John Breaux

Mr. BREAUX

Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions be authorized to meet for a hearing on Early Learning: Investing In Our Children, Investing In Our Future, during the session of the Senate on Thursday, January 24, 2002, 9:45 a.m.

Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Environment and Public Works be authorized to meet on Thursday, January 24, 2002, at 2:30 p.m., to hear from the following nominees pending before the committee: Linda Morrison Combs to be Chief Financial Officer of the Environmental Protection Agency; J. Paul Gilman to be Assistant Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency; and Morris X. Winn to be Assistant Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency. The hearing will be held in SD-406.

Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation be authorized to meet on Thursday, January 24, 2002, at 9 a.m., on the nomination of Dr. James Mahoney to be Assistant Secretary for Oceans and Atmosphere and Deputy Administrator for the National Oceanic and Atmosphere Administration.

Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation be authorized to meet on Thursday, January 24, 2002, at 9:30 on national security, safety, technology and employment implications of increasing the cafe standards.

Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Environment and Public Works be authorized to meet on Thursday, January 24, 2002, at 9:30 a.m., to conduct a hearing entitled, ``Partner's for America's Transportation Future.'' The hearing will focus on the lessons learned from TEA-21 and perspectives on reauthorization from the Federal, State and local level. The hearing will be held in SD-406.

Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet to conduct a hearing on ``Judicial Nominations'' on Thursday, January 24, 2002, at 2 p.m., in Dirksen Room 226. Tentative Witness List Panel I: The Honorable Charles E. Grassley; the Honorable Tom D. Harkin; the Honorable John B. Breaux; the Honorable Ben Nighthorse Campbell; the Honorable Jon Kyl; the Honorable Wayne Allard; the Honorable Mary L. Landrieu; and the Honorable Eleanor Holmes Norton. Panel II: Michael Melloy to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. Panel III: Robert Blackburn to be U.S. District Court Judge for the District of Colorado; James Gritzner to be U.S. District Court Judge for the Southern District of Iowa; Cindy Jorgenson to be U.S. District Court Judge for the District of Arizona; Richard Leon to be U.S. District Court Judge for the District of Columbia; and Jay Zainey to be U.S. District Court Judge for the Eastern District of Louisiana.

Mr. BREAUX

Mr. BREAUX. I thank the Chair for recognizing me for a moment or two. I will use a few minutes to talk about where we are on the question of economic stimulus. It is appropriate to say where we are is where we have been. The phrase ``been there, done that'' comes to mind, and I think it is very appropriate. When we left for the holidays, the recess that we enjoyed back home with our families, we left the Senate in a situation where neither side had a sufficient number of votes to move on something that was significantly important to the American people. It is clear we as a nation are in difficult economic times. I imagine people back home wonder whether Congress is going to do anything about it. I wonder whether sometimes we have the capacity to do anything about it because of the situation we find ourselves in. It is interesting and important to point out that neither side has the ability to do whatever they want. We as Democrats do not control the White House. We as Democrats do not control the House of Representatives. We as Democrats do not have the 60 votes in this body in order to accomplish things that we might like to do if the other side insists on filibustering that effort. On the other side of the coin, it is also important to note that the Republicans do not have the ability either to do whatever they want in these areas. They, too, do not have 60 votes to push through what they think is an appropriate remedy to the economic conditions we find ourselves in. It is, therefore, obvious, in order to get anything done we will have to reach some type of a middle ground or an agreement that takes the best of both parties and puts them together in a package that might do something on a positive note for the American people who are suffering a great deal because of the downturn in the economy. It is true that the two parties have fundamentally different approaches on how to assess this. I have tried to compare it to the question of people who make widgets and people who buy widgets. It seems appropriate to point out that the other side tends to say if we are going to get this economy going, we will have to help the people who make the widgets. We will have to help the businesses that produce the products because they are not producing at full capacity. We will have to help the companies that make the widgets. We have to help them with bonus depreciation, and we have to help them with net operating loss carrybacks. Those are some of the ideas we have talked about. We will help them with alternative minimum tax and remove that burden so that these companies can make more widgets. On the other hand, on my side of the aisle, we tend to concentrate on those who buy the widgets and say it doesn't matter how many companies make how many widgets. If you don't have individuals able to buy the widgets, they are not going to be able to sell the widgets. Therefore, it is important for economic recovery to do something for those actually trying to buy the products who find themselves in an economic situation of not being able to do so. We said, all right, we have a lot of people unemployed and we have to help them with unemployment insurance, to give them a longer period to try to find a job. We will help those people who are without health insurance because they cannot be productive citizens if they do not have health insurance for their children and families. We want to do that. We also want to help the most unfortunate among us by making sure we give them some benefits because they did not receive those benefits during the last tax cut. We do that by providing $14 billion worth of rebates in terms of direct grants to those individuals. That is where we were when we left. That was the Democratic position and that was the Republican position. Neither side had 60 votes. We come back after the recess and we are right back where we were: Been there, done that. We can continue to do that and face each other off and blame the Republicans for failure because they don't agree with us and listen to our Republican colleagues blame us for failure because we don't agree with them. They think they are right and we think we are right. But outside the beltway and outside Washington I imagine there are an awful lot of people who are scratching their heads and saying: Look, these are grownups that we send to Washington and the job that we send them to do is to make government work for those who are not in government. Unfortunately, what they see is that in too many cases, we cannot simply compromise to the point of agreeing and getting something done. Last year, Democrats filibustered the economic stimulus bill. Republicans filibustered the farm bill. Neither side was able to accomplish anything in these two important areas. We can continue to do that. We can continue to take the position that we want to help the people that buy the widgets, and we are not going to move. And our Republican colleagues can say, we will continue to try to help the widget manufacturers, and we will not compromise. We can continue to make the arguments and continue to blame each other for failure. But the end result is the people that need the help do not get the help they need. I commend very strongly the majority leader, Senator Daschle, who has said, I will not continue in that vein. I want to break this logjam. I want to end this gridlock. What I am willing to do is to give up some things that those who want to take care of the widget buyers are really interested in, like health insurance for unemployed people--a very big issue and one to which I think there is an answer. I am willing to step aside and give that up in order to get this process moving. But the other side will have to also give a little in order to get a package that can pass this body. Senator Daschle has said: Enough of business as usual. Let's make the first important step toward getting something done that can, in fact, help the people we intend to help. He has suggested that we have extended unemployment insurance. That is important. We don't know how long people are going to be unemployed. It is obvious Congress will have to address this. He does it in his proposal. And I add, the other side has agreed on that. He says we will give some additional help to people who did not get much help the last time, and has proposed $14 billion in rebate checks. The other side has said they could support that. They said that before we left for the recess. Some people say you are trying to help people who do not pay taxes. Those people may not pay income taxes, but they certainly pay payroll taxes. I am not sure if one tax is less painful than the other. If you are paying taxes, you are paying taxes. Therefore, we ought to help those people who are paying taxes. The rebate proposal is a common idea to which both sides have essentially agreed. We said we are going to help States. The Senator from Texas was pointing out that Texas is in bad shape, as well as some of the other States. But States have different problems and additional problems. We can, in fact, operate at a manageable deficit on the Federal level, which I do not have problems with. We are in a position to help States. The concept was to say, all right, we are going help States with Medicaid by giving them a little bit more of a Federal share to help pay for the health care of indigent people who need the greatest amount of health care of all. I think the proposal says we are going to give a 1.5-percent increase in the amount of Federal money paid for the purpose of helping Medicare. That would allow States to do a better job in helping people who are sick and poor, and also perhaps give them some additional money from the Federal share which they could use for other priorities within the State. That is something that has been sort of a common idea that both sides have said in the past they could support. Another thing in the Daschle proposal is something to help the widget manufacturers. I had dinner last night with a group of high-tech chief executive officers, who are some of the best and brightest in the country. Every one of them said: If you could do something on bonus depreciation to help us buy new equipment this year to help us expand or grow our businesses, that would be very important. These are the top people in their industries. Telecommunications and computer manufacturing are American companies. They said that bonus depreciation would be very important for them. I think the House said they are going to do a bonus depreciation bill for 3 years. The Senate said 1 year. Is there not a number in between 1 and 3 on which we could probably agree? Of course, I think that is an important ingredient. Some of my colleagues on this side said if you add it up--it is like the score for a football game. If you have three things the Democrats like and only one thing the Republicans like, that is not really fair. The bonus depreciation is part of the $69 billion. The 1-year package is about $42 billion. One item that Republicans like--I like it, too--was the most expensive by far of the four. It is $42 billion for bonus depreciation with a 40-percent accelerated bonus depreciation for 6 months and 20 percent for the second 6 months. It averages out to 30 percent. There is some flexibility. I think the majority leader indicated this is something which is a good concept for the widget manufacturers and for business and people who produce products in this country. As has been referred to, we have a centrist plan. I plead guilty to being a part of that effort and will continue to do so because I think it brings together centrists in both parties to try to break the logjams in which we find ourselves far too often. We had a plan that addressed health care needs. It is not in here. I wish it were. I think we suggested it in terms of a tax credit for unemployed people without health care insurance. It is an incredibly positive thing that Democrats should embrace and run with. It is something that will eventually happen at some point. Some said: Your plan only said the Federal Government was going to pay for 60 percent of the cost of premiums for unemployed workers' health insurance. That means the poor worker would have to pay 40 percent of the cost of his premium, and they probably can't afford that. Let us think of what the current situation is. Right now, unemployed people who lost their jobs can continue their health insurance, but it is at their own expense--100 percent. You have to pay 100 percent of the cost of the premium. For the very first time, we were saying the Government should pay 60 percent of the cost of that premium. That is 100 percent more than they pay now. I think it is a movement in the right direction. I think it has merit. I think it should apply to people who do not have a job and can't afford health insurance, whether or not they are a so-called COBRA-covered person who had health insurance at their previous job. It is another subject, but I think we ought to have mandatory health insurance in this country. It is the best way to help solve the problem. That is something about which we as centrists felt very strongly. That is not in here. But am I going to say, because it is not in here, I will not support this package? Of course, not. Let me move towards concluding my remarks by saying what Senator Daschle has done is create a strategy and a process that will allow us to get to the next step. We can continue to stop everything we do and continue to not let anything else come up the rest of the year until we craft a package in the Senate to which 100 percent of the people can agree. If we take that approach, we will not get anything done, not only on the stimulus package, but we don't do anything else in the year. We don't do an agriculture bill or anything else important, such as an energy bill, or any other high-priority item. It is absolutely critical that leaders are able to say we are going to make some moves here. We want to make this Senate function as it should. I think what Senator Daschle said was, I am going to offer a streamlined package. We give up a lot of things that we would like to see in it. The other side will have to give up a lot of things they would like to have in this bill. But let us at least get this package through the Senate, take the common ideas and pass it, and do it today, tomorrow, but do it, and quickly, in order for us to get to a conference with our colleagues in the other body. That will be a very difficult conference because their bill is far different from ours. It is far different in emphasis. It is far different in costs. It is far different in whom it attempts to help and how it attempts to help them. But we have to get to conference if we have any hope of reaching a conference agreement. This strategy allows us to do that. I would say to the conferees that it doesn't do them any good if we get to that point and bring it back to the House or the Senate with things in it that are not going to be adopted. I will take half an apple rather than no apple at all. I think if you can't get everything you want, you get as much as you can in an agreement and then save the rest for a later date. But last year we got nothing. The people who were unemployed last year still do not have health insurance. They still have not received any rebate help or assistance from the Federal Government. They still have not received any health insurance or extended unemployment insurance benefits. What they got was an argument. As I said before, you can't take an argument to the grocery store and buy food. They do not accept that. You can't walk into a store and say: I need to buy groceries for my family this week, and, by the way, I will pay for it with the promise that Congress will do something to help me in the future. It doesn't work that way. We actually have to get something done. Arguments don't buy food. Blame does not buy groceries. It is incumbent upon us to try to reach an agreement with which we can get to conference and let the conference work its will. I urge all of those who say we have to have it just like I like it or we are not going to have it at all--that approach on both sides of the aisle does not help the people we were elected to help. I think they are sort of getting wise to the ways of Washington. I want to change their thinking. I want to give them the encouragement to say Congress can at times work out difficult problems with positive solutions, with both parties reaching out to each other, recognizing that we have to give a little in order to get a lot. Senator Daschle's proposal in fact does that. It is a good proposal. It is not the final proposal. It is not the final answer to this difficult problem of economic stimulus. But at least let us move one step down the line in order to try to reach an agreement that can actually be something everybody can be proud of, and, even more importantly, get the job done for those who need the help. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BREAUX

Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President and colleagues, while we are waiting some other colleagues to return to this Chamber to negotiate, I would like to make just a short comment on the economic stimulus package. I would imagine that right now the political pundits of Washington, and really the political pundits all around the country, are already sharpening their pencils, and the editorial writers are already banging away on their typewriters, as well as the political consultants and all the special-interest groups are preparing, already, their attack ads to blame someone for the failure of this Congress to complete and pass an economic stimulus package. Over the next several days, and possibly even over the next several weeks, we are going to hear some say: Well, it is Tom Daschle's fault that we do not have an economic stimulus package because he did not bring the package to the Senate floor. We will also hear that, no, it is the Republican leader's fault because they only supported a package that helped the rich special interests. Or perhaps we will hear that, no, it is the fault of the President of the United States for not providing the leadership to bring both sides together. The blame game has now begun. I have noticed the papers already this morning. The Wall Street Journal said: The White House and congressional leaders fail to reach a compromise and now turn their efforts instead to casting blame for its failure. The front page of the Washington Post this morning said: Yesterday, as both sides began engaging in a furious legislative end game designed to assign blame to the other party for failure . . . The front page of the New York Times said the same thing, in essence. They said: The Bush administration, along with others, turned instead to partisan finger pointing over who was to blame for the impasse. So, my colleagues and folks around the country, the blame game has already begun. But one thing is very certain, and that is Americans cannot go to the grocery store and buy bread and buy milk with blame. It does not work. When Congress fails to act, it is not our political parties that are hurt but the people we represent are truly the ones who are hurt. Unfortunately, our political parties sometimes believe that they are actually helped when nothing is done so that they can blame the other side for failure and perhaps pick up a few congressional seats or perhaps even take over the White House. Perhaps we, as members of the centrist coalition, should have gotten involved sooner. Maybe we should have offered our congressional proposal, blending the best ideas from both sides, earlier than we did. It might have helped. Perhaps the White House should have become engaged earlier than they did. Maybe they should have been stronger in telling both sides to work together for an agreement. Perhaps, perhaps, maybe, maybe, might have, might have, but in the end our biggest enemy was time. There simply was not sufficient time remaining to take up an extremely complicated package, only passed late last night by the House of Representatives, and to try to explain it sufficiently to colleagues in the Senate in order for people to take a rational vote on that legislation. To those who try to blame Leader Tom Daschle, I say, baloney. I was there. I worked hard for an agreement. But we did not in the end--and we do not now--have the votes to pass such a package in the Senate. I know that. We all know that. And it serves no one to bring up, in the last few hours, a very complicated package only for political purposes when we know the votes are not there. The good news is that we came very close and can use the progress that we made in these negotiations to pass a package when we return in January. Both sides moved. We moved on taxes. We moved on health coverage. But only if we allow the outside forces to poison the wells so badly that we cannot negotiate will we not be able to reach an agreement. Both sides must realize in a divided government we must compromise or nothing will get done. Businesses will get no relief or incentives to grow. Individuals will get no stimulus checks. Unless we come together and reach an agreement, businesses will get no relief. They will get no incentives to grow. Individuals, on the other hand, will get no stimulus checks. They will get no extended unemployment compensation. They will get no Federal assistance to buy their health insurance. For the first time in this country's history, we had the Federal Government paying for over one-half of an unemployed worker's health insurance. Now they must pay 100 percent. We came close. The special interests in both our Democratic Party and our Republican Party must realize that in representing their constituents, they need to be flexible. They cannot insist that those of us who care about them be forced into a ``we want it all or nothing'' situation. In that case, the ``all or nothing'' situation produces nothing. Is ``nothing'' what they want for the people they represent? Can they tell the workers, over the holidays, that not getting $14 billion in stimulus checks and not getting $18 billion in unemployment money and not getting $21 billion more in health assistance was the right thing for them because there were other provisions that would not directly help them that was also part of the package? Can business lobbyists say they are better off with no accelerated depreciation because they wanted it for 3 years? Or are they really better off with no AMT relief because they wanted a permanent repeal instead of only a partial repeal? Is it not better to reach an agreement that you can get 70 percent of what you want and then fight for the remainder in the future? Neither Medicare nor Social Security started out providing everything they provide today. Government is a gradual thing, and that is not bad. It is what American Government does best. We evolve. We cannot be stagnant. More and more Americans look at Washington and wonder why it does not work as it should. Why do grown men and women fight and argue when solutions need to be reached? Especially is this true as a feeling among younger voters. Let me conclude by pointing out that in the height of the Presidential election squabble in Florida, the Gallup organization asked Americans at that time, in a national poll, about their political affiliation. Shockingly, for some Americans, the poll came back and said that 42 percent of Americans identified themselves as Independents. That was more than who identified themselves as either Democrats or Republicans. There is a message there: Americans do not want blame as a theme song for their Government. They want results. They want results that help them, and they do not particularly care who produces it. I hope we can all learn from this experience. The greater challenges ahead can be solved only by working for the greater good. We can only do that by working together in order to achieve it. I yield the floor. Mr. MILLER addressed the Chair.

