Mary Landrieu

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, we are today continuing a very important debate on fashioning an energy policy for our Nation. We will be voting on many key amendments as we attempt to move this very important bill off the Senate floor, to conference with the House, and to the President's desk for signature. It is crucial that we increase domestic production of oil and gas. It is crucial that we invest more money in research and technologies for alternate fuels that are more environmentally friendly. It is crucial that we reduce our consumption, particularly of oil, as well as have a revitalization, in my opinion, in the appropriate ways, of our nuclear industry--they are all important aspects of this bill--as well as have the deregulation components of electricity and the expanding of the electric grid, in the appropriate ways, which is quite difficult because there are regions of the country that come at that issue from a variety of different standpoints, and it has been very difficult to negotiate those particular aspects of the bill. But I compliment the chairman from New Mexico and our ranking member from New Mexico who have worked beautifully together trying to fashion a bill that is balanced and is actually possible to pass and not get logjammed in ideological battles; it is something that will help our country move toward more energy efficiency and security; increasing our national security and improving efficiency in our economy, hopefully putting people to work in developing these new technologies. So I commend them for their patience and persistence and their guidance. I believe the amendment I offer today will go a long way to minimizing the consumption of oil in this country. We are a nation that has only 3 percent of the world's known oil reserves. Yet we consume more oil than any country per capita or in any way you might want to arrive at that conclusion. It is simply essential that we reduce our consumption of oil. You might say to me, Mr. President: That is strange, Senator, since you are from a State that produces oil. We are a proud producer, as you know, of oil and gas. We believe we contribute to the wealth and security of this Nation. We believe and know that these oil and gas wells have brought jobs and wealth and opportunity and prosperity to our State. Yes, it has come at some environmental cost, particularly 40 and 50 years ago, where the science was not where it is today, the technology was not where it is today, the safety measures were not where they are today. We made mistakes, but we are quickly learning from our experience, as any smart individual or enterprise does. We are now engaged in new technologies that minimize the footprint. We are engaged in making tremendous improvements in environmental restoration projects. So I hope people will not think it is strange that a Senator from Louisiana would be offering what I consider a very reasonable amendment to reduce oil consumption in this Nation because even our oil and gas producers themselves are willing, and know, in the long run it is in everyone's interests, including theirs, to diversify our source of supply, to minimize our consumption and our dependence on foreign oil by improving and increasing domestic production of oil and gas, which is a centerpiece of this bill which I am proud to support. So, therefore, I offer this amendment which will save, if adopted-- and I am pleased to offer this amendment with the Senator from Pennsylvania, Mr. Specter, as the lead cosponsor; Senator Lamar Alexander, from the great State of Tennessee; as well as Senator Collins from Maine--so we offer this as a bipartisan amendment to save the taxpayers and the businesses and the consumers in this Nation 1 million barrels of oil a day. That is the essence of this amendment. Before I explain the details of the amendment, let me just talk a moment about the importance of reducing our dependence on fossil fuels. As I said, we need to develop alternative fuel sources. One of the reasons is because oil provides nearly 40 percent of U.S. energy consumption. Sixty percent of the oil we consume today is imported, and that number is set to rise. Unless this amendment and others like it are adopted, that trend will continue to go up, putting at risk our national security and putting at risk our international economic competitiveness. Because oil is truly an international commodity, and the United States is the world's largest consumer of oil, it is particularly vulnerable to any event that would affect supply and demand. As I said earlier, our daily consumption of oil is almost four times the next two largest oil consumers, Japan and China. Let me repeat: Our daily consumption of oil is four times the next two largest oil consumers, Japan and China. The price of oil in our country is at the mercy of world events, and not just in the Middle East, which we see played out on television every day, but in Venezuela, which might be off the front pages but, believe me, it is not off the front pages of the business journals in this country where they see their prices and their businesses jeopardized because of the turmoil in Venezuela and Nigeria. We owe it to ourselves to try to minimize the volatility of oil prices. We do that in two ways: increasing domestic production, which obviously Louisiana would support; and also by reducing our consumption, which people in Louisiana--average families, businesses large and small--all would agree to. I continue to advocate for responsible and robust domestic oil production, as I said, but we need to do more to reduce consumption. Oil is a critical component of nearly everything that affects our daily lives: from transportation, to food production, to heating. And rising oil prices actually act like a tax by foreign oil exporters on the average American. We have spent a great deal of time trying to reduce taxes on the floor of the Senate. We have done that sometimes in a bipartisan way. Sometimes the majority has pushed through tax relief. We can debate that issue at another time. But there is no disagreement that when we can reduce taxes in a responsible manner, we most certainly should do so. This amendment, which asks the President to reduce the consumption of oil in this Nation by 1 million barrels a day--we are consuming about 19 million barrels a day, so this would require and basically meet his goals, as outlined in his State of the Union speech--gives him broad latitude as to how to do that. It would be like a tax reduction because currently middle-class families pay about 5 percent of aftertax income for energy needs. As the price of oil increases, family aftertax income continues to decline. When businesses pay higher taxes, pay for higher oil prices and disruptions in oil supply, this increases inflation and reduces profits, production, investment, and employment. Let me repeat: It increases inflation, reduces profits, reduces production, reduces investment, and reduces employment. We need to be increasing production, investment, and employment. My amendment will help us to do just that. Consumers are spending $50 billion more in annual energy bills than a year ago. If