Studies conclude that elder abuse, neglect, and exploitation are widely under reported and these abuses significantly shorten the lives of older victims. A single episode of mistreatment can tip over an otherwise independent, productive life, triggering a downward spiral that can result in depression, serious illness, and even death. Too many of our frailest citizens suffer needlessly and cannot simply move away from the abuse. Frequently, they cannot express their wishes or suffering. And, even if they can, often they do not, fearing 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 placed these two issues into the national consciousness and addressed the issues at a national level. The law created new Federal infrastructure and funding--focusing resources, creating accountability, and changing how we think about and treat abuse of women and children. And most jurisdictions now have established coordinated social service-public heath-law enforcement approaches to confront these abuses. But 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 waxed and waned, and, to date, no Federal law has been enacted to address this issue in a comprehensive manner. In these hearings, elder abuse was called a ``disgrace'' and a ``burgeoning national scandal.'' Indeed, we found no single Federal employee working full time on elder abuse in the entire Federal Government. The time has come for Congress to provide seniors a set of fundamental protections. That is why, along with Senators Hatch, Baucus, Collins, Smith of Oregon, Lincoln, Bond, Nelson of Florida, Burns, Rockefeller, Santorum, Landrieu, Jeffords, Harkin, Miller, Stabenow, and Kohl, I am introducing a bill, the Elder Justice Act, the first comprehensive Federal effort to address elder abuse in the United States. Our bill will elevate elder abuse, neglect, and exploitation to the national stage in a lasting way. We want to ensure Federal leadership to provide resources for services, prevention, and enforcement efforts to those on the front lines. A crime is a crime whoever the victim and wherever it occurs. Crimes against seniors must 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 methods of prevention is two-pronged--through both law enforcement and social services. With offices in the Departments of Health and Human Services and Justice, this legislation ensures 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, this bill establishes research centers of excellence, and funds research projects to fuel future legislation. 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. 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 neighborhoods, to enhance long-term care staffing and to stop financial fraud before the money goes out the door. It enhances detection by creating forensic centers and developing 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 increases collaboration by requiring ongoing coordination at the federal level, among Federal, State, local and private entities, law enforcement, long-term care facilities, consumer advocates and families. 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. It helps consumers by creating a resource center for family caregivers and those trying to make decisions about 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 to live longer, what do we gain if we fail to ensure Americans live longer with dignity? More and more of us will enjoy longer life in relative health, but with this gift comes the responsibility to prevent the needless suffering too often borne by our frailest citizens. I appreciate the work of my fellow members and a wide array of groups on behalf of elder justice and look forward to continued support from both sides of the aisle and in both houses to make elder justice a reality for those Americans who need it most.

Mr. BREAUX

Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, I ask our colleagues to join me in recognizing the importance of National Burn Awareness Week, February 2 to 8. This week provides an opportunity to educate children and families about the risks that lead to unfortunate and tragic accidents. Unfortunately our most vulnerable, infants and young children, face greater risks from burn injuries than adults or older children. They rely on the adults around them to ensure their environment is safe and free from potential burn-causing hazards. That is why in addition to treating over 20 percent of all pediatric burns in the Nation at their four national burn centers in Boston, Galveston, Cincinnati, and Sacramento, Shriners Hospitals focus on education and prevention of burn injuries. The Shriners Hospitals for Children is a unique charitable organization that has never sought nor received Federal, State, local, or third-party funding of any kind. Additionally, Shriners Hospitals are distinctive in that they offer full physical, psychological, and emotional care to all the children they treat. The annual budget for the 22 orthopedic and burn hospitals totals over half a billion dollars and has an active patient roster of over 156,000 children. It is obvious how important the Shriners Hospitals are to the health of our children. The Shriners Hospitals are completely free to victims, despite the fact that they will spend $1.5 million on children every day this year. In recognition of Burn Awareness Week, I ask my colleagues to commend such charitable organizations as the Shriners Hospitals that contribute to the care, education, and research necessary to treat and work to prevent children's burn accidents.

