Mary Landrieu

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. Yes, Mr. President, I desire to speak both in support of the chairman---- Several Senators addressed the Chair.

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I would like to ask, since it seems there is enough time, if I could have 10 minutes. I ask unanimous consent for that.

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I rise in strong support of the Domenici substitute electricity amendment. There have been few other parts of the Energy bill that have been more controversial or that have been the subject of more debate than the electricity provisions. The Domenici amendment is a well-crafted compromise that represents some of the best thinking on electricity deregulation. It is worthy of the support of all Senators because it addresses those issues that need to be addressed and does so in a fair and balanced way. The Domenici amendment deserves the bipartisan support of the Senate because it provides Federal agencies such as the Commodity Futures Trading Commission and Federal Energy Regulatory Commission with new tools to prevent and penalize anti-consumer and manipulative behavior, including false price reporting and simultaneous trading of the same volumes of electricity between two entities, known as round-trip trading. It encourages distributed and renewable generation through a nationwide net metering program; in other words, it allows entities that use solar power or small gas generators to put excess electricity back into the grid. It moves the FERC's refund authority back to the filing of a complaint. Currently there is a 60-day grace period before refunds can be issued--the proposed language removes the 60 days. It expands FERC's merger review authority by increasing the number of transactions that will be subject to FERC review and approval; in addition to utilities FERC now will be able to review mergers of transmission assets. This prohibits so-called ``slamming'' and ``cramming.'' This concept comes from the telecom industry. Slamming is when retail customers have their service switched unknowingly, for example, AT&T to Sprint. Cramming is when retail customers have items added on to their bills unknowingly, for example, call waiting. It requires the FTC to issue rules protecting the privacy of electric consumers; and the customers information cannot be shared without their consent. It requires FERC to issue a new policy establishing conditions under which public utilities may charge market-based rates. This policy is to consider consumer protection, market power and other factors deemed necessary by FERC to ensure that market based rates are just and reasonable. FERC cannot switch to market base rates if a monopoly exist or else will have to employ cost based rates. Let me talk a few moments about the consumer protection provisions of this amendment. This is an area where some of my colleagues say the Domenici amendment does not go far enough. I believe that the provisions of the Domenici amendment are a significant first step in the right direction. Let me tell you why. First, the Domenici amendment would require FERC for the first time to issue rules to establish an electronic information system to provide information about the price and availability of wholesale electric energy and transmission capacity. Transparency is key to well functioning and fair electricity markets and this amendment will significantly improve transparency. The amendment further seeks to ensure market transparency and integrity by prohibiting the filing of false information regarding the price of wholesale electricity and availability of transmission capacity. Second, the amendment would prohibit specific manipulative conduct and practices, including simultaneous trading of the same volumes of electricity between two entities--round-trip trading. Third, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission is given important new authority that will improve market transparency and further strengthen anti-manipulation powers. These new powers include a strengthening of the CFTC's authority to investigate and punish fraud and manipulation in the reporting of electric and natural gas prices and an expansion of the CFTC's general anti-fraud authority to cover certain on-line trading platforms, like those run by Enron. Fourth, the amendment substantially increases criminal penalties for violations of the Federal Power Act to $1,000,000 per violation and civil penalties are substantially increased as well. Finally, the refund effective date for violation of the ``just and reasonable'' pricing standard under the Federal Power Act is moved back to the date of the filing of a complaint, thus giving consumers a greater likelihood of receiving refunds where prices are found not to be ``just and reasonable.'' In short, this is a good consumer protection package and it is one that is worthy of our support. The Domenici amendment also makes certain long-overdue reforms to our Nation's outdated electricity laws. For example, the amendment would carefully extend open access requirements to transmission systems owned by all large transmission- owning utilities so that larger, more seamless regional wholesale electricity markets can be created. It would establish new transmission pricing policies to help ensure that those benefitting most from new transmission investments are obligated to pay for them. It reforms PURPA while protecting existing investments, contracts, and expectations. Lastly, it repeals PUHCA, while ensuring that State and Federal regulators have access to the books, records and information needed to ensure informed regulatory action. Mr. President, this is a good amendment. I urge all my colleagues to support it. However, there are some improvements that should be incorporated. One such example would be Senator Cantwell's amendment that places a broad prohibition on all manipulative practices in electricity markets. I yield the remainder of my time.

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I take this opportunity to speak about some very exciting and heartwarming events in Monroe, Louisiana, today and tomorrow. I regret I will be unable to attend the events. But, they are very important to Marine Sergeant Phillip Randall, II, his family, the city of Monroe, and for all the people of Louisiana. Quite frankly Sgt. Rugg's actions tell a story that will be heartwarming to the Nation. As we consider how to best defend our borders, and also as we continue to aggressively pursue the standing up of a new government in Iraq to establish a democracy there, I wish to pay tribute to our military by highlighting the heroic actions of one of the Marines' best. Marine Sgt Phillip Randall Rugg II, is being honored today by the city of Monroe, Louisiana. Monroe is a city of about 50,000 in northeast Louisiana that has its share of men and women in the active and reserve forces serving our country at this time. They are doing the brave and difficult work necessary for us to achieve victory. Having won the war, we are now in an all-out effort to win the peace. These men and women from Louisiana and around the Nation are putting their lives on the line, and the Nation is grateful. Monroe is opening its arms and its hearts to a true hero. With his wife Nicol and his 2-year-old son Trey, Sgt. Rugg will be honored by the people of Monroe. I rise to explain why. A few months ago, on March 22, then-Corporal Rugg was serving in Iraq with the 1st Tank Battalion, the 1st Marine Division. On that day, his tank recovery vehicle was hit by at least four rocket-propelled grenades. Shrapnel from the RPGs tore through his body, leaving him unable to use his legs. His vehicle was on fire. Using only his arms, with great injury to himself, he pulled himself out of his vehicle. Once outside, he realized that his gunnery sergeant, Guadalupe Denojean, was still inside the burning vehicle. Then, without regard to his own safety, obviously having been severely injured with broken legs, he climbed back into the burning vehicle which was engulfed in flames and pulled the gunnery sergeant out. Regrettably, after this incident, Sgt. Rugg's wounds were not able to heal fully and his left leg had to be amputated below the knee. He may have had part of his leg removed, but no doctor or enemy weapon could remove his spirit. I spoke to this young marine yesterday by phone. He is proud of his service. He is proud of his country. He said: Senator, this is not a story about sadness or pity. I am proud I went to serve in defense of my nation. I want to say how proud we are of him and his family, how proud I am that one of the cities in Louisiana is honoring him today. This is the Marine spirit. It is one that has existed for over 200 years. It is a flame that will not go out. He has now been promoted to sergeant. Again, he is proud to serve his country. As he told me yesterday: Senator, I have no regrets. I was happy to do what I did. My family is happy to support me in this effort. He will soon reenter school to complete his degree in accounting. His other leg is rehabilitating well, and he is working with his doctors and therapists to some day not only walk, but run. He also wants to get back on the golf course. With his positive outlook, I am sure Sgt. Rugg will go on to do great things and continue to be a proud father and devoted husband. As the city of Monroe celebrates the recovery and return of Sgt. Rugg, I am certain his faith and positive outlook will only bring more causes for the Rugg family to celebrate in the years to come. Former Senator Max Cleland of Georgia is a triple amputee as a result of a grenade explosion in Vietnam. Senator Cleland says his injuries changed his life and gave him even greater purpose to serve his country as a Senator and Cabinet Secretary. Senator Cleland always says he is stronger at the broken places. After talking with Sgt. Rugg, I know that he, too, is stronger at the broken places. I want to tell Sgt. Rugg how proud the United States Senate is of his service. I want to tell the thousands of other men and women in uniform how grateful we are for what they do each day to protect and promote liberty. I want to wish Sgt. Rugg and his family well, and know my thoughts and prayers are with them. Sgt. Rugg, I salute you. I ask unanimous consent to print the following document in the Record.