we could reduce our consumption by the amount that our amendment suggests, we would begin to save consumers money they could spend on other most needed and necessary things for themselves, their children, their grandchildren, or their businesses. The amendment I offer today, as I said, would direct the President to develop and implement a plan to reduce oil consumption by 1 million barrels a day by the year 2013. I show you a chart I have in the Chamber because this amendment would actually put into law--I am hoping we can get a broad bipartisan vote on this amendment--it would actually put into law the words the President himself spoke in his State of the Union speech when he said U.S. oil consumption would be about 1.8 million barrels per day lower in 2020. So what my amendment says is, instead of saying there would be a 1.8 million reduction by 2020, let's try to shoot for a 1-million-barrel- per-day reduction by 2013, which is just about the equivalent--a little different goal but you could argue an equivalent goal. The benefit and beauty of this amendment is that it does not tie the President's hands, but it gives him great flexibility in how to achieve the goal he has outlined. There are any number of reasonable and simple measures the President could adopt that would help us to consume a less significant amount of oil and reduce taxes on the American people, increase our national security, improve our environment, and create jobs. It almost sounds too good to be true, but it is true. We are not mandating a specific approach, which is the beauty of it, because the approach some have argued for I have actually disagreed with and want to give the President great flexibility but hold to this important goal. There are any number of ways we could do that. The President could consider renewable fuels standards. A different approach could save 175,000 barrels of oil per day by 2013. Weatherizing of homes under credit enhancements or encouragement or new techniques that some local and State governments have found very helpful could save 80,000 barrels per day. Air traffic improvements, just simple improvements in the way and timing of our airplanes taking off and landing, which can be increased effectively by additional technologies, could save 50,000 barrels of oil per day. As to reducing truck idling, there are several new technologies being developed, employing scientists and engineers and putting Americans to work developing these new kinds of technologies which make the engines more efficient. They don't have to idle or, at the idling stage, don't use as much oil. That could save 50,000 barrels of oil a day. Just replacing tires, using our tires and keeping them filled with air as opposed to flat, new technology regarding the tires could save money. The point of this list--and I could go on because I could speak about 30, 40, or 50 known actions that could be taken by the President in this realm without dictating exactly how the savings would occur--is to illustrate the plethora of choices where he could go to achieve these savings. The amendment I offer today with Senators Alexander, Bingaman, Specter, and Collins is a clear and reasonable objective for oil savings. It will reduce our dependence on oil. Let me show a couple of examples of the way the President could achieve these goals, some of which we have already passed on the Senate floor. Ethanol is now a part of this bill. There were some Members who disagreed with the ethanol fuels standard. I actually supported, along with Senator Daschle, Republicans and Democrats, that new standard. This will save oil consumption in the country. The President would have that option. In addition, I talked about the tire savings, replacement tires with the appropriate rules and regulations could save us 270,000 barrels of oil. And finally, the idling engines, this is a visual to show that with some new technologies to keep our airplanes flying and spending less time on the ground and more time in the air, which passengers would appreciate--believe me, as a frequent flier myself, if we could just keep our airplanes flying and keep them from idling; there are new technologies helping to do this--we could save oil. In the past, we have focused the debate on just one way of saving oil which was directed at our transportation sector. My amendment does not direct these savings at the transportation sector, although I acknowledge that the transportation sector is the largest user of oil. This amendment provides flexibility. It sets a realistic goal that matches the President's, basically the equivalent of the President's own goals. And I think it would create, if adopted, a tremendous balance in the bill because again we have increased opportunities for production. We have given incentives for more domestic production. But that has to be coupled with Senator Bingaman's leadership on energy efficiency and savings to reduce our consumption of oil as we promote in the appropriate ways over the appropriate timeframe the use of other alternative sources of energy. I offer the amendment in good faith. There will be Members who will speak hopefully for the amendment. Hopefully we can pass it by a good margin to show we are indeed serious about a balanced energy policy which promotes in the right ways domestic production but also oil savings. I will ask unanimous consent to print in the Record a Business Week article that had a great impact with me as I read it, ``Taming the Oil Beast.'' It is time, since the business community realizes we can and should get smart about oil, that we do so. I think this is a very good amendment about getting smart about oil because it sets a goal of reduction, but it gives the President and his departments flexibility as to how this would work. I would like to submit that for the Record because it would serve as a basis for the offering of the amendment today. I would also like to reference an article by the Concerned Scientists Association, over 2,000 scientists who have written a paper, very illustrative, encouraging action on this subject. I say that because some of our brightest minds, some of the best scientists in the country are thinking along these lines and fully support this amendment to save 1 million barrels of oil. Perhaps we can save more. I would actually be open to saving more. If someone wants to offer an additional amendment, I would consider voting for it. But I am certain this is something we can accomplish. The President himself outlined this as a goal. The President's own budget that he laid down cited as a goal the equivalent, basic goal of what I am offering. We have voted any number of times in the Senate and have come very close to reaching this goal. So while some may argue that we should try to save more, I think this is an amendment that can pass, that can get us moving in the right direction. I submit both of these from a business perspective, from an environmental perspective for the Record, to substantiate the value of the amendment. I see my colleague from Tennessee on the floor who has probably come to add his good words as a cosponsor of the amendment. I ask unanimous consent to print the document I referenced.