Mr. BREAUX

Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, as many of my colleagues might know, my State of Louisiana depends heavily on maritime trade and transportation. After all, Louisiana is darn near close to being underwater, so I always have had an affinity for things that float. Louisiana is fortunate to have the Mississippi River, along which barges haul grain, wheat and corn from the heartland of America, and coal from Wyoming. Our fortune extends to the fisheries resources of the Gulf of Mexico and our oil and gas resources in the outer continental shelf. We have invested in maritime-related oil and gas technologies to make that exploration as safe as possible. The Port of New Orleans, Lake Charles, and South Louisiana--as well as the other Louisiana ports--are major seaports handling containerized bulk and breakbulk cargoes, as well as passengers. The shipbuilding and repair industries employ thousands, as does the marine construction and dredging industry. My constituents live close to waterways and the the Gulf of Mexico, and in many cases earn their living from our marine transportation system and its associated industries. So, as the Chairman of the Surface Transportation and Merchant Subcommittee--and as a resident of a State that relies so much on the smooth operation of its waterways and ports--maritime security is one of my primary concerns. The security of our commercial sea and river ports has rarely been the focus of our national security plans. We have invested millions of dollars to protect our airports and our land borders, but very little toward making sure that the goods and people arriving at our ports do not jeopardize our security. We know that Osama bin Laden controls a network of ships that hides his ownership. We have to assume that other terrorists and terrorist networks do, too. Therefore it is imperative that we take a more active Federal role in protecting the international boundaries of our seaports. There is no unified Federal plan for overseeing security at the international borders of our sea ports. Right now the responsibility of building secure sea and river ports rests with states like Louisiana, its port authorities, and the private sector. That was a poor model for national security when we were fighting drugs and international smuggling--and it is totally inadequate after September 11 as we face the threat of terrorism. That is why we must pass S. 1214, the Port and Maritime Security Act. For the first time we will require Federal approval of port security programs. These plans will have to meet rigorous standards for security infrastructure, screening equipment, evacuation plans, access controls, and background checks for workers in security-sensitive areas. We also will require more information about the cargo and passengers arriving at our ports. Right now we do not know enough about the ships and the cargo that call 24 hours a day. We need to change that immediately. We will require that ships electronically transmit their cargo manifests--and if the manifest does not match the cargo, it will not be unloaded. We also will check crew and passenger manifest information to identify people who could pose a security threat. My Subcommittee held a hearing on rail and maritime security in the aftermath of the events of September 11. At that hearing we heard testimony that the Republic of Panama had issued more than one thousand false documents that allow unauthorized personnel to operate on-board their vessels. More information--and more reliable information--is the key to fighting crime and terrorism. The more we know about these ships, including who owns them and where they have been, the better we can target our law enforcement resources at our ports to check on the most suspicious loads. We need to know who is on these ships, and, eventually, be able to quickly check the names with a computer database of known terrorists or other associates of international criminal organizations. This bill will require Federal, State and local law enforcement officials to better coordinate the sharing of that information. If a local police officer arrests someone for breaking into a secure area of the port, timely sharing of that information with State and Federal officials might help identify the person as part of a larger international network. It is critical that Customs agents work with the local police, that the State police work with Immigration officials, and that the FBI work with local port authorities. That type of cooperation will dramatically improve port security. Seaports have many different agencies and jurisdictions. So this bill attempts to harmonize their efforts, and will require the Coast Guard, in their role as Captain of the Port, to lead the coordination of law enforcement. The businesses that operate in seaports also play a crucial security role. They must be brought into a cooperative environment in which a port's law enforcement information is communicated and shared confidentially with privately-hired security officers. In return, private security officers must have a direct line to share information with Federal, State, and local authorities. To verify that the cargo loads match the manifests, we will need more Customs officials to check that cargo. Incredibly, only 2 percent of the cargo containers arriving at our ports are ever checked by Customs officials. That is a huge hole in our national security system that must be fixed. We seek to close this security hole by directly granting and authorizing more than $168 million for the purchase of non- intrusive screening and detection equipment to be used by U.S. Customs officers. These Customs officers are on the front lines of protecting our country from the importation of illegal and dangerous goods. We must give them the latest technology and the most modern cargo screening equipment available. We also must help the private sector and the port authorities meet these national security challenges. This problem would be must more simple to solve it the United States had national seaports under the control of the Federal Government--or if the Federal Government directly funded seaport infrastructure. However, that is not the case. Maritime infrastructure is owned by States and by the private sector. But the Federal Government has a role to play here for homeland security. We cannot force States and the private sector to comply with security mandates, yet not provide funding. The legislation will directly fund and authorize $390 million in grants to local port security projects. The bill also will fund loan guarantees that could cover as much as $3.3 billion in long term loans to port authorities acting to improve their security infrastructure. Upgrading that infrastructure means installing modern gates and fencing, security- related lighting systems, remote surveillance systems, concealed video systems, and other security equipment that contributes to the overall level of security at our ports and waterfront facilities. Some of our shipping companies may worry that these new procedures requiring more security and customs checks will slow the flow of international commerce. But as we did in the airline security bill, we can strike the balance between increased security and the convenience of our open country and economy. In Louisiana, our sea and river ports are a way of life, and an integral part of our economy. We have some of the largest seaports in America, and the Mississippi River runs through the heart of Louisiana. The river is a super-highway of commerce that helps drive our State's economy. Security and the protection of our people from harm always will be our primary goal. However, we must do it in a way that does not dramatically slow the movement of goods that run our just-in-time- delivery economy. The answer to that problem is technology. New scanners are now on the market that can x-ray and scan an entire 48-foot cargo container. Customs currently depends primarily on gamma- ray systems that are adequate for seeing through small vehicles or loosely-packed crates. But more powerful X-ray based machines--already used in Israel, the Netherlands, and Hong Kong--can pierce several inches of steel and peer through more densely packed boxes. These machines can see everything from false compartments down to the buttons on a remote control. And they can be programmed to spot ``density signatures'' that indicate explosive and nuclear materials. The more the Federal Government, ports and the private sector invest in using this new scanning technology, the fewer cargo containers and boxes will have to be opened and searched by hand. That will increase the efficiency of international commerce and trade--while at the same time making our nation more secure. Investing in scanners is even more critical when you consider that the expanding global economy raises the volume of seaborne shipping by 7 to 10 percent each year. In other words, the amount of goods arriving and departing through our seaports is expected to double by 2020. While that increased trade will benefit our economy, it also poses a national security threat if we are unable to keep pace with the growing volume of goods and people passing through our ports. That is why the private sector must get behind our efforts--and behind this bill. Before September 11, port security was something of an afterthought. We are now facing new threats. The more we invest in the infrastructure of making our ports secure, the less likely that your key products and supplies will be delayed at the ports due to increased security. As public officials, our primary duty is to protect public safety and national security. If the private sector engages and cooperates with our efforts, there will be less impact from that tightened security upon the free flow of goods and supplies through our major seaports. That is a public-private partnership that can work--and protect America at the same time. We have made the investments at our airports and at our land borders to counter threats of terrorism and other international criminal organizations. It is now time to invest in the security of the international borders at our seaports, in order to protect our nation and our local seaport communities.

Mr. BREAUX

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

Mr. BREAUX

Mr. BREAUX. Madam President, I yield to the Senator from Pennsylvania.