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Ms. LANDRIEU. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business for 5 minutes.

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, the National Women's Business Council provides Congress, the Small Business Administration, and the Interagency Committee on Women's Business Enterprise with independent advice and policy recommendations to foster women's business ownership. Now many of my colleagues may not know a great deal about the Council, its members, and what they do. But I can tell you that as a member of the Senate Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship, the Council's advice is very helpful as we develop legislation that affects small businesses throughout the country. The Council has broad latitude to address nearly any issue that it considers to be important for women in business. Whether it relates to health insurance, the economy, or fiscal policies, the Council brings a unique and valuable perspective. Women make up 46 percent of the Nation's executive, administrative and managerial occupations and head up 7.1 million sole proprietorships. The National Women's Business Council is their voice. The Council's independent voice is the key to its success and influence. The structure of the Council helps to maintain that independence. The Council has 15 members. The Chair is appointed by the President and must be a prominent businesswoman. Six members come from women's business organizations, including representatives of women's business center sites. The remaining eight members are political appointees, split evenly between Democrats and Republicans. These political slots are appointed by the SBA Administrator based upon the recommendations of the Chair and Ranking Members of the Senate Business and Entrepreneurship Committee and the House Small Business Committee. All of these ``party-affiliated'' members must be small business owners. This bipartisan balance in the Council's membership helps to ensure that any policy recommendations or positions the Council takes will reflect the needs of women in business and not the political agenda of one political party over another. Certainly, the political balance is not completely even because the Chair is appointed by the President, but the Democrats have a strong voice with four members on the Council. That will only be true, however, as long as the Democratic seats are filled. Unfortunately, this has not always been the case. Vacancies on the Council are supposed to be filled no later than 30 days after a seat becomes open. However, over the past two years, the SBA has routinely failed to meet this 30-day statutory deadline. The Council Chair was vacant from May 29, 2001 to May 21, 2002, a period of 11 months and 22 days. As a result, the Council could not even meet. Vacancies in the party-affiliated seats hurt the Council's independence. Of the party-affiliated seats reserved for the President's party, one seat was vacant for three months; two were vacant for a period of seven months; and another went vacant for 21 months. Two of the seats reserved for Democrats remained vacant for nearly two years, another seat was vacant for seven months, and the fourth seat remains vacant today. In the past, these vacancies have not been filled in a manner consistent with maintaining a bipartisan balance and the independence of the Council. Let me give you an example. In February of this year the Council announced its support for Association Health Plans. This is an important issue for many small businesses and for the economy on the whole. At the time, the Council had three Republican members and no Democrats. Regardless of what opinion you may have of the Association Health Plans issue, the Council's position can be dismissed by some as being political because of the partisan imbalance on the Council at the time it made its endorsement. Instead of being an unquestioned resource for Congress and policy makers to rely on, the Council faces potential criticism that it is nothing more than a mouthpiece for one party over another. Today, I am introducing legislation to protect the independence of the Council. The National Women's Business Council Independence Preservation Act of 2003 will ensure that the Council maintains its value as an advisor to Congress and the Administration. This measure simply requires that vacancies in the party-affiliated seats be filled evenly so that the Council maintains a bipartisan balance. This will help to ensure that the Council's policy advice is free from any partisan taint. My legislation also ensures accountability by requiring the SBA Administrator to report to Congress on vacancies that remain unfilled for more than 30 days. The report must cite the reasons for the vacancies, what is causing any delays in filling the positions, whether nominees were available for consideration, at what stage in the vetting process nominees are, whether there are any objections to the nominees and what those objections are, an estimate for when the vacancies will be filled, and any other relevant information relating to the vacancies. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, the National Women's Business Council provides Congress, the Small Business Administration, and the Interagency Committee on Women's Business Enterprise with independent advice and policy recommendations to foster women's business ownership. Now many of my colleagues may not know a great deal about the Council, its members, and what they do. But I can tell you that as a member of the Senate Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship, the Council's advice is very helpful as we develop legislation that affects small businesses throughout the country. The Council has broad latitude to address nearly any issue that it considers to be important for women in business. Whether it relates to health insurance, the economy, or fiscal policies, the Council brings a unique and valuable perspective. Women make up 46 percent of the Nation's executive, administrative and managerial occupations and head up 7.1 million sole proprietorships. The National Women's Business Council is their voice. The Council's independent voice is the key to its success and influence. The structure of the Council helps to maintain that independence. The Council has 15 members. The Chair is appointed by the President and must be a prominent businesswoman. Six members come from women's business organizations, including representatives of women's business center sites. The remaining eight members are political appointees, split evenly between Democrats and Republicans. These political slots are appointed by the SBA Administrator based upon the recommendations of the Chair and Ranking Members of the Senate Business and Entrepreneurship Committee and the House Small Business Committee. All of these ``party-affiliated'' members must be small business owners. This bipartisan balance in the Council's membership helps to ensure that any policy recommendations or positions the Council takes will reflect the needs of women in business and not the political agenda of one political party over another. Certainly, the political balance is not completely even because the Chair is appointed by the President, but the Democrats have a strong voice with four members on the Council. That will only be true, however, as long as the Democratic seats are filled. Unfortunately, this has not always been the case. Vacancies on the Council are supposed to be filled no later than 30 days after a seat becomes open. However, over the past two years, the SBA has routinely failed to meet this 30-day statutory deadline. The Council Chair was vacant from May 29, 2001 to May 21, 2002, a period of 11 months and 22 days. As a result, the Council could not even meet. Vacancies in the party-affiliated seats hurt the Council's independence. Of the party-affiliated seats reserved for the President's party, one seat was vacant for three months; two were vacant for a period of seven months; and another went vacant for 21 months. Two of the seats reserved for Democrats remained vacant for nearly two years, another seat was vacant for seven months, and the fourth seat remains vacant today. In the past, these vacancies have not been filled in a manner consistent with maintaining a bipartisan balance and the independence of the Council. Let me give you an example. In February of this year the Council announced its support for Association Health Plans. This is an important issue for many small businesses and for the economy on the whole. At the time, the Council had three Republican members and no Democrats. Regardless of what opinion you may have of the Association Health Plans issue, the Council's position can be dismissed by some as being political because of the partisan imbalance on the Council at the time it made its endorsement. Instead of being an unquestioned resource for Congress and policy makers to rely on, the Council faces potential criticism that it is nothing more than a mouthpiece for one party over another. Today, I am introducing legislation to protect the independence of the Council. The National Women's Business Council Independence Preservation Act of 2003 will ensure that the Council maintains its value as an advisor to Congress and the Administration. This measure simply requires that vacancies in the party-affiliated seats be filled evenly so that the Council maintains a bipartisan balance. This will help to ensure that the Council's policy advice is free from any partisan taint. My legislation also ensures accountability by requiring the SBA Administrator to report to Congress on vacancies that remain unfilled for more than 30 days. The report must cite the reasons for the vacancies, what is causing any delays in filling the positions, whether nominees were available for consideration, at what stage in the vetting process nominees are, whether there are any objections to the nominees and what those objections are, an estimate for when the vacancies will be filled, and any other relevant information relating to the vacancies. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. I urge my colleagues to take this issue, as I know they will, quite seriously, to do what we can now to provide the hundreds of thousands of children who are looking for mentorship and stability the benefit of this act and, as quickly as we can, take it up in the Senate. Of course, we urge our leadership to do so. Finally, I thank Senator Daschle for giving me the minutes before his amendment to offer this important legislation. I yield any time remaining.