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Ms. LANDRIEU. Reserving the right to object, I have a question. Does the Senator think it would be possible to do that before lunch? I think my colleague would probably only need 30 minutes for our debate, equally divided between the Senator from Tennessee and the Senator from Maine.

Ms. LANDRIEU. I would like to have 1 minute to close and then turn to one of the original cosponsors, the Senator from Tennessee, who may want to add. Let me again thank the chairman and ranking member for their able help because without their support, this amendment would not have been possible. We worked on many different approaches, several different drafts. Finally, we did come upon a way that sets a very clear goal. I would agree with Senator Specter, it is somewhat modest, but it is a compromise. It is a clear goal. It is an attainable goal. It is a reachable goal. It gives the President and the administration the flexibility they need to do it in a way that is most helpful to this economy. It will create jobs, reduce taxes that people pay because of the price of oil and energy, and it gives the flexibility necessary to come up with a smart approach to this very serious problem. I yield to my friend from Tennessee.

Ms. LANDRIEU. How much more time remains under the unanimous consent?

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. Right.

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, as we reflect upon this Memorial Day, Americans throughout the country should take time to remember all the brave men and women who gave their lives in the defense of freedom and to preserve the liberties we cherish in this great Nation. We must never forget our fallen heroes, and we should continue to praise them for their service and commitment to country. This year, in particular, we must be ever reverent because America lost some of her greatest sons and daughters in Operations Iraqi Freedom and Enduring Freedom. Those who died did so in the defense of America from her enemies and to deliver downtrodden nations from the oppression of tyrants. I am both grateful and sorrowful this Memorial Day. I want to express my deepest sympathies to the families and friends of those who only recently gave their lives fighting on behalf of the United States. My words cannot erase your pain, but please know my prayers are with you during this most difficult time. It is said of those who fought in wars to defend America that ``All gave some and some gave all.'' On this Memorial Day, I hope every American will pay tribute to those who gave all.