Mr. BREAUX

Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, I am pleased to rise today to join Senator Snowe as an original cosponsor of the Harmful Algal Bloom and Hypoxia Amendments Act of 2003. The Gulf of Mexico has a serious hypoxia condition. The water flowing out of the Mississippi River Delta is loaded with nutrients, nutrients that help things grow. In the gulf, the nutrients fuel accelerated growth of algae and other plankton-like organisms. As the organisms die and descent through the water, they decompose and rob the water of dissolved oxygen. This lack of oxygen, below a level which can sustain marine life, is hypoxia and creates what we call ``the Dead Zone.'' In 1998, the ``Dead Zone'' exceeded 7,000 square miles, equivalent to the combined areas of the States of Rhode Island and Connecticut. As a Senator from the State that is on the receiving end of this unprecedented problem and as a member of the Senate Commerce Committee, Subcommittee on Oceans and Fisheries, I was very pleased to have worked with Senator Snowe on legislation that first drew national attention to hypoxia and harmful algal blooms, the Harmful Algal Bloom and Hypoxia Control Act of 1998. Among important issues, the enacted legislation required an interagency task force to develop an assessment of hypoxia in the northern Gulf of Mexico. It also required the task force to submit to Congress a plan based on the assessment for reducing, mitigating, and controlling hypoxia in the northern Gulf of Mexico. The Mississippi River/Gulf of Mexico Watershed Nutrient Task Force was given a large job, to come up with a national strategy to reduce the size and growth of the ``Dead Zone'' in the Gulf of Mexico off of the coast of Louisiana. They were charged by the Harmful Algal Bloom and Hypoxia Research and Control Act of 1998 to put this strategy in the form of an action plan that could be undertaken by the States and partner agencies at the Federal and State level that make up the task force. They succeeded on both fronts, not only delivering an action plan, but doing so by reaching consensus after a process of strenuous debate and discussion involving many stakeholders and interests. That plan was delivered to Congress in January of 2001 but has yet to be fully funded. Even so, it has been providing some significant benefits to the Mississippi River Basin and the country. As the action plan states ``the work of the Task Force has provided a basin-wide context for the continued pursuit of both incentive-based, voluntary efforts for non-point sources and existing regulatory controls for point sources.'' The task force made it clear in the action plan that efforts to reduce hypoxia in the Gulf involve cleaning up waters upstream and throughout the Mississippi River Basin, and that the benefits, economic, as well as environmental, can be achieved across the entire basin as well. Their work is providing us with a way to unify the Mississippi River Basin in terms of our common interests and resources, primary of which is the Mississippi River, probably the most important piece of infrastructure in the country. In Louisiana, we value all of the resources of that vast system, not only our productive coastal fisheries which are endangered by hypoxia, but the corn, grain, and other food sources that are shipped out through our port system. Solving the problem of the ``Dead Zone'' will require an unprecedented degree of cooperation among many States, agencies, and stakeholders. The task force is continuing to provide us with a forum and a means for expanding that cooperation. One of the prime research facilities on the hypoxia problem is taking place at the Louisiana University Marine Consortium, LUMON, in Cocodrie, LA. LUMCON has been studying the hypoxia problem in the Gulf of Mexico since 1985 under grants from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's Coastal Ocean Program. The combined efforts of the task force has become even more apparent over the past year, as the ``Dead Zone'' reached a new record size in the summer of 2002, exceeding 8,000 square miles and extending from the mouth of the Mississippi River well into the coastal waters of Texas. I believe that the Harmful Algal Bloom and Hypoxia Amendments Act of 2003 that Senator Snowe and I are introducing today will provide much needed funding and direction to continue the effort to mitigate and eventually eliminate the hypoxic problem in the Gulf of Mexico and harmful algal blooms in our Nation's waters.