Ms. LANDRIEU. I thank the Senator.

Ms. LANDRIEU. Madam President, I send a bill to the desk and ask for its appropriate referral. I send this bill to the desk on behalf of myself, the Senator from Indiana, Senator Bayh, Senator Kerry, and Senator Clinton.

Ms. LANDRIEU. Madam President, I appreciate the Democratic leader's generosity, to give some of his time for the introduction of this very important bill. I thank the Senator from South Dakota. This particular measure is called the Foster Mentoring Act of 2003. I have spoken many times on the floor about the issue of foster care and adoption, and our efforts as a Congress to try to keep our families intact and to provide the economic systems in the country, as well as the social systems from the Federal, State, and local level, to try to help support our families in a way that will get them through crises that all families experience. It would be our goal as a nation to see that every child born in a family gets to stay within that family and is loved and nurtured within that family unit, either the immediate family or extended family. But when family ties break down beyond the ability to repair them even with the best efforts made by the churches and synagogues and mosques and faith-based organizations as well as the Government, then we have to create a system out-of-home care, or foster care. We have done that. We have created a system, but we have to fix a system that is now broken and in great need of repair. Many of us have been working diligently over the past few years to do that. Some great progress has been made. Until the system can be reformed in its entirety, there are some things we can do now, we can do immediately. Passing this Foster Mentoring Act is one of these things. It would provide a $15 million grant to States to provide foster care mentoring programs, provides $4 million for a public awareness campaign for the need for mentors for the over 500,000 children who are in foster care in the United States today, and it would provide, most significantly, up to $20,000 for loan forgiveness for anyone who would mentor a foster care child. You ask me have we done this before? Yes, in California, represented by a list of advocates I will submit, Children Uniting Nations is the lead nonprofit organization organizing this effort. Under the direction of Governor Gray Davis and his wife, Sharon, they have been a successful pilot for this kind of program in the United States. This bill attempts to take what is working in California and expand it nationally and provide foster care mentoring opportunities to children in foster care. I ask unanimous consent, because my time is short, to have printed in the Record a letter from the former majority leader, Dick Armey, who supports this initiative and really encourages the Congress to take a serious look.

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. Madam President, I send a bill to the desk and ask for its appropriate referral. I send this bill to the desk on behalf of myself, the Senator from Indiana, Senator Bayh, Senator Kerry, and Senator Clinton.

Ms. LANDRIEU. I thank the Senator.

Ms. LANDRIEU. Madam President, I appreciate the Democratic leader's generosity, to give some of his time for the introduction of this very important bill. I thank the Senator from South Dakota. This particular measure is called the Foster Mentoring Act of 2003. I have spoken many times on the floor about the issue of foster care and adoption, and our efforts as a Congress to try to keep our families intact and to provide the economic systems in the country, as well as the social systems from the Federal, State, and local level, to try to help support our families in a way that will get them through crises that all families experience. It would be our goal as a nation to see that every child born in a family gets to stay within that family and is loved and nurtured within that family unit, either the immediate family or extended family. But when family ties break down beyond the ability to repair them even with the best efforts made by the churches and synagogues and mosques and faith-based organizations as well as the Government, then we have to create a system out-of-home care, or foster care. We have done that. We have created a system, but we have to fix a system that is now broken and in great need of repair. Many of us have been working diligently over the past few years to do that. Some great progress has been made. Until the system can be reformed in its entirety, there are some things we can do now, we can do immediately. Passing this Foster Mentoring Act is one of these things. It would provide a $15 million grant to States to provide foster care mentoring programs, provides $4 million for a public awareness campaign for the need for mentors for the over 500,000 children who are in foster care in the United States today, and it would provide, most significantly, up to $20,000 for loan forgiveness for anyone who would mentor a foster care child. You ask me have we done this before? Yes, in California, represented by a list of advocates I will submit, Children Uniting Nations is the lead nonprofit organization organizing this effort. Under the direction of Governor Gray Davis and his wife, Sharon, they have been a successful pilot for this kind of program in the United States. This bill attempts to take what is working in California and expand it nationally and provide foster care mentoring opportunities to children in foster care. I ask unanimous consent, because my time is short, to have printed in the Record a letter from the former majority leader, Dick Armey, who supports this initiative and really encourages the Congress to take a serious look.