Mr. BREAUX

Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the amendment related to the sugar program. That has become sort of a biannual exercise, where we must come to the floor and defend a program that has really worked in favor of not only the American producer but also the consumer of sugar products. I don't know how many Members of Congress, the mail situation being what it is, have had a lot of people writing and telling us: You have to do something about this terrible sugar program because the price of sugar is so high that I can't afford to buy sugar to sweeten my tea or to use on the food in my home. The fact is that the program has worked very well for both the producer of the product and also for the consumers of the products. It is a program that has a great deal of history. Since about 1985, the sugar program has had a loan much as the other commodities have had. The loan has been about 18 cents a pound for cane sugar producers. That has been the loan level for a number of years--for about 15 years now. It has allowed the American sugar producer to survive. Very simply, the program works. If the market that exists for sugar is above the loan level, our producers are able to sell it for whatever they can get above the 18 cents level. If the price falls below the 18 cents level for sugarcane, then the Government will provide, in the form of a loan, that amount per pound to the American sugar producer. That allows them to stay in business. The good news is, unlike some of the other commodities, our Government can help guarantee there will be a minimum price, trying to control the imports that come into this country. Some would argue that we should have free trade and they should be able to sell into this country anything they want anytime they want. The reality of the situation is that most countries--over 100-some countries in the world that try to sell sugar in this country--take care of their own domestic needs, and then they dump the rest into the U.S. market for any price they want. They don't care whether they get 18 cents, or 5 cents, or 8 cents for it; they just want to get rid of it. They attempt to dump whatever they don't need into the U.S. market, which, obviously, if we didn't have a program, would be allowed to destroy the industry in this country completely. So the farm bill--it is a good package, and I thank the folks who have worked in committee to put it together--will continue that type of program, at no cost to the American taxpayer, which I think is unique in itself as far as this commodity is concerned. It is a good program, and it has worked. This is really interesting, and I will use one chart. When people look at whether the price of sugar is going up--well, the price to the people who produce it is going down. Since 1996--these are producer prices, the people out in the field. Since 1996, the producer wholesale price level for sugar has gone down 23.4 percent. That is since 1996. So when people argue that somehow producers are getting rich off the program, the reality is that the price, according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, has gone down 23.4 percent over the last 5 years for the people who actually produce the product. If anybody has a complaint about the price of sugar--and what I mentioned in my opening comments is that we don't have people marching on Washington, or making phone calls, or writing letters saying the price of sugar is too expensive. Nobody is complaining about it. If you look at the facts, the products that have increased in price and some of the products you should go after are the candy industry, cereal, cookies and cakes, bakery products, and ice cream. Those products have gone up substantially higher over these years than the wholesale refined sugar price. Retail sugar increased only 5.8 percent; that is all. So the housewife, or the person buying groceries for the family, has not noticed an inordinate increase in the price of sugar at all. It is in keeping with the cost of other inflationary price increases we have seen, or even more than the regular increases. But there have been increases in products that use sugar. If there is a complaint, we ought to look at them. The wholesale price at which they buy the sugar has gone down 23 percent, but their price at the retail level has increased by as much as 21.4 percent in the case of ice cream and 14 percent in bakery products. We have a program that has worked well. We have a loan program that sets a price that has been 18 cents since about 1985. It is a good program, and it operates at no cost to the taxpayer. It keeps beet farmers and sugarcane farmers in business. In Louisiana, all of our cane farmers are small family farmers; they are not large. They work hard every day. The only thing they need is a little bit of assistance that we provide in this program, at no cost to the taxpayer. To change something that has worked would be the wrong policy. I strongly urge that we defeat the Gregg amendment to this important piece of legislation. I yield the floor.

Mr. BREAUX

Mr. BREAUX. Madam President, along with Mr. Kerry, Chairman of the Oceans, Atmosphere and Fisheries Subcommittee, and Mr. Hollings, Chairman of the Commerce Committee, I rise today in support of the Port Threat and Security Act of 2001. I believe this legislation will help United States' authorities identify and counteract maritime threats from terrorist actions. Importantly, these provisions are designed in part to protect U.S. citizens and property from terrorist attacks before they reach our shores. As Chairman of the Surface Transportation and Merchant Marine Subcommittee, I held several oversight hearings on transportation security, including one on maritime security three weeks after the terrible attacks of September 11. The maritime security hearing solidified an opinion that I, and others on the Commerce Committee, had long held, the need for increased maritime security was important before September 11, and is absolutely crucial following the terrorist attacks on New York city and Washington, D.C. The Oceans, Atmosphere and Fisheries Subcommittee, of which I am a member, followed with another hearing that underscored this message. Luckily, because of the foresight of Chairman Hollings, we had a head start on improving maritime security. S. 1214, the Maritime and Port Security Improvement Act, of which I am a proud cosponsor, was introduced in July and was reported out of the Committee in August. S. 1214 establishes a regime that will go a long way towards creating a safe and secure maritime transportation system. However, since much of it was crafted before September 11, it is only natural that additional measures are needed to ensure that our maritime system is as safe as possible. The bill we are introducing today is based on the testimony that was presented at the hearings before the Commerce Committee in the first two weeks of October. Administration and industry witnesses testified on the need to improve certain areas of S. 1214. This bill intends to fill the gaps identified by our witnesses. We will work with Committee members to ensure these provisions are included in S. 1214 before the Senate sends it to the House. A constant theme following the September 11 attacks has been the need for better information. Testimony at our hearings confirmed this theme in the maritime realm, we need to increase our information collection capabilities immediately and we need to hold our trading partners to the same standards to which we hold our maritime industry. This legislation requires the identification of nations that have inherently insecure or unsafe vessel registration procedures that can pose threats to our national security. It requires the Secretary of Transportation and Secretary of State to prepare an annual report for the Congress that would list those nations whose vessels the Coast Guard has found don't play by our rules. For example, investigations by the Department of Transportation reveal that it is common practice for vessels to possess false, partial, or fraudulent information concerning cargo manifests, crew identity, or registration of the vessel. This legislation will allow us to get a handle on these practices by identifying the most egregious violators of maritime law. However, the additional information collection required by this bill is just a start; the bill also requires the Administration to recommend to this Committee additional actions that can be taken, either domestically or through international organizations such as the International Maritime Organization, that will increase the transparency of vessel registration procedures. One of the responses following the highjackings has been to dramatically expand the air marshal program on air carriers, a step which I fully support. However, there is no similar program for maritime vessels in U.S. waters. The Coast Guard recently established a sea marshal program in the port of San Francisco where armed personnel accompany maritime pilots aboard vessels that cause security concerns. This legislation expands that small project into a national sea marshal program to help prevent terrorists from using maritime vessels as weapons of mass destruction. This legislation directs the Secretary to analyze vulnerability of ports and place sea marshals in ports that handle materials or vessels that make them potential targets of attack. Expansion of the sea marshal program is strongly supported by our Nation's sea pilots. Many people do not know that almost all maritime vessels that enter U.S. ports are accompanied by a U.S. sea pilot that has intimate knowledge of port and navigational channels, a living nautical chart, so to speak. They are an integral part of our maritime system that help to keep our ports and waterways safe. Pilots are often the first U.S. citizen to board inbound foreign vessels and may be the only U.S. citizens on vessels bound for U.S. ports; thus, they can be a valuable source of information. This legislation requires the Secretary of Transportation to use them more effectively in the war on terror. The Secretary is directed to investigate secure and reliable methods in which sea pilots can aid the Coast Guard and other U.S. authorities in an expanded maritime domain awareness program. The pilots themselves came forward to this Committee suggesting this idea, and I think it is critical that these pilots be provided with methods and equipment that will allow them to safely provide the authorities with information on illegal or terrorist activities while there is still time to prevent a catastrophe. One such example is the Vessel Traffic System, VTS, in the Port of New Orleans and the excellent partnership between the Coast Guard and the Crescent River Pilots Association. Under this partnership, vessels entering port are boarded by pilots carrying transponders. As the vessel transits the Mississippi River, inbound and outbound, the operations center manned by Coast Guard and pilots know the exact position of the vessel, as well as the course, speed and other important information. While already considered a model VTS program, once additional transponders are acquired, this program will continue to serve as a template for other ports. This legislation also greatly improves the information collected on the safety and security of foreign ports. With regards to foreign seaport assessments, the bill aligns the authority of the Secretary of Transportation with authorities that currently exist for foreign airports. The Secretary of Transportation is required to conduct 25 foreign port vulnerability assessments each year and to ensure that U.S. citizens are informed about the results of these assessments in advance of embarking on their travel plans. Testimony before the Commerce Committee emphasized that in order to ensure that our shores are as safe as possible, we must view foreign ports as the outer boundary of our ``maritime domain.'' Much as the first provision in our bill provides for the collection of better information on vessels and countries that do not follow international standards, this provision provides for the collection of information on foreign ports that present potential security threats to the United States. By requiring the Secretary to conduct annual assessments of 25 ports, we not only gain a valuable source of information, but we also put foreign ports on notice that they will be held responsible for actions to secure their ports. If the assessments reveal that foreign ports do not have or maintain adequate security measures, the President is authorized to prohibit any vessel, U.S. flagged or foreign, from entering the United States from that port. Vessels that transit unsafe and insecure ports should not be allowed unrestricted access to United States ports. I would like to remind everyone that similar security protections were enacted for foreign airports, and I see no reason why the President should not have the same powers with respect to foreign maritime ports. We must begin to think of a maritime security program that begins well before a ship enters U.S. waters and certainly before they enter U.S. ports. I believe that the measures in this bill along with the port security program of S. 1214 will provide much better tools to guard against maritime threats to our Nation and our citizens.