Mr. BREAUX

Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, I am pleased to rise today to join Senator Snowe as an original cosponsor of the Harmful Algal Bloom and Hypoxia Amendments Act of 2003. The Gulf of Mexico has a serious hypoxia condition. The water flowing out of the Mississippi River Delta is loaded with nutrients, nutrients that help things grow. In the gulf, the nutrients fuel accelerated growth of algae and other plankton-like organisms. As the organisms die and descent through the water, they decompose and rob the water of dissolved oxygen. This lack of oxygen, below a level which can sustain marine life, is hypoxia and creates what we call ``the Dead Zone.'' In 1998, the ``Dead Zone'' exceeded 7,000 square miles, equivalent to the combined areas of the States of Rhode Island and Connecticut. As a Senator from the State that is on the receiving end of this unprecedented problem and as a member of the Senate Commerce Committee, Subcommittee on Oceans and Fisheries, I was very pleased to have worked with Senator Snowe on legislation that first drew national attention to hypoxia and harmful algal blooms, the Harmful Algal Bloom and Hypoxia Control Act of 1998. Among important issues, the enacted legislation required an interagency task force to develop an assessment of hypoxia in the northern Gulf of Mexico. It also required the task force to submit to Congress a plan based on the assessment for reducing, mitigating, and controlling hypoxia in the northern Gulf of Mexico. The Mississippi River/Gulf of Mexico Watershed Nutrient Task Force was given a large job, to come up with a national strategy to reduce the size and growth of the ``Dead Zone'' in the Gulf of Mexico off of the coast of Louisiana. They were charged by the Harmful Algal Bloom and Hypoxia Research and Control Act of 1998 to put this strategy in the form of an action plan that could be undertaken by the States and partner agencies at the Federal and State level that make up the task force. They succeeded on both fronts, not only delivering an action plan, but doing so by reaching consensus after a process of strenuous debate and discussion involving many stakeholders and interests. That plan was delivered to Congress in January of 2001 but has yet to be fully funded. Even so, it has been providing some significant benefits to the Mississippi River Basin and the country. As the action plan states ``the work of the Task Force has provided a basin-wide context for the continued pursuit of both incentive-based, voluntary efforts for non-point sources and existing regulatory controls for point sources.'' The task force made it clear in the action plan that efforts to reduce hypoxia in the Gulf involve cleaning up waters upstream and throughout the Mississippi River Basin, and that the benefits, economic, as well as environmental, can be achieved across the entire basin as well. Their work is providing us with a way to unify the Mississippi River Basin in terms of our common interests and resources, primary of which is the Mississippi River, probably the most important piece of infrastructure in the country. In Louisiana, we value all of the resources of that vast system, not only our productive coastal fisheries which are endangered by hypoxia, but the corn, grain, and other food sources that are shipped out through our port system. Solving the problem of the ``Dead Zone'' will require an unprecedented degree of cooperation among many States, agencies, and stakeholders. The task force is continuing to provide us with a forum and a means for expanding that cooperation. One of the prime research facilities on the hypoxia problem is taking place at the Louisiana University Marine Consortium, LUMON, in Cocodrie, LA. LUMCON has been studying the hypoxia problem in the Gulf of Mexico since 1985 under grants from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's Coastal Ocean Program. The combined efforts of the task force has become even more apparent over the past year, as the ``Dead Zone'' reached a new record size in the summer of 2002, exceeding 8,000 square miles and extending from the mouth of the Mississippi River well into the coastal waters of Texas. I believe that the Harmful Algal Bloom and Hypoxia Amendments Act of 2003 that Senator Snowe and I are introducing today will provide much needed funding and direction to continue the effort to mitigate and eventually eliminate the hypoxic problem in the Gulf of Mexico and harmful algal blooms in our Nation's waters.

Mr. BREAUX

Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, the Southeast Louisiana Flood Control Project is of extreme importance to me and Louisiana, so I will gladly engage in a colloquy with the junior Senator from Louisiana.

Mr. BREAUX. Louisiana annually experiences an enormous amount of rainfall. One example of this occurred in May 1995 when the New Orleans metropolitan area received more than 24 inches of rainfall in less than 24 hours. This area is particularly vulnerable to large rainfalls because the rainwater is trapped within the developed areas by the levees at the edges of the Mississippi River which were built to prevent river flooding. When complete, SELA will protect approximately 30 percent of Louisiana's population and 40 percent of Louisiana's economy. Furthermore, when complete, its average annual flood control benefits are estimated at $53.4 million.

Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, for all of these reasons, my distinguished colleague from Louisiana and I respectfully request that SELA funding for fiscal year 2003 be increased beyond the $40 million currently proposed in the omnibus bill and, further, that funding be restored to $55 million as was approved by the Senate Appropriations Committee in July.