Ms. LANDRIEU. I urge my colleagues to take this issue, as I know they will, quite seriously, to do what we can now to provide the hundreds of thousands of children who are looking for mentorship and stability the benefit of this act and, as quickly as we can, take it up in the Senate. Of course, we urge our leadership to do so. Finally, I thank Senator Daschle for giving me the minutes before his amendment to offer this important legislation. I yield any time remaining.

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. I thank the Chair. (The remarks of Ms. Landrieu pertaining to the introduction of S. 1419 are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'') Amendment No. 1269

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President I rise today to discuss the defense appropriations bill before us this week and the excellent work the chairman of the Appropriations Committee, Senator Stevens, and the ranking member of the Defense Subcommittee, Senator Inouye, have done to bring a very good bill before the Senate under a tight budget. Additionally, we are engaged in operations in Afghanistan and Iraq, which make it critical that we approve a bill that gives the men and women in the field the tools they need. Senator Stevens and Senator Inouye have crafted a bill to benefit our armed forces in a time of war. Additionally, the bill is forward looking and meets our transformational goals to modernize the U.S. military. On Saturday, LPD-17, USS San Antonio, will be christened at Avondale Shipyard in Louisiana. The San Antonio will move from dry-dock into the Mississippi River, where she will undergo final preparations before she can be delivered to the United States Navy and the Marines. It will be a day to celebrate. There can be no doubt about America's need for the LPD class of ships. The LPD is designed to bring the fight to our enemy. But the LPD program has suffered bumps and bruises along the way. She has experienced delays and cost-overruns. Some tough love was needed to bring efficiency to the program. Today, however, the LPD program is back on track. It is on time and on budget. It is a fitting coincidence that we will christen the San Antonio at a time when the LPD program is healthy. The LPD program could not have been brought back to even keel without the guidance and support of Senators Stevens and Inouye. They have been long-time advocates of the LPD program. I cannot thank them enough for keeping faith in a program that is absolutely vital to our Marines. In this bill, Senators Stevens and Inouye helped the LPD overcome yet another hurdle. When the President's budget for shipbuilding came out in February, the President recommended the construction of LPD-23 to begin in fiscal year 2006, not fiscal year 2005 as originally planned. The Department of Defense sought to push back the production rate of the LPD program, which, if enacted, will only cause the LPD program to experience price increases, once again. Moreover, if the recommendation holds, over 2,000 lay-offs of highly skilled workers could occur at Avondale and Ingalls in Mississippi. Fortunately, the chair and ranking member support keeping LPD-23 on schedule for fiscal year 2005. I am appreciative, and I know the Marine Corps and people of Louisiana are appreciative. During the debate on the budget resolution, I offered a resolution to increase spending for the National Guard and Reserve forces by $1.1 billion to meet unfunded equipment requirements. Our Guard and Reserve forces make up over 40 percent of our armed forces personnel, yet for years they barely received 8 percent of the funds in the defense budgets. Our Armed Forces could not have performed as brilliantly as they did in Operation Enduring Freedom and Operation Iraqi Freedom without our reliance on our National Guard and Reserve. Over 320,000 guardsmen and reservists have been activated since September 11, 2001. Many have been called up two and three times, which places tremendous stresses on the lives of our troops and their loved ones. Our citizen soldiers are being asked to perform the same tasks as our active forces, and they are doing so with expertise. But, they often have hand-me-down equipment. There are people near and dear to me stationed right now in Iraq in the Reserves. When their lives are on the line, I do not want them wondering if their Vietnam era equipment will work. Again, I am pleased Senators Stevens and Inouye have made a strong commitment to bolstering our National Guard and Reserve. They funded the National Guard and Reserve equipment account at $750 million. This will allow our Guard and Reserve forces to purchase key equipment for modernization, such as laser targeting pods. The Senate also commits key funds to the modernization and long-term sustainment of the National Guard: $175 million for upgrades to National Guard Bradley fighting vehicles; $50 million and pledge for full funding for a Stryker Brigade for the National Guard, $70 million for Black Hawk helicopters, and $17 million to stand up 12 additional weapons of mass destruction civil support teams. This money will be well invested, and I know the men in women in our National Guard and Reserve will put this equipment to good use. I also wish to thank Senator Stevens and Senator Inouye for their continued support of the National D-Day Museum in New Orleans, LA. Last year, we were saddened by the death of one of America's greatest historians, Dr. Stephen Ambrose. His works have chronicled, for perpetuity, the lives of Lewis and Clark, Dwight Eisenhower, and the millions of brave Americans who took up a call to arms in World War II in order to protect the United States and liberate the world. In 1991, Dr. Ambrose embarked on a mission to create a museum to honor America's war heroes. He wanted to place the Museum in New Orleans because Andrew Jackson Higgins was a New Orleanian. Most people in the U.S. do not know who Andrew Jackson Higgins is, but we owe a great debt to Mr. Higgins. He created the landing crafts, or Higgins boats, used to carry U.S. G.I.s to the shores of northern France for the D-day invasion of 1944. In Dr. Ambrose's interviews with President Eisenhower, President Eisenhower stated that Andrew Jackson Higgins' boats were the reason America won World War II. In June of 2000, on the 56th anniversary of D-day, the National D-Day Museum opened its doors and fulfilled the realization of Dr. Ambrose's dream. The museum has been a run-away success. When you walk through its exhibits, you cannot keep from being immersed in the history. To see a veteran explaining to his grand-children what life was like in World War II is truly remarkable. Just last week, on July 7, the 1 millionth visitor walked through the doors of the D-Day Museum. It is an extraordinary accomplishment for a museum to welcome 1 million visitors in 37 months. Visitors to the Museum are saying they traveled to New Orleans just to tour the National D-Day Museum. Usually, people say they visit New Orleans for the food or the music. It is a true testament to the D-Day Museum that people are now thinking of the D-Day Museum before they think of creole food and jazz as reasons to vacation in New Orleans. Again, we might not be celebrating the millionth visitor if it were not for the commitments of Senator Stevens and Senator Inouye to help Dr. Ambrose make his dream a reality. The people of Louisiana and all one million visitors are grateful. In closing, I look forward to approving the Defense appropriations bill and hope we can move to conference quickly so that we can best provide for our troops. I would be remiss if I did not commend the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee staff members their diligence, too. Senators Stevens and Inouye navigated difficult waters and came up with a good bill, and for that I am appreciative.