Mr. BREAUX

Mr. BREAUX. Madam President, along with Mr. Kerry, Chairman of the Oceans, Atmosphere and Fisheries Subcommittee, and Mr. Hollings, Chairman of the Commerce Committee, I rise today in support of the Port Threat and Security Act of 2001. I believe this legislation will help United States' authorities identify and counteract maritime threats from terrorist actions. Importantly, these provisions are designed in part to protect U.S. citizens and property from terrorist attacks before they reach our shores. As Chairman of the Surface Transportation and Merchant Marine Subcommittee, I held several oversight hearings on transportation security, including one on maritime security three weeks after the terrible attacks of September 11. The maritime security hearing solidified an opinion that I, and others on the Commerce Committee, had long held, the need for increased maritime security was important before September 11, and is absolutely crucial following the terrorist attacks on New York city and Washington, D.C. The Oceans, Atmosphere and Fisheries Subcommittee, of which I am a member, followed with another hearing that underscored this message. Luckily, because of the foresight of Chairman Hollings, we had a head start on improving maritime security. S. 1214, the Maritime and Port Security Improvement Act, of which I am a proud cosponsor, was introduced in July and was reported out of the Committee in August. S. 1214 establishes a regime that will go a long way towards creating a safe and secure maritime transportation system. However, since much of it was crafted before September 11, it is only natural that additional measures are needed to ensure that our maritime system is as safe as possible. The bill we are introducing today is based on the testimony that was presented at the hearings before the Commerce Committee in the first two weeks of October. Administration and industry witnesses testified on the need to improve certain areas of S. 1214. This bill intends to fill the gaps identified by our witnesses. We will work with Committee members to ensure these provisions are included in S. 1214 before the Senate sends it to the House. A constant theme following the September 11 attacks has been the need for better information. Testimony at our hearings confirmed this theme in the maritime realm, we need to increase our information collection capabilities immediately and we need to hold our trading partners to the same standards to which we hold our maritime industry. This legislation requires the identification of nations that have inherently insecure or unsafe vessel registration procedures that can pose threats to our national security. It requires the Secretary of Transportation and Secretary of State to prepare an annual report for the Congress that would list those nations whose vessels the Coast Guard has found don't play by our rules. For example, investigations by the Department of Transportation reveal that it is common practice for vessels to possess false, partial, or fraudulent information concerning cargo manifests, crew identity, or registration of the vessel. This legislation will allow us to get a handle on these practices by identifying the most egregious violators of maritime law. However, the additional information collection required by this bill is just a start; the bill also requires the Administration to recommend to this Committee additional actions that can be taken, either domestically or through international organizations such as the International Maritime Organization, that will increase the transparency of vessel registration procedures. One of the responses following the highjackings has been to dramatically expand the air marshal program on air carriers, a step which I fully support. However, there is no similar program for maritime vessels in U.S. waters. The Coast Guard recently established a sea marshal program in the port of San Francisco where armed personnel accompany maritime pilots aboard vessels that cause security concerns. This legislation expands that small project into a national sea marshal program to help prevent terrorists from using maritime vessels as weapons of mass destruction. This legislation directs the Secretary to analyze vulnerability of ports and place sea marshals in ports that handle materials or vessels that make them potential targets of attack. Expansion of the sea marshal program is strongly supported by our Nation's sea pilots. Many people do not know that almost all maritime vessels that enter U.S. ports are accompanied by a U.S. sea pilot that has intimate knowledge of port and navigational channels, a living nautical chart, so to speak. They are an integral part of our maritime system that help to keep our ports and waterways safe. Pilots are often the first U.S. citizen to board inbound foreign vessels and may be the only U.S. citizens on vessels bound for U.S. ports; thus, they can be a valuable source of information. This legislation requires the Secretary of Transportation to use them more effectively in the war on terror. The Secretary is directed to investigate secure and reliable methods in which sea pilots can aid the Coast Guard and other U.S. authorities in an expanded maritime domain awareness program. The pilots themselves came forward to this Committee suggesting this idea, and I think it is critical that these pilots be provided with methods and equipment that will allow them to safely provide the authorities with information on illegal or terrorist activities while there is still time to prevent a catastrophe. One such example is the Vessel Traffic System, VTS, in the Port of New Orleans and the excellent partnership between the Coast Guard and the Crescent River Pilots Association. Under this partnership, vessels entering port are boarded by pilots carrying transponders. As the vessel transits the Mississippi River, inbound and outbound, the operations center manned by Coast Guard and pilots know the exact position of the vessel, as well as the course, speed and other important information. While already considered a model VTS program, once additional transponders are acquired, this program will continue to serve as a template for other ports. This legislation also greatly improves the information collected on the safety and security of foreign ports. With regards to foreign seaport assessments, the bill aligns the authority of the Secretary of Transportation with authorities that currently exist for foreign airports. The Secretary of Transportation is required to conduct 25 foreign port vulnerability assessments each year and to ensure that U.S. citizens are informed about the results of these assessments in advance of embarking on their travel plans. Testimony before the Commerce Committee emphasized that in order to ensure that our shores are as safe as possible, we must view foreign ports as the outer boundary of our ``maritime domain.'' Much as the first provision in our bill provides for the collection of better information on vessels and countries that do not follow international standards, this provision provides for the collection of information on foreign ports that present potential security threats to the United States. By requiring the Secretary to conduct annual assessments of 25 ports, we not only gain a valuable source of information, but we also put foreign ports on notice that they will be held responsible for actions to secure their ports. If the assessments reveal that foreign ports do not have or maintain adequate security measures, the President is authorized to prohibit any vessel, U.S. flagged or foreign, from entering the United States from that port. Vessels that transit unsafe and insecure ports should not be allowed unrestricted access to United States ports. I would like to remind everyone that similar security protections were enacted for foreign airports, and I see no reason why the President should not have the same powers with respect to foreign maritime ports. We must begin to think of a maritime security program that begins well before a ship enters U.S. waters and certainly before they enter U.S. ports. I believe that the measures in this bill along with the port security program of S. 1214 will provide much better tools to guard against maritime threats to our Nation and our citizens.

Mr. BREAUX

Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent at this time to temporarily set aside the Carnahan amendment.

Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, I rise to call up amendment No. 1861, which is at the desk.