Mr. BREAUX

Mr. BREAUX. Madam President, I rise today to pay tribute to a great humanitarian and a great American, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. This week, as our Nation honors Dr. King on what would have been his 74th birthday, we have an opportunity to reflect on his courage, his legacy, and his dream for a better and more equal America. To honor his legacy and to more fully realize Dr. King's dream, we in public service must support an agenda that reflects what is most important in the lives of all Americans, policies that emphasize economic opportunity, improved education, an enhanced healthcare system, election reform and protection of basic civil rights. First, as we commemorate the legacy of Dr. King and his dream for our Nation I would like to take an opportunity to recognize the brave contribution of the African-American community in my own state of Louisiana, men and women who have been true leaders and pioneers in our shared journey for equality, justice and human dignity for all Americans. Our country's first bus boycott, before Rosa Parks' courageous stand in Montgomery, occurred in Baton Rouge. Dr. King's national civil rights organization, the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, was inaugurated and chartered in New Orleans. And the bravery exhibited by students at Southern University was responsible for the landmark Supreme Court case that desegregated the entire interstate commerce facilities. Dr. King's dream for equality and opportunity is reflected in recent work here on the floor of this body. Last year, Congress and President Bush worked together to improve education for all students in our public schools with increases in Federal incentives for the lowest performing schools. To that end, I intend to pursue increased funding for the TRIO and GEAR UP programs, and for Historically Black Colleges and Universities, HBCUs. Congress has passed comprehensive election reform legislation to begin to correct the problems and prevent the abuses of the 2000 election that led to the disenfranchisement of African-Americans and other minorities. Our country struggles through an economic slowdown with high levels of unemployment, particularly in the African-American community. Congress has acted and passed an extension of unemployment benefits. In 1996, we changed the way welfare works to help families escape the cycle of poverty and achieve independence. This year we must reauthorize those landmark reforms, but do so with more funding for childcare, healthcare and transportation. Children should not be the victims of welfare reform, and no mother should be forced to choose between her job and the care of her child. There is much more to do. Today there are more than 40 million Americans without health insurance. As health care costs rise, we need a new approach to health care in this country, an approach that aspires to universal access for every man, woman, and child. It is also past time to engage in a sustained and serious dialogue on racial profiling with an eye toward more public education and antiprofiling legislation. Our country has come a long way in working to end the plague of discrimination and prejudice. Are things better? Yes, but they can be better still. We can do better, and we must.

Mr. BREAUX

Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, I would like to engage the distinguished Chairman of the Appropriations Committee's Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education in a brief colloquy on an issue that is very important to frail older persons and individuals with disabilities who reside in nursing homes and other long-term care facilities. My colleague should be congratulated for the additional funds that his subcommittee has provided in recent years for the Long-Term Care Ombudsman Program, under the Older Americans Act. Our colleagues, Senator Kohl, and Senator Specter, should also be recognized for their support of the ombudsman program. The Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education Appropriations bill that you introduced for Fiscal Year 2003 proposes a much needed $3 million increase to provide more ombusdmen to help address the growing quality problems in nursing homes and assisted living facilities. I would like to discuss with the chairman and my distinguished colleague and ranking minority member of the Finance Committee our strong support for this program and the National Long-Term Care Ombudsman Resource Center that so effectively serves State and local ombudsmen across the Nation.

Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, I agree with my colleague. The Center's work is critical to millions of residents of long-term care facilities and their families. I am hopeful that when we finally pass a fiscal year 2003 Labor, HHS, Education appropriations bill that we will provide appropriate support for the Center and report language that ensures the continued quality training and assistance for omsbudmen that has been so ably provided through the Center. It is my view that the Center must continue to be housed in an independent nonprofit citizens-based organization that has the improvement of care in long-term care facilities as its primary purpose. Such an organization should include long-term care ombudsmen and consumers in its governance and have a minimum of 5 years of experience on a national basis of providing long-term care ombudsmen with technical assistance, training, and information.