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for up to 40 minutes.

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I come to the Chamber to speak about a very important subject, one we will be debating more vigorously next week when we return. Hopefully, we will be back on the subject of energy independence and energy policy for the Nation. The Chair and I serve on a subcommittee with responsibility in that regard, and we both work closely with Senator Domenici and Senator Bingaman on fashioning energy policy. We will soon be back on that. I wanted to make a couple of comments regarding several important aspects of the energy legislation. Before I do, I would be remiss if I did not associate myself with the remarks of the Senator from Illinois. He raises a very important point, a critical point, one that deserves the full attention of the Congress and the administration. As most Americans are well aware, we are going to be conducting war in a very different way than we have conducted it in the past. The visions we all have growing up, and some of us even from personal experience in fighting in World War I or World War II or Vietnam of Korea, are going to be very different than what we face in the future. Wars are not necessarily going to be fought nation against nation, army against army, air force against air force, but they are going to be fought by our military and our homeland security apparatus and our intelligence, along with multinational intelligence against terrorist cells, some of which are not state-supported. Some cells are very difficult to find, as we know from experience because we have yet to find the leaders of two of the worst terrorist organizations in the world. Intelligence has always been so essential to war, having the generals on the battlefield know more about the enemy than the enemy knows about us. Intelligence has been critical in winning in times past, and there is no substitute. No amount of manpower or womanpower, no sophistication of weapons systems, no strategic battle plans can take the place now in the wars we are going to face, because it is a war against terror, than complete excellence through and through at every level in our intelligence apparatus. It does not have to be only American intelligence. We have to have an international intelligence network with our allies that is the most superior ever in the world if we are going to protect the American people and act in their best interest, to use our resources wisely and to win the war against terror. This is not something in which I like to engage, not only as a Senator but as a mother. I am not engaging in a war on terrorism so this is going to be a permanent situation. I engage in the war against terror to provide for a world where my children, who are now 11 and 6, don't have to engage. We want to win the war and win it in 5 or 10 or 15 years. It is incomprehensible to the American people that we would be engaged in such a war over the next 50 or 60 years. We want to win. We want to show the world a better way. To do that, we have to have the very best intelligence we can. The Senator from Illinois raises a very important point. While there might not have been purposeful manipulation, while no one here wants to accuse the President in any way, there are clearly some problems right now, based on the information we are receiving about who knew what and what reports were adhered to, what were pushed to the side, what information was provided and what was not. For the overall credibility of our intelligence, the credibility of our military, the credibility of our Government, this information must be investigated more fully. The truth must come to light. The appropriate actions must be taken so we can move on to improve the current situation, which is extremely difficult. I associate myself with the comments of the Senator from Illinois regarding our intelligence personnel.