Mr. BREAUX. I ask unanimous consent the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, it is absolutely, critically important that the bill before the Senate pass and be signed into law, and that it be passed and signed into law as quickly as possible. One of the biggest concerns the American public have, ever since the tragic day of September 11, is the fear of getting back into airplanes in safety. That, certainly, by any measure, is an understandable fear. If you look at some of the incidents that have occurred, even since September 11, you see a greater degree of concern than we have ever had since the Wright Brothers started flying airplanes about airplane safety. Yesterday a plane had to make an emergency landing in Shreveport, LA, because of a disturbed, deranged passenger. We saw just a couple of days ago a passenger breaking into the cockpit of a commercial airliner--again a deranged passenger, not necessarily connected with any terrorist incident. But all of this points to the fact that we can no longer do business as usual when it comes to airline security and safety. Our surface transportation subcommittee of the Commerce Committee, which I am privileged to chair, is also looking at the safety and security of not only airplanes, but also whether it is safe to ride on Amtrak passenger trains, whether it is safe to take a trip on a passenger cruise line with literally thousands of working people and crew on those ships as well as, literally, thousands of passengers. So all modes of transportation are being looked at as we have never before done in the history of this country. And that is good. This Congress, in a bipartisan way so far, has been able to respond to those threats, has been able to produce legislation in a timely fashion, like the bill of the chairman, Senator Hollings, that is before the Senate today. In a bipartisan fashion it says we are no longer going to be lackadaisical about airline security. We are no longer going to give the job of making sure airlines are secure to the low bidder. We are not going to be worried about who can do it the cheapest but rather who can do it the best. That is what this bill before the Senate, which I strongly support, is all about. It is must-do legislation, and it should be done as quickly as possible. Along with that debate, a lot of people have made various suggestions about how we can further secure the flying public on airlines. Some have suggested that every airline should have air marshals aboard. I think that is a good suggestion--people who are trained in order to prevent hijacking or disturbing the operations of the plane. Some have suggested we ought to arm the pilot, the copilot, and the navigator, if there is one on a particular plane, so they can protect the cockpit. Actually, I think the best way to protect the cockpit is to seal it off. If you can't get into the cockpit from the back of the plane, the plane cannot be hijacked to a different location. I think it is just that simple. The security of the cockpit door so that it is completely inaccessible from the back of the cabin, unless the pilot and the copilot want it to be, is absolutely essential. This bill would allow that to occur. That is a degree of safety that is very important. Others have argued that the pilot and the copilot should be armed. I do not know if they want to arm them with AK-47s or .38 or .45 pistols or rifles or shotguns. But they have suggested various methods to arm the crew of a plane with lethal weapons that could be used in the event of a disturbance by passengers who are intent on bringing down the aircraft or doing bodily harm to the people on the plane. I think that goes a little further than I think most Members of Congress are willing to go. Obviously, if you have lethal weapons in a plane, a number of things can happen. Just like when you throw a ball at a football game, only two things can happen: You can complete the pass, or have an interception; or, possibly three: You can have an incompleted pass. Only one of those is good for your team. When you arm the cockpit, a number of things can happen. Many of them are not good: You can have those weapons get into the hands of the hijackers themselves. You can have those weapons do bodily damage to passengers or kill them on the plane, by mistake or by accident. Or you can have a lethal weapon with a high-powered bullet actually penetrate the skin of the airplane, causing decompression of the airplane and causing it to be in a very precarious position and in danger of crashing and killing everyone on the plane. A lot of bad, unintended things can happen if you arm the pilot and the crew with lethal weapons on the plane. Therefore, my amendment simply says that we want to take a look at other types of weapons which would be nonlethal and which also could be effective in disarming people who are intent on bringing down or hijacking the plane, thereby providing greater security to the captain and the copilot of the plane. My amendment is relatively very simple. It requires the Institute of Justice to assess the range of nonlethal weapons for use by flight deck crew members that could temporarily incapacitate an individual who presents a clear and present danger to that aircraft and present those findings to the Secretary of Transportation within 90 days. If the Secretary--after they get that recommendation and after it has been carefully considered--determines that nonlethal weapons are appropriate and necessary and would effectively serve the public interest, then the Secretary may authorize the flight deck crew in an airliner to carry that less- than-lethal weapon while the airline is engaged in providing transportation. If the Secretary makes the determination that they want to go forward, the Secretary must prescribe the rules the crew members have to follow. And they also have to establish the rules that require the crew members be in fact trained in the proper use of the weapon and precise guidelines as to when those weapons can be used. It is very interesting. I am sure the Presiding Officer, with his military background, has seen a lot of different weapons that are lethal and nonlethal, of course. On the nonlethal weapons, I had a demonstration in my office. It is another story about how they got the nonlethal weapons into my office. They said they did not have much of a problem at all. They walked in with a suitcase full of very curious weapons and said they were bringing them to show me. And they got right in. I guess they were properly checked and that security was followed. I hope so. The members of the Justice Department brought in a whole array of what they call nonlethal weapons that are available under current technology. They range from electronic shock weapons to stun guns. The brand name is Tasers. They are really interesting. They can incapacitate a person by merely touching them with the weapon. The new stun guns can actually deliver an electric shock to a disturbed or a terrorist individual from a distance of up to about 20 feet and incapacitate them with the stun gun in order for people to take control of those individuals while they are knocked semiconscious, not killing them but certainly incapacitating them so you can again control of the airplane. These are effective. The technology is proven technology. And we are saying that the Department of Justice and the National Institute of Justice, which does that type of work within the Justice Department, should evaluate the potential for using these types of stun guns on airplanes. I think they can be very effective weapons in incapacitating someone who is trying to take over the airplane without doing deadly harm to other passengers and without danger of penetrating the walls of the airplane, decompressing the airplane, and causing severe problems. These weapons can work. But I don't think I know enough about them-- and I dare say most Members don't know enough about them--as to whether they can really be used on the airplane. That is why I am calling for this study and to report back to the Congress to let us know what they are doing. When the Secretary gets that report, he can authorize it if he thinks it is appropriate. Other items that are nonlethal in addition to the stun guns are what they call chemical incapacitants, which is a fancy name for basically the pepper-spray-type system, which looks like a handgun or a pistol and shoots these little pellets that contain various pepper ingredients. They are very small. When these pepper spray dispersants shoot these little pellets, they will hit the person in the chest. They don't break or explode violently, but they will burst open and spray the person who has been hit with it with a pepper-type ingredient which will incapacitate them temporarily and sufficiently to allow people to take control of that individual. The anesthetizing darts are nonlethal projectiles which can anesthetize someone and incapacitate them at the same time. It is a little dart that cannot penetrate the cabin, but a dart would penetrate the individual to anesthetize and incapacitate them. There are little things called impact projectiles, which are airfoil projectiles. They are hard plastic projectiles. If you get hit with them, you are going to get knocked down and not be able to continue doing what you were doing before you were hit by them; I guarantee it. There are disabling devices called dazzling-laser-light devices, which are sort of interesting. They showed me these weapons in my office. You can hit a person in the face with this laser light, and the closer they come to the weapon, or the laser light, the less they can see because it really hits them with a laser light that absolutely temporarily blinds and they cannot see. This is a Flash Gordon-type of weapon that can incapacitate someone. It has a lot of possibilities. Finally, physical entanglement devices: This is a small projectile that actually sends out a net. I have seen it used in wildlife reserves when wildlife officials try to capture a wild animal. This net covers the animal and allows the people to catch the animal for whatever purpose they are trying to catch it. It does not harm the animal, but it certainly incapacitates it. These same types of systems can be used in a plane and be very effective. I do not know that any of these are the answer, but I do suspect one, or a combination of some of them, would be effective for the pilot, for the copilot, or for members of the flight crew, to give them extra protection. I do not want to make a decision today in this Chamber that one of these is the best. That is why this amendment simply says we would require the Institute of Justice, within the Department of Justice, to assess the range of these weapons, and within 90 days--it is not going to take that long--to give a report to the Secretary of Transportation on their findings of whether one is good, one is better, one is not so good, or whether none of them is good, and make that recommendation to the Secretary. Under my amendment, if the Secretary, after getting those recommendations, determines, with the approval of the Attorney General--and I have the approval of the Secretary of State--that it is appropriate and necessary and would effectively serve the public interest, then the Secretary can authorize the members of the flight deck to carry less-than-lethal weapons on board. I think it is in keeping with the chairman's desire to protect the passengers and crew. This is a good bill. It should not be delayed. We should do it this week. It will be the added security that the American flying public will have, to give them the guarantee that, in fact, it is absolutely totally safe to get back in our planes to fly to whatever destination safely, and secure in the knowledge that everything has been done to protect them and the crew. I hope my colleagues will be in a position to realize this is the correct approach. I yield the floor.