Mr. BREAUX

Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, I thank my distinguished chairman of the Commerce Committee for his involvement and his leadership in bringing this legislation to the floor, as well as the ranking member of the Commerce Committee, the Senator from Arizona, and everyone really who has been involved in this legislation. Suffice it to say, the conditions in the world, and in the United States in particular, have changed dramatically since the events of 9/ 11. Things we took for granted, things we did not pay a great deal of attention to, are no longer the status quo. The Commerce Committee, to the credit of the leadership of our committee and Senator Hollings, had taken up the concept of making sure our ports were more secure even before 9/11. The Commerce Committee in August of 2001, before 9/11, passed a seaport security bill by a unanimous vote. The committee was clearly on top of potential problems before 9/11. But certainly after the events of 9/11 it became clear we needed to do more even than we originally had done in the legislation. I have the privilege of chairing, under the Commerce Committee, the Subcommittee on Surface Transportation. At the suggestion of the chairman, it was determined we should have field hearings around the United States. We had field hearings in six different port cities in the country. We had hearings in the chairman's hometown of Charleston, SC, and the home of the Senator from Texas, the Port of Houston. We had hearings in the Port of New Orleans. We had hearings in Fort Lauderdale. We had hearings on the west coast. We had hearings on the gulf, Atlantic, and Pacific, to learn the conditions of the ports of the United States regarding security. We found when everyone is in charge, no one is in charge. In a number of ports, the sheriff's department was involved in security. In some ports they had port security police partially in charge. In some areas they depended totally on the U.S. Coast Guard to do all the work--which they cannot do. Some had very lax security on the perimeter, on the shore surrounding the ports. Every day, literally thousands and thousands of men and women drive trucks loaded with containers into port facilities. We need to know who they are. We need to know what their purpose in being there is. We need to know as much as we can about who comes and who exits these international ports. It is very interesting how commerce works. One container can carry as much as 60,000 pounds of whatever you want to put in it. There are ships entering our ports and laying alongside the docks containing as much as 3,000 separate containers on one ship. Each container carried as much as 60,000 pounds of whatever someone wants to put in them. The USS Cole had a small vessel pull alongside of it and blow a hole in the side of it, killing American sailors; one relatively small boat pulled right alongside the USS Cole, a military naval warship. At the same time, remember what happened in Oklahoma City. Approximately 15,000 pounds of explosives blew down the Federal Building with drastic consequences to human life and to the stability of that city, shaking the confidence of this Nation. One person with 15,000 pounds of explosives knocked down an entire Federal building. One container has 60,000 pounds of product that can be put into a ship that may have 3,000 containers. The potential for damage if a terrorist wants to target one of the ports of this country by placing explosives in one of these containers is great. We had the example of one Egyptian who took a container and practically made an apartment out of it. He got a container in the Middle East, had himself equipped with a cell phone, food, a bunk to sleep in, and literally was transported from the Middle East, through Italy, destined for Canada, and ultimately to the United States. Who knows what he was intent on doing? Again, one ship, with 3,000 containers; how do we determine what is in each container? Some of our large container vessels pull alongside our ports. We saw in Houston, in the Port of New Orleans at the hearings we held, the Port of south Louisiana, the Port of Baton Rouge--there are miles and miles of ports--some of these ports have, right alongside them, a liquefied natural gas facility. Next to the liquefied natural gas facility there could be an oil and gas refinery. Imagine the damage that could occur with one container loaded with explosives in a ship docked alongside an LNG facility, which is next to an oil and gas refinery, which may be followed by several other chemical plants. One container exploding could set off a chain reaction with a great deal of damage and a great loss of life. Some of our ports are located in urban areas. The Port of Houston, the Port of New Orleans, the Port of New York, the Port of New Jersey, the Port of Fort Lauderdale, the Port of Savannah, the Port of Charleston they are all located in urban areas. There is a grave potential for damage. The point I make is that things have changed since 9/11. A port manager was asked: How do you secure vessels pulling alongside these LNG facilities? How do you assure they know what they are doing? How do you secure the area? This individual said: Well, we have a sign posted that says ``No Trespassing.'' I doubt a person intent on blowing up a city or doing grave damage to one of our ports will be deterred by a sign that says ``No Trespassing.'' They will not pay any attention to it. The fact is we have to have people involved in security. We have to have people in a chain of command, people who know what they are doing, who is doing it, and what is the responsibility of each particular segment of law enforcement operations. This legislation will help do that. This legislation for the first time will say every port in the United States of America will have to develop a comprehensive port security plan. Some of them have plans in place now, but I don't think they are as comprehensive as they need to be, and some have almost nothing. A comprehensive port security plan under the U.S. Coast Guard, working with the local port and local law enforcement officials, can design a plan that fits a particular port. What may be necessary in the Port of Savannah may not be necessary in the Port of Houston. What is necessary in the Port of Houston may not fit in the Port of Charleston. Each port has to have a plan designed to meet the needs of that particular area. Not only do the operations along the water's edge have to be better secured, the entire facility has to be secured. As I said, we have literally thousands of incoming and outgoing trucks loaded with containers. We need to know who those people are bringing in the containers, what their purpose is. No longer can a port be a tourist attraction. No longer can someone say let's go to the port and see the ships. Unfortunately, times have changed. We need better security, better perimeter protection, better knowledge about the cargo on the ships, better knowledge of the crew on the ships. We have transponders on airplanes. We have GPS systems in automobiles. There is no reason every ship that comes into an American port will not have a GPS system on it, an identification system on it, an automatic identification signal that can transport to the port authorities where that ship is at all times--not just when it comes in, but when it actually reaches the floor, while it is in port. Senator Graham, who has been instrumental in helping pass this legislation, raised at the press conference yesterday the concern about the vessel that came in from Haiti. That vessel did not just come close to the U.S. shores, it actually landed on the beaches of Key Biscayne, FL. As Senator Graham has pointed out, instead of being a group of refugees, suppose it was a same-sized vessel, loaded with explosives, with a terrorist who was willing to commit suicide, who instead of dropping off several hundred refugees had pulled alongside one of the large buildings in the Port of Miami, or pulled alongside one of the cruise vessels loaded with passengers, and blew up his vessel and the vessels surrounding his vessel. That cannot be allowed to happen. This legislation will help the ports do the job they need to do. Unfortunately, we do not have any funding other than a grant program to the local ports. Most of the cost will have to be borne by the U.S. Coast Guard. I say to Senator Hollings and those on the Appropriations Committee, it is going to be their great task to make sure we adequately fund the Coast Guard to carry out those plans, because they are going to cost more. We have to do a better job. It is going to cost money. What about the local ports? We talked about a user fee, which I thought was a better idea, to spread the cost across society. It would be very small if we did it that way, but that's not part of this bill. There are local grants that ports can apply for, because it is going to cost to do the security they need. I am hopeful that program will be sufficient in order to allow our ports to do the work that is needed. This is a good piece of legislation. It can go a long way toward securing U.S. ports, which today are very vulnerable, which today, I would add, are potential targets. This legislation, when in place, will go a long way to providing the security of which we can all be proud. I yield the floor.