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I commend the majority leader from Tennessee who told us in no uncertain terms this week that the Senate will not be going to an August break until we have an energy policy adopted by the Senate. I thank him for his leadership, thank him for his vision, and thank him for basically drawing the line so that we in the Senate can get focused on bringing this important piece of legislation to a close, tying up some loose ends. There are some three or four major amendments that still need to be debated and discussed on the Energy bill, but we are close to the end under Senator Domenici's leadership, with Senator Bingaman. I have been proud to be a part of that effort. I look forward to closing out the debate in the Senate with a very fine bill, a bill that is balanced, that encourages more production, encourages more conservation, and sets a framework for an energy policy for this Nation that we can be proud of, and equally important, if not more important, that can grow jobs, that can get the job growth trend moving back in the right direction. Not that this could do it all by itself, but having a strong, clear energy policy for this Nation could be a big boost in terms of getting jobs recreated in America and giving business the certainty they need so they can make good and wise decisions for their shareholders and stockholders and begin to increase the vibrancy of this economy. I rise to talk about a very compelling presentation made by Chairman Greenspan yesterday on this subject. He shared a couple of his thoughts, and I thought it would be a good idea for me to try and express some of what he said in a way by adding my own thoughts and comments, because I think what he said and what he showed was quite compelling. The energy situation is a hard subject for a lot of us to grasp. We cannot exactly see electricity. It is not like it is on every street corner. We know about schools and we can deal with health care, because there are hospitals and there are schools and we all have personal experiences. The energy issue is a lot harder for us even to grasp as policymakers and for our constituents to grasp because we cannot see big pieces of it. So it is a policy that takes extra time and focus, which Senator Domenici and Senator Bingaman have given. I thought this chart would be helpful. This was a chart that was shown in the energy hearing yesterday with Chairman Greenspan, and I think more than any other chart it shows one of the major dilemmas facing the Nation right now in terms of energy policy. We can see clearly that up until about 1996, we were generating capacity for electricity by fuel type in a variety of different ways: Petroleum in the dark purple color; hydrogen in blue; nuclear in green; gas in a fuschia color; and coal in black. We can see with one glance that it was a pretty interesting and balanced mix of what we were using to produce electricity in this country. Then all of a sudden something pretty extraordinary happened, and one does not need a Ph.D. or an MBA or even be on the Energy Committee to understand this chart, and that is that in 1996 the world changed. All of the capacity, or virtually all of it, started to be built in anticipation of using natural gas. People say to me, Senator, why did this happen? Did the Congress mandate that everyone do this in the country? Was there major legislation? The answer is, there was not one thing. It was not a Presidential Executive Order. We do not order our industries in that way. It was not one congressional act. It was a confluence of things that had to do with a couple of big policy decisions the Congress made. One policy was we must begin to clean up our air. Our air is too dirty. We need to clean it up. We have all of these coal-fired plants that, prior to clean coal technologies, were polluting our air. Our children were getting asthma. People were complaining, rightfully so, about some of the air pollution issues. So Congress acted, and with the Clean Air Act of 1990, and then in 1996 when some rules and regulations came out, the industry said, let's move to a fuel source, natural gas, that meets these clean air standards, that helps to reduce air pollution. They began building, in anticipation of this regulatory mode and public demand for cleaner air, natural gas. Although we do not produce a lot of coal in Louisiana, I am mindful of States such as West Virginia and Pennsylvania that do. Meanwhile, work has gone on in research to clean up the coal and we will anticipate in the future having coal become more of a mix, but it will be cleaner, it will be better, and it will be far less polluting than what was happening back in 1965, 1970, 1975, and 1980. Great thanks goes to Senator Domenici, who almost singlehandedly can claim credit--he is too modest, but I can most certainly say he can almost singlehandedly claim credit for the revitalization of the nuclear industry. While it has its critics and while there are people who still do not believe in nuclear power, it is becoming clear, based on science and fact, not myth and fear, that as we begin to deal with the waste issue of nuclear power, just like gas, nuclear power produces energy in a way that does not pollute our environment and helps us to keep the air as clean as possible in the United States and, for that matter, in North America and the world, to clean up our Nation's air. When our bill passes, nuclear will become a part of this mix. So we hopefully will see a little more black, a little more green, and petroleum will probably remain steady. We can see it is a very minor portion of our electricity. We use petroleum to drive our cars and buses. It is used more in the transportation sector. But when we are talking about electricity, which underlies all of our economy, our manufacturing, our agriculture, everything, it is basically produced by natural gas. What is the problem, then? The problem is that the prices of natural gas have tripled in the last 18 months. Whether one is in Oregon, California, or a State such as Louisiana, New York, Illinois, or New Jersey, believe me, our businesses are suffering. They are closing, consolidating, and laying off workers. Any businesses that rely in large measure on natural gas to produce their products, whether it is petrochemical or fertilizer or ammonia, are feeling the brunt of prices doubling and tripling. Why are prices doubling and tripling? Because the capacity has been built up, but there is not an adequate supply. At the same time, we have had policies promoting the use of natural gas at the very same time, in the very same Congress, we have then implemented policies that discourage the production of natural gas because we put moratoria down around the country. We cannot drill even though we know there is a lot of gas. Billions and trillions of cubic feet of natural gas on the Outer Continental Shelf, in the interior, in Alaska, are off limits from drilling. We are not encouraging as aggressively as we should the importation of liquefied natural gas, again based on myth and misinformation about the dangers or benefits of such a transfer, which brings me to what Alan Greenspan said. Alan Greenspan said he is not an energy expert, but he knows something about jobs, he knows something about the economy, and he says we cannot sustain this imbalance. We cannot sustain the imbalance between the demand for natural gas and our lack of willingness to supply it because the supply and demand is so out of kilter that these high prices will damage the recovery of our economy and we need to increase the supply of natural gas. He said two things. He said he would prefer to increase the supply of natural gas by domestic production. But he realizes, based on all sorts of concerns--political and environmental--that in a short time that is unlikely. So the chairman, wisely--and I agree--said we should pursue a policy of importing liquefied natural gas production, but not just a plant, not to take the place of domestic production, but to complement it. The people in Louisiana would think it is a reasonable policy. We first say let's open up areas of natural gas production. Louisiana already opened up much of its land, both offshore and onshore. We say over and over again we are happy to host the industry. We recognize we have made some environmental errors in the past. But today, these rigs are not your grandfather's oil rigs. They are run by computers. They are much more safe for the operators of the rigs--for their personal safety, as well as the safety of the environment. In fact, there was a front-page article--and I will submit it for the Record--several weeks ago in New Orleans, where they claim--and I believe it because I have experienced this myself--some of the best fishing in the world is around the rigs in the Gulf of Mexico. Why? Because the rigs themselves create artificial reefs. You cannot have good fishing and the growth of marine life without good reefs. Coral begins to grow on and attach to these reefs as artificial reefs are created that are really increasing the health of the marine life in the gulf. A lot of people don't want to believe that because they want to believe that everything associated with oil and gas is terrible and damaging, and actually the facts are the opposite. So while Louisiana remains a promising place, and in Texas and Mississippi, and off the Continental Shelf, I must say there are many reserves in Florida and in other places in the Outer Continental Shelf that need to be pursued. Now, whether we decide to drill, that would have to be left up to the political establishment, the political framework. But we should have an inventory of where those reserves are. We should at least know what our reserves are, which is part of what is in the bill. Chairman Greenspan agreed that we cannot sustain--if we want new jobs for the Nation, we cannot sustain this out of balance. How do we fix that? Let me show another chart that is pretty