Mr. BREAUX

Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, I am proud to be an original co-sponsor of the Economic Revitalization Tax Act of 2001. This legislation is designed to revitalize one of America's most important economic partners. As we discuss economic stimulus measures for our Nation during these difficult times, it is important the we do not leave behind the 3.9 million U.S. citizens of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico. Puerto Rico purchases over $16 billion a year in goods and services from the rest of the United States. This is more than much larger nations such as Russia, China, Italy and Brazil. A strong economy in Puerto Rico helps generate over 320,000 jobs in the U.S. mainland. It is important that we maintain this economic partnership as strong as ever. The economy of Puerto Rico was weak even before the current national crisis. Since the beginning of the year, plant closures have been announced affecting over 7 percent of the manufacturing workforce. Since Congress repealed tax incentives for investment in Puerto Rico in October 1996, manufacturing employment has declined by over 15 percent--more than any state in the U.S. mainland. Employment in other sectors of the economy has not increased enough to offset the loss in manufacturing jobs. Consequently, total employment in Puerto Rico has declined over the last five years. By contrast, during the same period, jobs increased by over 10 percent in the average state, and no state experienced a net job loss. The negative economic impacts of the current state of national alert will be felt most in those regions of the country that are dependent on tourism and air transportation. As a small island, Puerto Rico is four times more dependent on external trade as a share of GDP than the U.S. mainland, and 45 percent of Puerto Rico's trade is transported by air, compared to only 5 percent for the U.S. American Airlines which employs thousands at its major hub in Puerto Rico will be dramatically affected by the reduction in air travel. Tourist expenditures are an essential component of Puerto Rico's economy. Occupancy rates at Puerto Rico hotels have already been cut in half, with more losses expected as convention cancellations mount. Absent a turnaround, a significant portion of Puerto Rico's economy is directly at risk, with ripple effects beyond the tourism sector. Puerto Rico's economy is closely linked to the U.S. economy. When the United States goes into recession, the impact is immediately felt on the Island where the rate of unemployment currently is running at about 13 percent. Retail sales are down over 30 percent since the terrorist acts. It is essential to adopt measures to help Puerto Rico, like the rest of the country, recover economically and financially. Proposed national economic recovery legislation will not, without special provisions, help Puerto Rico. For example, because Puerto Rico is considered a separate taxing jurisdiction, investment tax credits and other business incentives do not apply to investments in Puerto Rico. ``The Economic Revitalization Tax Act of 2001,'' will materially assist in mitigating the impact of the expected economic losses in Puerto Rico as a result of the tragic recent events, as well as halt the continuing loss of manufacturing jobs due to the 1996 repeal of U.S. tax incentives. This legislation would provide a new tax regime to encourage American companies to retain their Puerto Rico operations and to re-invest profits earned in Puerto Rico and the U.S. possessions in the United States on a tax preferred basis. This will not only help Puerto Rico directly, but it will also help the American economy by returning profits to the U.S. where they can be invested in other job creating activities. Puerto Rico is a vital partner in the American family. The new administration of Governor Sila Maria Calderon, is bringing a renewed vision of a prosperous Puerto Rico and is implementing a coherent development plan that will make that vision a reality. Governor Calderon understands that reform of the Commonwealth government and its economic development policies are necessary for Puerto Rico's economic development. She is doing this in close collaboration with business and community leaders in Puerto Rico. This proposal is a win-win situation for Puerto Rico and for the American worker and taxpayer. We help create jobs in Puerto Rico, and those jobs will help create jobs in the U.S. mainland. Please join me in supporting this legislation.

Mr. BREAUX

Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, I am proud to be an original co-sponsor of the Economic Revitalization Tax Act of 2001. This legislation is designed to revitalize one of America's most important economic partners. As we discuss economic stimulus measures for our Nation during these difficult times, it is important the we do not leave behind the 3.9 million U.S. citizens of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico. Puerto Rico purchases over $16 billion a year in goods and services from the rest of the United States. This is more than much larger nations such as Russia, China, Italy and Brazil. A strong economy in Puerto Rico helps generate over 320,000 jobs in the U.S. mainland. It is important that we maintain this economic partnership as strong as ever. The economy of Puerto Rico was weak even before the current national crisis. Since the beginning of the year, plant closures have been announced affecting over 7 percent of the manufacturing workforce. Since Congress repealed tax incentives for investment in Puerto Rico in October 1996, manufacturing employment has declined by over 15 percent--more than any state in the U.S. mainland. Employment in other sectors of the economy has not increased enough to offset the loss in manufacturing jobs. Consequently, total employment in Puerto Rico has declined over the last five years. By contrast, during the same period, jobs increased by over 10 percent in the average state, and no state experienced a net job loss. The negative economic impacts of the current state of national alert will be felt most in those regions of the country that are dependent on tourism and air transportation. As a small island, Puerto Rico is four times more dependent on external trade as a share of GDP than the U.S. mainland, and 45 percent of Puerto Rico's trade is transported by air, compared to only 5 percent for the U.S. American Airlines which employs thousands at its major hub in Puerto Rico will be dramatically affected by the reduction in air travel. Tourist expenditures are an essential component of Puerto Rico's economy. Occupancy rates at Puerto Rico hotels have already been cut in half, with more losses expected as convention cancellations mount. Absent a turnaround, a significant portion of Puerto Rico's economy is directly at risk, with ripple effects beyond the tourism sector. Puerto Rico's economy is closely linked to the U.S. economy. When the United States goes into recession, the impact is immediately felt on the Island where the rate of unemployment currently is running at about 13 percent. Retail sales are down over 30 percent since the terrorist acts. It is essential to adopt measures to help Puerto Rico, like the rest of the country, recover economically and financially. Proposed national economic recovery legislation will not, without special provisions, help Puerto Rico. For example, because Puerto Rico is considered a separate taxing jurisdiction, investment tax credits and other business incentives do not apply to investments in Puerto Rico. ``The Economic Revitalization Tax Act of 2001,'' will materially assist in mitigating the impact of the expected economic losses in Puerto Rico as a result of the tragic recent events, as well as halt the continuing loss of manufacturing jobs due to the 1996 repeal of U.S. tax incentives. This legislation would provide a new tax regime to encourage American companies to retain their Puerto Rico operations and to re-invest profits earned in Puerto Rico and the U.S. possessions in the United States on a tax preferred basis. This will not only help Puerto Rico directly, but it will also help the American economy by returning profits to the U.S. where they can be invested in other job creating activities. Puerto Rico is a vital partner in the American family. The new administration of Governor Sila Maria Calderon, is bringing a renewed vision of a prosperous Puerto Rico and is implementing a coherent development plan that will make that vision a reality. Governor Calderon understands that reform of the Commonwealth government and its economic development policies are necessary for Puerto Rico's economic development. She is doing this in close collaboration with business and community leaders in Puerto Rico. This proposal is a win-win situation for Puerto Rico and for the American worker and taxpayer. We help create jobs in Puerto Rico, and those jobs will help create jobs in the U.S. mainland. Please join me in supporting this legislation.

Mr. BREAUX

Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, last year this Committee and Congress passed legislation to privatize INMARSAT [International Maritime Satellite Organization]. As part of the privatization, INMARSAT is required to hold an initial public offering [IPO]. INMARSAT's IPO deadline is set for December 31 of this year. Since the IPO market continues to be in bad shape, INMARSAT and its investment advisors would like time to see if the market improves. INMARSAT was established in 1979 to improve maritime communications especially for distress and safety signals. Over the past two decades, INMARSAT has branched out to serve both maritime markets and increasingly any markets requiring mobility--shipping, oil and gas exploration and the FAA. Since the IPO market has nosed-dived, INMARSAT has been waiting for conditions to improve. All of the extensions available to INMARSAT have now been used and the FCC has no more discretion to extend the deadline. The dilemma is that if INMARSAT does not hold the IPO it will be in violation of U.S. law, and if it does hold the IPO, they could be found in breach of its fiduciary responsibility to its shareholders, possibly subjecting itself to shareholder lawsuits. My amendment would simply give the FCC the ability to extend the deadline an additional 18 months to see if the IPO market improves. A large number of U.S. companies have pulled their IPOs off the market given market conditions. We are trying to privatize INMARSAT and we should allow them to act like a company.