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, on June 6, 2000, the National D-Day opened in New Orleans, LA. This museum was the culmination of a vision of the late Stephen Ambrose. Dr. Ambrose dedicated his life to chronicling American heroes, including Dwight D. Eisenhower. It was President Eisenhower who mentioned to Dr. Ambrose that World War II was won in New Orleans because of the Higgins landing craft, designed by Andrew Jackson Higgins, which enabled Allied Forces to launch successful amphibious invasions. The National D-Day Museum has been an unquestioned success as a tourist attraction, meeting place for veterans, and teaching tool for men and women, young and old, wishing to learn more about World War II. Already, over 1 million people have come through the museum's turn- styles. America has a need to preserve its historical accounts and mementos from World War II. The National D-Day Museum is committed to such preservation. As a result of its mission, the museum has already had to expand and is building a 250,000 square-foot addition. We must preserve the stories and artifacts of the ``Greatest Generation.'' Accordingly, I submitted an amendment to designate the National D-Day Museum as ``America's National World War II Museum.'' We owe it to the Great Generation to maintain a museum that pays tribute to their great sacrifices so that we may live today in freedom.

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, over 220,000 Guardsmen and Reservists were mobilized as part of Operation Enduring Freedom. Additionally, over 100,000 were activated as part of Operations Noble Eagle and Enduring Freedom. While the Soldiers and Sailors Civil Relief Act and the Uniformed Servicemembers Employment and Reemployment Rights Act, provide a number of protections of our Guard and Reserve personnel, there are no Federal protections for the educational status of Guardsmen and Reservists involuntarily activated while participating in higher education. Currently, over 30 percent of Guard and Reserve personnel are enrolled in post-high school education. If they are activated while enrolled in higher-education, there are no safeguards to ensure that their academic status is preserved during activation; that they receive refunds or credits for the portion of the school year they paid for but could not complete to mobilization; that college grants and scholarships are preserved; or that they have a right to re-enroll in the educational institution upon their return from active duty. I submitted an amendment whereby involuntarily called up student Reservists and Guardsmen would be able to take a leave of absence during the activation and for 1 year after the conclusion of such military duty from their institutions of higher education. Furthermore, the student shall be entitled to be restored to the same educational status, without loss of credit, and offered a right to re-enroll at the same educational institution where the student was enrolled prior to activation. Grants and scholarships shall be reinstated. Moreover, students shall be entitled to a refund of tuition and fees for classes they could not complete due to activation or be allowed to enroll in such classes subsequent to their re-enrollment at no cost. Soon, thousands of Guardsmen and Reservists will be coming home from Iraq and Afghanistan. They will be eager to re-enroll in colleges, universities, and trade schools. Let's help these heroes get back to the classroom as effortlessly as possible.

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I can think of few better uses of Federal dollars than the benefits derived from our commitment to the National Guard's Youth Challenge Program. Every year, over 500,000 boys and girls drop out of school. High-school dropouts face a much more difficult life after leaving school than their peers who continue their educations to finish high school. Drug use and run-ins with the law often plague high school dropouts for a life-time. The Youth Challenge Program has reclaimed the lives of over 45,000 children through the instillment of discipline, self-respect, commitment to citizenry, and the renewed pursuit of a diploma. It costs over $40,000 a year for a child to be detained in a juvenile detention center. On the other hand, Youth Challenge can reclaim a child from a life of wrong-turns for $14,000 a child. I am pleased the President and the Senate have committed $65.2 million to the Youth Challenge Program. Youth Challenge is funded on a formula basis, whereby the Federal Government contributes 60 percent of the funds and States contribute 40 percent. Regrettably, many States are facing steep budget shortfalls, and they are having difficulty meeting the 40 percent match. Already, New York and Missouri have closed their Youth Challenge programs. This amendment authorizes the Department to increase the Federal match, temporarily, until the States get their financial houses in order. For fiscal year 2004, the Federal match would increase to 65 percent. For fiscal year 2005 and fiscal year 2006 the Federal match would increase to 70 percent. However, it is expected the States will have recovered from budgetary difficulties by fiscal year 2007; therefore, the Federal match would fall back to 65 percent in all subsequent years. There is no more effective program to make high school dropouts contributors, rather than anchors, to society. I hope you will join me in supporting this amendment.

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. The LPD-17 is certainly an excellent example of the dilemma posed in our Navy's shipbuilding program. I am hopeful that as we move through the authorization process, some accommodation will be found to move that shipbuilding program along. Certainly, this ship class, if produced at greater levels can clear the decks, so to speak, for the other, advanced ships, which are in development now.