startling. One of the ways is to ask every State and region to just pull their own weight. It is not a new concept in America. Our country was founded on a very simple principle: Those who work get to eat; those who produce should consume; those who are unwilling to work or do their part, unwilling to produce, and if they are able, should go without. All able-bodied men and women should pull their own weight. It is just a fundamental value and principle in America. Our country cannot operate on any other value. We do that pretty well in some areas, but we are not doing very well in the area of energy production. You can see from this chart, which is colorful and easy to understand, that these States, starting with California and New York, and going all the way down to Louisiana and Wyoming--I should say all the way up in this case, as this is positive and this is more negative. These are the States that are consuming more than they are producing. This is the energy deficit in the Nation. We talk a lot about deficits and budget deficits. We talk about health care deficits. But the energy deficit is very important to discuss and understand. The United States imports more energy than we consume. Why is that? It is because some States and some regions are not producing nearly what they consume. We are relying on just a few States to be net exporters of energy. Those States are Utah, Colorado, North Dakota, Montana, Oklahoma, Kentucky, New Mexico, Alaska, West Virginia, Louisiana, and Wyoming. They are all net exporters of energy. We produce a lot of energy from a variety of different sources--maybe it is hydro, maybe it is coal, maybe it is oil and gas, or maybe it is nuclear. But we don't consume as much as we use, and then we send out our excess to other States. You can see that Wyoming gets the prize. They are the top State for producing energy, consuming little and sending out 8,000 trillion Btu's in excess to be used by their neighbors and the rest of the Nation. One of the reasons is Wyoming is a relatively unpopulated State, with only about 450,000 people. They have a large landmass, and they are blessed with a lot of natural resources. They have a fairly pro-production mindset in Wyoming. So they produce all that they consume and then they help the rest of the States with their very difficult situations. Louisiana, which is also a net producer, could also win first prize in the sense that not only do we have 4.5 million people, we produce enough for our own consumption, but we are also a highly industrialized State. Most of the petrochemicals, fertilizers, and many plastics are produced in Louisiana. Not only do we produce enough energy for our residents, but for the industry in our State, which sends their products into the country and the world. On top of that, we still send out electricity for everyone else. It is the same thing for West Virginia, which is more like Wyoming. They are not an industrial State, but they are blessed with a lot of natural resources. And there is also New Mexico, et cetera. Let me talk about this part of the chart for a minute. They are big States. California is blessed with natural resources, and New York, Ohio, and Florida consume a tremendous amount of energy. Yet because of policies that their States have enacted, and maybe because of a lack of understanding about how much they actually are consuming, they basically refuse to produce any energy--or enough energy. Year after year, decade after decade, they consume and consume, and they refuse to produce. What happens, then, is because of that, the Nation has an energy deficit and we have to import oil or import liquefied natural gas from other places--sometimes places that are not friendly, sometimes places that are quite dangerous, sometimes countries that we would prefer not to be dealing with, except for the fact that they have the resources we need. This has to change. Senators from these States would come to me and say: Senator, just because you want to drill for oil and gas in Louisiana doesn't mean we have to. Well, they are right. If they don't want to do it, that is fine. But I say you have to produce it in some way. They can put up a nuclear powerplant, or two, or three, or four, or five, or dam some of their rivers to generate hydro power, or they can find some coal reserves and dig for some of their coal, or they can come up with alternatives, such as putting up windmills. Interestingly enough, in one of the States--Massachusetts--which consumes more than it produces--there are some communities that are opposing the putting up of windmills offshore because people don't want to look at them. They don't like the way they look. They don't like the way oil rigs look or the way windmills look. While they have a right to that opinion, I am not sure it is good policy for us just to completely eliminate sources of energy because some people might not like the way these structures look. They think ``not in my backyard.'' But everybody wants to walk into a room and turn on the lights; everybody wants not one cell phone but several; everybody wants a laptop; they may want to own a business where they can use the energy sources and pay a little bit of money for that use, but they don't want to produce. It cannot sustain itself. We will either become more vulnerable to outside sources or we will drive businesses away from the United States and the North American Continent to other places where they can get an adequate supply of energy for cheaper prices. It will cost jobs in your State, in my State, or in New York or California. When we lose jobs, we lose income from taxes. When we lose taxes for local government, the police force gets cut, the fire departments get cut, schools close. We have communities, perhaps in the State of the Presiding Officer, with 4-day school weeks. Who ever heard of such a thing? Four days of school? My children would like that, but I don't think for a nation trying to develop a skilled workforce we can afford to go to 3- and 4-day school weeks. When we lose jobs, we lose income, the economy gets sluggish, we lose tax revenues, schools close, hospitals close, and it is a ferocious cycle. Will fixing this fix everything? No. But fixing the energy deficit in this Nation will go a long way. It can be done if we come to grips with the facts. Let me be clear because I don't want anyone saying the Senator's answer is for everyone to start drilling for oil and gas in their State. If some States or some regions do not want to drill for oil and gas, although they might have a lot of it, they need to think about what they will do. Will they dig for coal? Will they put up windmills? Will they construct nuclear powerplants? Will they use more hydro? Will they allow the damming of some rivers--not all rivers--to create the kind of energy they need? What is not fair is to put these States in the position of having to produce all the energy for all the rest of the States and for these States to jeopardize the security of this Nation both from a national security aspect and an economic aspect because their policies will not be in line. If any one of these States thinks they could enact within their States enough conservation to take up this slack, more power to them. If these States--whether it is Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Georgia, or Florida--think, fine, we decided we do not want to produce anything, we do not like the idea of producing, we do not want to produce any energy, we will conserve, then fine. They can go to all their businesses and tell them you can only use electricity between the hours of 8 in the morning and 12 noon and close your business and come back the next day. If they think they could politically get away with that, that is a solution they also have--or coming up with alternative sources. I am not trying to be unreasonable; I think the American people understand it. I don't know about the policymakers, but I promise people in Louisiana, people in Florida, people in California understand they have to produce energy if they are going to consume it. They can either produce more or conserve more. But to just put your head in the sand and say, A, we do not have a problem, or, B, we can get ourselves out of it by conservation only, that is the wrong way to lead. Sometimes I am accused of wanting to bend or modify environmental laws or regulations. The reason I feel so strongly is I believe in clean air standards. I want to keep the air clean. If we can produce more natural gas, if we can produce more nuclear, if we can continue, as this bill proposes, to invest in clean coal technology, we could increase the supply of energy and clean up our environment. I want to move in that direction. I don't want to have to back up from those environmental standards we have set for ourselves. I hope we can do this. We have an energy deficit. It is a national natural gas crisis. Chairman Greenspan has said he believes one of the solutions is to increase the supply of natural gas domestically and to try to create a framework in this bill to at least make it optional to import liquefied natural gas not only from other nations but Alaska, which is a rich source of natural gas. However, we must do something not only as a nation but as regions. This chart shows the U.S. census regions and divisions. The Pacific West is represented, and then the Mountain States, the West North Central, the Texas and Louisiana region, and then the Northeast. This is not in the bill as drafted at this moment, but I will work on language that would begin to help these regions focus on energy independence. I am not pulling this concept out of the sky because I met with some leaders from Canada. Much to my amazement, Canada has developed quite a different way than the United States. Each of our States has acted, of course, independently. We are the United States of 50 States acting independently. Canada has developed its electricity and energy system on a regional basis. They have six