Mr. BREAUX

Mr. BREAUX. First, I'd like to thank Senator Hollings and Senator Gregg for all of their help over the last four years in trying to establish a strong NOAA presence in Lafayette, Louisiana. Their efforts are most appreciated by me and by the State of Louisiana. Many of my colleagues may not realize that Congress appropriated close to $14 million in the 1991 Commerce, Justice, State appropriations bill to build a much needed multi-agency, federal laboratory in Lafayette for the study of coastal problems in the Northern Gulf of Mexico. While the building was completed long ago, it is still eighty percent vacant because of a political disagreement. Report language was included in 1995 C,J,S appropriations report that NOAA says prevents it from ever occupying or using these state-of-the- art facilities. I have worked since 1998 to remove this restriction with little success. In the intervening years, the problems in the Gulf of Mexico originally identified for study at this facility have grown progressively worse and are having greater and greater negative impacts on Louisiana and the nation. Our wetlands continue to disappear, many important marsh lands have mysteriously died, and the size of the so- called ``Dead Zone'' has grown to 8,000 square miles. With over 3 million acres, Louisiana is home to 40% of the coastal wetlands in the United States and is experiencing over 80% of the nation's wetlands loss. Our state is lowing 25-35 square miles of coastal wetlands per year. The United States loses one acre of productive coastal wetlands in Louisiana every 24 minutes. In the next ten years, Louisiana will lose wetlands equal to the size of San Diego. These wetlands play a critical role in our national and local economy. As much as 28% of the nation's fisheries harvest comes from Louisiana's coast. These shrimp, crab, crawfish, oyster and finfish fisheries (over 1.1 billion pounds per year landed in Louisiana alone) are dependent on our coastal wetlands. Louisiana's fisheries alone are comparable to the annual catch on the entire Atlantic seaboard. Louisiana's coast also provides wintering habitat for over 5 million waterfowl every year, nearly 20 percent of the entire winter population of ducks and geese in the United States. The extensive coastal oil and gas infrastructure that this nation relies so heavily on is also at risk as it becomes increasingly exposed to greater storm energies without the protection of the marsh. The national economic benefits of Louisiana's coast include: $30 billion per year in petroleum products; $7.4 billion per year in Natural Gas (21% of the nation's supply); $400 million tons per year of waterborne commerce; $2.8 billion per year in commercial fishing; $1.6 billion per year in recreational fishing; $2.5 million per year in fur harvest (40% of the nation's total; and $40 million per year in alligator harvests. In the years that we have been waging the political fight over the NOAA laboratory in Lafayette, my state has experienced a number of other devastating problems which have a major impact on these resources and desperately need to be fully studied. Last year we lost more than 30 square miles of salt march grass in an unprecedented phenomenon that could mean an advanced rate of loss for our coast in the years to come. These threats to our coastline and our fisheries are compounded by the horrific growth in the hypoxic zone, or Dead Zone, where extremely low levels of oxygen suffocate shellfish and drive out all other forms of marine life. Each summer, the Dead Zone increases in size and covers an area off of Louisiana's coast that is roughly the size of the State of New Jersey. I'd like to submit for the record to following Times- Picayune story which shows that this oxygen-deprived zone continues to grow. While this issue has attracted attention and resources from the federal government, there remains a serious shortage of research in the Northern Gulf. The problems are astounding and solving them is critical to the economic and cultural future of the State of Louisiana and this nation. However, these problems are not fully understood and we will not be able to effectively solve them until we do. That is why I rise today to respectfully request that $1.5 million be added in the FY 2002 C,J,S appropriations bill for planning and design of a new research facility in Lafayette, Louisiana to be occupied by NOAA for the study of coastal and fisheries problems in the Northern Gulf of Mexico. Let me be clear, I would prefer for NOAA to occupy the current facility. I want to thank Senators Hollings and Gregg again for helping me to try to do this, but time is running out. Louisiana and the nation can not wait yet another year.

Mr. BREAUX

Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, for so many Americans the day began with a bright, sunny morning, with beautiful, clear skies. It ended with darkness and a profound sense of vulnerability and a profound sense of anger of all Americans. It will certainly be a day that we as Americans should, and I argue will, never forget. Our greatest sympathies go out to those who have suffered the greatest of losses, the death of members of their families, their loved ones. Especially our thoughts today are with those people from the New York area and also for the people from the greater Washington area who are most directly touched by this travesty. Indeed, all of us have been touched in our own ways by what happened yesterday. My own office has been working with a Louisiana constituent who is trying to find out the status of her husband who was attending a meeting yesterday at the World Trade Center. She talked with him after the first plane struck the first tower, but she has not been able to hear from him ever since. Mr. President, the American people want and expect us to act. They expect us to act quickly, they expect us to act decisively, and they expect us to act with great determination so that this will never happen to us again. President Bush and his team have given us their assurances, and all of us pray for his leadership and pledge our strong, bipartisan cooperation and support in his efforts. We must all act as one. We must all act as one Nation and we must all speak with one voice. Let us at the same time all be mindful of some points that I think need to be remembered. First, these perpetrators are not American citizens. They are not entitled to the protection of the U.S. Constitution. They are not entitled to a presumption of innocence. They are not entitled to a trial by jury of their peers, and they are not entitled to the services of a free attorney. They have themselves, in fact, chosen the field on which they will be judged, and the field that they have selected is clearly the battlefield and not a courtroom. I urge our Government to proceed carefully but also to proceed not as if we were preparing for an indictment to be followed by a trial in which we must prove our case beyond the shadow of a doubt. What they did to us was to physically invade our country and slaughter innocent people in the process. What they did was to declare war on the United States of America and the people of our country. We must respond in kind. Our military must be fully utilized. The world is watching our Nation and what we do should be remembered for longer than what they did. After they are removed as a cancer in this world, we must also address our own internal security. People in our country must know that they can fly without fear, that we can gather in large numbers and celebrate and be entertained without worry, and that our loved ones can live in a country in which we are all safe and also secure. That is our goal. That is our challenge. We will meet that challenge. I yield the floor.

Mr. BREAUX

Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation allowing certain U.S. legal tender coins to be qualified investments for an individual retirement account (IRA). Congress excluded ``collectibles,'' such as antiques, gold and silver bullion, and legal tender coinage, as appropriate for contribution to IRAs in 1981. The primary reason was the concern that individuals would get a tax break when they bought collectibles for their personal use. For example, a taxpayer might deduct the purchase of an antique rug for his/her living room as an IRA investment. Congress was also concerned about how the many different types of collectibles are valued. Over the years, however, certain coins and precious metals have been excluded from the definition of a collectible because they are independently valued investments that offer investors portfolio diversity and liquidity. For example, Congress excluded gold and silver U.S. American Eagles from the definition of collectibles in 1986, and the Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997 took the further step of excluding certain precious metals bullion. My legislation would exclude from the definition of collectibles only those U.S. legal tender coins which meet the following three standards: certification by a nationally recognized grading service, traded on a nationally-recognized network and held by a qualified trustee as described in the Internal Revenue Code. In other words, only investment quality coins that are independently valued and not held for personal use may be included in IRAs. There are several nationally-recognized, independent certification or grading services. Full-time professional graders (numismatists) examine each coin for authenticity and grade them according to established standards. Upon certification, the coin is sonically-sealed (preserved) to ensure that if remains in the same condition as when it was graded. Legal tender coins are then traded via two independent electronic networks--the Certified Coin Exchange and Certified CoinNet. These networks are independent of each other and have no financial interest in the legal tender coinage and precious metals markets. The networks function in precisely the same manner as the NASDAQ with a series of published ``bid'' and ``ask'' prices and last trades. The buys and sells are enforceable prices that must be honored as posted until updated. Mr. President, the liquidity provided through a bona fide national trading network, combined with published prices, make legal tender coinage a practical investment that offers investors diversification and liquidity. Investment in these tangible assets has become a safe and prudent course of action for both the small and large investor and should be given the same treatment under the law as other financial investments. I urge the Senate to enact this important legislation as soon as possible. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. BREAUX

Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation allowing certain U.S. legal tender coins to be qualified investments for an individual retirement account (IRA). Congress excluded ``collectibles,'' such as antiques, gold and silver bullion, and legal tender coinage, as appropriate for contribution to IRAs in 1981. The primary reason was the concern that individuals would get a tax break when they bought collectibles for their personal use. For example, a taxpayer might deduct the purchase of an antique rug for his/her living room as an IRA investment. Congress was also concerned about how the many different types of collectibles are valued. Over the years, however, certain coins and precious metals have been excluded from the definition of a collectible because they are independently valued investments that offer investors portfolio diversity and liquidity. For example, Congress excluded gold and silver U.S. American Eagles from the definition of collectibles in 1986, and the Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997 took the further step of excluding certain precious metals bullion. My legislation would exclude from the definition of collectibles only those U.S. legal tender coins which meet the following three standards: certification by a nationally recognized grading service, traded on a nationally-recognized network and held by a qualified trustee as described in the Internal Revenue Code. In other words, only investment quality coins that are independently valued and not held for personal use may be included in IRAs. There are several nationally-recognized, independent certification or grading services. Full-time professional graders (numismatists) examine each coin for authenticity and grade them according to established standards. Upon certification, the coin is sonically-sealed (preserved) to ensure that if remains in the same condition as when it was graded. Legal tender coins are then traded via two independent electronic networks--the Certified Coin Exchange and Certified CoinNet. These networks are independent of each other and have no financial interest in the legal tender coinage and precious metals markets. The networks function in precisely the same manner as the NASDAQ with a series of published ``bid'' and ``ask'' prices and last trades. The buys and sells are enforceable prices that must be honored as posted until updated. Mr. President, the liquidity provided through a bona fide national trading network, combined with published prices, make legal tender coinage a practical investment that offers investors diversification and liquidity. Investment in these tangible assets has become a safe and prudent course of action for both the small and large investor and should be given the same treatment under the law as other financial investments. I urge the Senate to enact this important legislation as soon as possible. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.