Mr. BREAUX

Mr. BREAUX. Madam President, I rise in support of H.R. 3609, the Pipeline Safety Improvement Act of 2002, which will improve the safety and security of our Nation's pipeline systems through important reforms within our Federal safety regulatory program. This idea is not new. The Senate passed this legislation in the 106th Congress, and again in February 2001 as one of the first orders of business of the 107th Congress. The Senate also passed the same language as part of the Energy Policy Act of 2002. This bill is the product of good-faith compromise over three years of work, including compromise with the House of Representatives, and I ask my colleagues to join me in its support. Both liquid and natural gas pipelines provide transportation of vital energy resources to many parts of our country. In my State, pipelines support what was recently determined to be a $92 billion oil and gas industry. Louisiana is the third leading producer of natural gas and fourth leading producer of crude oil in the country. These products must be transported to the rest of the country for consumption, and pipelines are a key part of this infrastructure. In Louisiana alone, there are over 40,000 miles of gas pipelines, some of which pass through towns, residential areas, schools, churches, and other high- consequence areas. Oil and other product pipelines also number in the thousands of miles in my State. In recent years, we have experienced at least two major pipeline accidents: one in Bellingham, WA, and the other near Carlsbad, NM. I am deeply sympathetic to the families of the victims of these tragedies. Nothing can possibly replace their losses. What we have endeavored to do here is take steps to ensure that we as a government address the risks of such accidents in the best possible manner. I think that this legislation will increase the tools available to the Secretary of Transportation to ensure that our pipeline system is as safe as possible. I would ask that the Secretary use the tools that we provide to ensure the aggressive oversight of pipeline safety practices, and involve and protect the affected communities to the greatest possible extent. Passage of this bill will help to ensure the safety and security of natural gas and hazardous liquid pipelines and will take strides to increase the safety of our network of oil and natural gas pipelines. I appreciate the considerable number of hours that went into creating this bill by all of the parties. I am also satisfied with the spirit of compromise that accompanied the parties' diligent efforts. As a result of their cooperative work we have a bill that reaffirms our efforts to regulate gas and hazardous liquid pipelines safety and effectively without interfering with the pipeline gas and hazardous liquid pipelines safely and effectively without interfering with the pipeline operators' and owners' ability to provide service to our Nation and without compromising national security. While there were many who worked arduously to ensure passage of legislation in this area, Senator Murray, Senator Bingaman, and Senator McCain should be recognized for their important contributions. Senator Murray vigorously pursued changes to increase the level of safety and public participation in pipeline safety, and she worked closely with other Commerce Committee members to ensure a reasonable and fair compromise. Senator Bingaman was instrumental in helping bolster the bill's provisions on research and development. We also added provisions he authored to focus our research on progressive areas that will help us develop better systems of early detection, and to ensure that we can avoid accidents such as those that occurred in Bellingham, WA, and near Carlsbad, NM. Senator McCain is to be recognized for his continuing efforts to get this legislation passed. He first initiated this effort years ago as Chairman of the Committee. Last, I would like to thank the efforts of my dedicated staff and all those staff members who helped reach this agreement. Clearly, this measure is a compromise, and as such, not every group got exactly what they wanted, but this measure will advance the programs and system regulating the safety of our pipeline system. It will require our regulators to finalize a number of overdue regulations. The bill also updates the penalties that would be levied for misconduct and provides whistle blower protection for employees who reveal misconduct. Further, the bill helps us focus on long-term research needs so as to make our future pipeline system even safer. Investment today in research will help us be more efficient and effective in providing a safer and more secure system. While I was for the most part pleased with the final product that we negotiated in this bill, I was concerned that we did not include provisions that would have outlined what sort of pipeline safety information should be made available to the public. Concerns were raised that public disclosure of certain pipeline safety information could jeopardize security. We need to take a look at how we get safety information to the people who need it, but protect that information from those who wish to do harm if it is security-sensitive. Overall, this is good legislation. It will improve the safety of our pipelines and communities through which pipelines run, and I urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. BREAUX

Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, I think the Senator is right on target. We have two differences of opinion about how to approach this matter, and there is not a dime's worth of difference between the two. The easiest way to figure out how to reach a legitimate compromise is to vote cloture, and then we can negotiate what is the proper approach to this legislation. If you read both offerings in this particular area, we will give the President essentially the authority to take away collective bargaining rights of American workers if they are related to national security or threats of national security. We also basically give him the authority to make management changes. I will address this quickly. If you are going to make management changes, do you want the people whose jobs are being changed to be involved in that decision or do you want to take away their collective bargaining rights, one, and tell them arbitrarily what they are going to have to do? What type of a worker are you going to have if you take that away and then not even let them talk about what their duties are going to be. You are going to have a very reluctant workforce, which is not in the interest of this country from a homeland security standpoint. We have suggested models after the IRS, which say let them come in and negotiate, talk, and find out what their duties are going to be. If you cannot agree, we suggested turning it over to a Federal board that the President appoints to resolve the conflict and let them make the decision. At least the workers will have an opportunity to be heard. I don't think that is asking too much when you have taken away all of their collective bargaining rights. This thing can be resolved. We are going to continue our meetings this afternoon. We have taken 3, 4 weeks already and have not made a lot of headway. Perhaps we ought to appoint a Federal negotiating board to handle the Senate, and maybe we can resolve it that way because, obviously, right now we are not making progress. But we are going to continue our efforts. I yield the floor.

Mr. BREAUX

Mr. BREAUX. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. BREAUX. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. BREAUX. I think it is very clear it is a supplement to the existing language in section 7103. If you read our amendment it says that: No agency or subdivision of an agency which is transferred to the Department pursuant to this Act shall be excluded from the coverage of chapter 71 of title 5, United States Code, as a result of any order issued under section 7103(b)(1). Section 7103(b)(1) is the existing language setting out what the President has to do. Ours is added to that. So it doesn't replace the original 7103(b)(1). That is still intact. This is a supplement to that and is to be read in connection with both of them together. The President makes that determination and it is his decision. It is like a teacher giving a test and the teacher is grading the test. The President in this case is the teacher and he grades his own test. He makes that determination and they are both to be read together, so national security is still a part of it.

Mr. BREAUX. Will the Senator yield for a response to that?

Mr. BREAUX. The answer is yes. But I would also say, the point you made earlier, if you have the same agency today that, somehow, because things have changed in this country, is in fact moved to a different location, they are doing the same type of work, but instead of doing it with regard to domestic security they are doing it because of an outside threat by terrorists, for instance, that mission has substantially changed. Their mission is no longer to stop, perhaps, Mexicans from crossing the U.S. border into Texas. Their mission is now to stop terrorists from entering the United States. That mission has substantially changed. That meets the test. Who gives the test? The President. Who grades the test? The President. So that mission has changed if the enemy has changed. That is very clear. It is a decision the President would make.