distinct regions and each region is self-sufficient. They each generate enough energy in their region-- which makes a lot of sense--based on the natural resources in the region. One region has a lot of nuclear power because that is what their region decided. Another region produces a lot from hydro because they have the ability to do that. Other regions have gas. And then they have the mix of supply. When, say, there is a drought in an area with the hydro and they do not have enough water, the other regions are able to meet the demand of that region because they have nuclear or they have gas. Say the price of natural gas goes up. That region, then, says no, we will not buy your gas; it is too expensive. And they get inexpensive hydro or less expensive nuclear. That competition is good. It helps everybody keep the price low and stable, which is the point. Canada operates in a very model way. We are far from that model. We need to get closer to that model and eventually get Mexico in that model. Then we will have quite a robust North American model. What we have now are individual States, and we are trying to break our States down a little bit, recognizing State rights and trying to work with the States but encouraging them to break up into regions and think about regional independence so Florida and Georgia and South Carolina can no longer say, we just want to consume, we want to get all of our power from Louisiana, or we want to get all of our power from Mississippi. This region should think, how are we going to sustain our region and come up with regional plans. It will not be simple. It will not happen overnight. But this is a view of what potentially could be done. Another chart demonstrates RTO, regional transmission organizations, which is happening now. This is not something in the far distance. This is underway now through regulation and through congressional bills and amendments we are passing, encouraging the development of these regional transmission organizations for the purpose of transmitting electricity. On the same concept, we should be producing regionally a balance, so that no State should be allowed to simply consume and not produce. No region should be allowed to simply consume and not produce. Different people say to me: Senator, some States produce wheat; your State does not produce wheat. But some States produce all the wheat and ship it to you and not every State has to produce wheat. That would be a pretty good argument except that people do not object to having wheatfields in their backyards. People want to grow crops; they want agriculture to be there. So we manage, as a nation. I grow a lot of wonderful cotton and sugar and soybean. We ship it up to the Midwest. They produce wheat and ship it down to us. That system is working fine because there are no environmental efforts to undermine the growing of our crops. But there are misguided environmental efforts to undermine the production of energy and electricity in this country, forcing some States to basically say: Not in my backyard, not today, not tomorrow, not anything--not oil, not gas, not coal, not nuclear, not windmills, not anything. And, by the way, we are not going to conserve very much. We conserve a little, but we still want to use all that we want, 24 hours a day. It is not going to work. It never has worked in the history of the country, and it is not going to work today. So we have a problem. This bill we are going to adopt, thanks to the leadership of many on the Senate floor, will begin to solve some of these problems. For Louisiana and for the Gulf Coast States I think it will be quite a victory because we have done more than our share of production. We are happy to do it. We want to be more fully and equally compensated for that production. We want to share in the taxes that are generated from the production so we can invest in our infrastructure, in our environment, in saving our wetlands that are somewhat damaged by the drilling. But it is not the primary culprit. The primary culprit in our case, which you cannot see here--Louisiana through the Mississippi River drains more than 40 percent of the continental United States. It also serves as a river for commerce for the whole Nation. Where we dam this river, the Mississippi River, and as we have tried to tame it, which is an ongoing process over the last 200 years, so this country could grow and expand, we now do not allow the river to overflow and to replenish the marsh. So we are losing a lot of this extraordinary wetland in the southern part of the State. It is not due primarily to oil and gas drilling. It is due to the commercialization and the leveeing and dredging of the greatest river system in the world. So the country has an obligation to help us. We have a plan, and with good help, in this Energy bill we will begin to solve our wetlands problems, maintain good commercial navigation for the international trade that benefits not only our State but the whole Nation, and hopefully begin to get this country on a more commonsense approach to energy production and electricity use. A national energy policy must address the regional challenges that confront our country. It must call for each region to use wisely the resources it can access in order to supply its particular demand for energy. For too long, individual States have prevented regions of our country from producing the energy needed, creating an energy deficit, all the while continuing to consume the majority of that region's energy. This bill must address the national gas crisis and the emerging energy crisis in America. I need to make this one final point. It is the subject of a whole other speech, but I don't want to finish without saying this about another consequence of relying on outside sources of energy. California says we don't want to drill, not on our State, offshore, Outer Continental Shelf. Florida says we don't want to drill; we don't want to produce. Illinois and others say the same. What happens is, because we refuse to regulate our consumption or reduce it substantially--because, frankly, we can reduce some through technology and through alternatives, but we just can't restrict consumption because we will restrict economic growth, which we do not want to do. But what happens, then, is we begin importing from other countries, countries that have lower environmental standards than we do, countries that have less capacity to enforce the meager regulations they have on the books, countries that are more desperate for jobs. Although we want them, there are countries desperate for them. So, inadvertently, we end up increasing pollution, damaging the world environment because we refuse to adopt commonsense principles, which are to extract national resources and develop energy on our own soil, off our own continental shelf, and minimize the degradation internationally. If anybody wants to come to the Senate floor and debate that with me, I will be more than happy to debate it because I am scrambling for information. Perhaps I have gotten information incorrectly. I am very concerned because America consumes so much oil and so much gas. I know a lot of that production comes from the Mideast. But now we are asking it of Venezuela and now we are asking countries in Africa. They want to, of course, because if they ship oil to us, their countries make money. They put their people to work. I understand that. We produce a lot of oil and gas. But I am also well aware, as a producer, of the environmental degradation that can occur if we do not have strong rules and regulations, strong court systems, and a mature political system that can monitor it. I say to the leaders in our country, when we force production off of our shore, we damage the international environment. It is not right. If some environmental organizations want to challenge that comment, then please do it. I urge them to send mail to me or send e-mails to me and tell me why I am wrong; that we can easily and clearly and without damage drill in other places of the world. I don't believe it because I know what we went through in the Louisiana Legislature over 20 years ago, led by a group of very great legislators, to try to bring good rules and regulations to the industry. Now the industry is doing much better. But 30 and 40 years ago, people were not too interested in environmental rules and regulations. So I know what can occur when the rules and regulations are not there. I wonder how the people of California or Florida might feel about the fact that, because they refuse to produce, somebody is producing somewhere for them, in places that do not have rules and regulations like they do, in places they cannot be enforced. What about the children who live in those areas? What about the families who are struggling with meager incomes? What environmental legacies are we leaving in Third World countries around the globe? For all the reasons--for independence, for national security, for jobs, for the economy, and for making this world a more beautiful place than we found it when we got here--I urge this Senate to take seriously the bill that is being put forward by both Senators from New Mexico, the chairman, and the ranking member, to pass an Energy bill before we leave for the August break. I will stand with them. The people of Louisiana support this bill. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. Will the leader yield for a question?

Ms. LANDRIEU. There was a very important discussion that took place earlier today on the emergency appropriations bill. The chairman has been very cooperative in working through some of the amendments we might have. I know we are on short time and we want to move the bills. Is it the leader's understanding we will get an opportunity to debate and offer amendments on the emergency appropriations bill, perhaps not voting tonight, but in the morning?

Ms. LANDRIEU. And perhaps even in the morning because there is an issue very important to Louisiana that needs to get resolved.