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to one of the greatest Senators to have ever served in this body, the late Senator Russell Long. Born in 1918, Russell Long came from a long line of Louisiana political elites. From the beginning of his career as a public servant, Russell wanted to distinguish his career from that of his father and to make his own mark. No doubt, his distinguished leadership and passion for serving people allowed him to create a legacy that will be remembered by the people of Louisiana and this Nation for a long time to come. Although he is no longer with us, the legacy of his work and the relationships he fostered will live on forever. For 38 years, Russell Long engaged in the debate of this Chamber. While he was a loyal Democrat, Russell always believed in putting principle above politics. His long list of accomplishments is a testament to that value. His Earned Income Tax Credit, EITC, has proven time and time again to be one of the most effective methods for helping low-income workers stay off of welfare. Every year, the EITC helps millions of Americans raise themselves out of poverty. Similarly, his efforts to expand Social Security to include coverage for the disabled have saved tens of millions of lives over the past 50 years. These are but a few of the many ways that Russell used his vast knowledge of the Tax Code and his position as Chairman of the Senate Finance Committee to champion the poor and downtrodden. Russell Long will not only be remembered for his incredible intelligence, but also for his kind, jovial manner. Always ready with a quick story or a witty one-liner, Russell was well known for trying to ease tensions during difficult debates. His calm presence was a unifying force that could negotiate both sides of an issue fairly and respectfully. His frequent practice of wrapping his arm around a colleague and pulling his colleague so close that he could whisper in his ear, helped to keep his friends abundant and his enemies rare. Everyone liked and respected Russell; few public servants can claim such a distinction. In my 23 years of public service, I cannot count how many times I have looked to him as an example. Russell Long set a benchmark for service to the people of our State--a benchmark we all still strive to meet today. I challenge my colleagues to honor his memory and the spirit of bipartisanship his career embodied. What mattered to Russell was that justice was served and the policies put forward by the U.S. Senate were both equitable and fair. Faced with a growing deficit and an ongoing war on terrorism, these principles are now more important than ever. I end my remarks with words from the eulogy delivered by my predecessor and Russell's colleague, former Senator J. Bennett Johnston, at Russell's funeral: Eighty-four years ago, Russell Long entered this life as Huey P. Long Junior. The legendary kingfish thought better of it shortly after and renamed him Russell, and said, ``that boy has to make a name for himself.'' And what a name he made. He served 38 years in the U.S. Senate, 16 of those years as the chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, longer continuous service in that position than anybody else in the history of the U.S. Senate. President-elect Jimmy Carter used to say that he was sent to Washington to run the country and got there and found out Russell Long was already running it. Jimmy Carter may have been exaggerating, but he wasn't exaggerating by very much. Russell Long understood that with the tax code we can make water run up hill, and for those who are thirsty and in need that was a great phenomenon for Russell Long to be able to perform, and this State and this Nation for decidedly better because of it. His legislative victories are legend. If Russell didn't invent bipartisanship he certainly perfected the art. All of the presidents with whom he served had both respect and affection, and occasionally consternation, with Russell. He had a legendary relationship with LBJ. When LBJ had a provision he wanted to pass in regards to agricultural aid to India, Russell said I can't help you, I can't help you, I am against it. Well, LBJ's top aide Bill Moyers called back in a little while and said, ``Why don't you come by the White House this evening, just a quiet dinner.'' And Russell said, ``I'm glad to go by the White House, the president is my friend, but I do not want to talk about agricultural aid to India.'' And Bill said, ``Well, that's a deal.'' So they were sitting in the family room after dinner, just the three of them in their rocking chairs, and after a couple of hours Russell got up to go home, and the president said, ``Now one more thing,'' and Russell's eyes shot through him And LBJ said to him, ``You know that fifth circuit judge from Louisiana you recommended. We'll, we've got a candidate from Texas who's pretty good, too.'' And nothing else was said. You know Texas and Louisiana share the fifth circuit. Well the next morning Russell told his staff, ``Call Bill Moyers, tell him we have an understanding.'' Nixon called him the partisan of principle, and indeed he was. But he had a few characteristics which I think are neat. He had a fifth gear he could slip into legislatively. He knew when to hold 'em, when to fold 'em, when to bring 'em up for a vote, when the time was right, what arguments would appeal. And it was an amazing thing to watch. One of his most enduring characteristics was his sense of humor. Russell was always popular with people but he never hesitated to go along with something unpopular when it was a matter of principle. He voted for the Panama Canal because it was a matter of principle. Russell Long had a side that was unknown to the public. Always he was up. He was the most fun person to be with. Anywhere it was fun to be with Russell Long. But he was also sweet and gentle. My 16 years serving as Russell's colleague are among the most pleasant memories of my life. He's a legend. A friend. A statesman. He will always be bright and shining within us. Bennett's words about Russell are so true. Russell's abilities as a Senator are legendary. His passing is a tremendous loss, but his service in the U.S. Senate was a great gift to this body, the State of Louisiana, and the entire country. I ask unanimous consent to print in the Record an excerpt from his official obituary and two articles on his life from the Baton Rouge Advocate.

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, this amendment would go a long way to send the right message to our guardsmen and reservists. Over 370,000 have been activated since September 11 and the attack on this city and our Nation. As we know, it has been made painfully aware to us that many of these guardsmen and reservists who serve take a cut in pay because they leave their jobs, they close their businesses to temporarily serve us. This amendment will give their employers, and themselves if they are an employer, the opportunity to write off 50 percent of the cost of their salaries so those salaries can be maintained while they are protecting and serving us. It is the least we can do. The other side is going to say they will get to it later. Let's get to it today. Let's not let this tax bill pass without honoring the Guard and Reserves and giving them a chance to keep their businesses open while they keep us safe.

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I thank my colleagues for their patience. Senator Sessions and I offered this amendment. We are not going to ask for a vote, but I would like to explain it in 1 minute. We offered this amendment to try to technically correct a glitch in the renewal community law. It only affects districts in Louisiana and Alabama now, but it could affect, in the near term, districts in 40 other States. I am going to ask the chairman of the Finance Committee to consider this fix. It only costs $14 million a year and it will help create jobs in some of the poorest areas in our country. So if I could ask for their consideration, I will at this time withdraw the amendment.

Ms. LANDRIEU. Thank you, Mr. President. Mr. President, this afternoon we are being asked to buy a pig in a poke. That is what we would say in Louisiana--a pig in a poke. Please colleagues, do not vote for the underlying bill. Senator Corzine and Senator Schumer and I offer an amendment which is a $350 billion alternative that is truly stimulative. It tries to work with the administration but takes out the nonstimulative portion and puts in a rebate on wages. If we want to create jobs, then let us stop taxing them. Our amendment also treats States as respected partners and not as charitable aid organizations, which they are not. It also says that tax cuts aren't the only way to stimulate the economy; that you can make strategic investments. As politicians, live up to your promises to children by funding education and health care. Don't buy a pig in a poke, and don't turn your back on the 2 million companies, 2 million farms, and 2 million partnerships that do not get a penny from the dividend tax cut.

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, pursuant to section 904 of the Congressional Budget Act, I move to waive the applicable sections of that act for the consideration of this amendment, and I ask for the yeas and nays.

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Feingold, Senator Stabenow, and Senator Mikulski be added as cosponsors of the amendment.

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, pursuant to section 904 of the Congressional Budget Act, I move to waive the applicable sections of that act for the consideration of the pending amendment, and I ask for the yeas and nays.

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I also have an amendment being submitted that I would like to be included on the list.

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, to date, approximately 14 million children have lost their parents to the AIDS virus. In many cases, this devastating disease has robbed them of their parents, their aunts, uncles, cousins, brothers and sisters. At a time when they are most in need of the care of loving adults, millions of children are left without anyone to call their own. Some of them are sick themselves, infected often at birth. If we are serious about $1.5 billion for programs aimed at assisting children orphaned by AIDS, then we must do all that we can to ensure that these programs reflect their many needs. I would suggest that the language in the underlying bill is remiss in that it does not address perhaps their most urgent need, the need for a permanent, loving home. I would like to commend the majority leader and the committee chairman for their foresight in insisting that 10 percent of the funds allocated in the bill be used to serve the educational, development and health needs of these young people. Yet, if these programs are not also focused on connecting children to at least one, caring adult, these programs will undoubtedly fall short of their potential. Every child needs a home. A child whose family has been devastated by disease is no exception. As a member of the Foreign Operations Appropriations subcommittee, I hope that we could address this issue at some point. Again, I thank the majority leader for his leadership and look forward to working with him.

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I think I still control the time.

Ms. LANDRIEU. I ask unanimous consent the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.