Mary Landrieu

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. I wish to offer an amendment.

Ms. LANDRIEU. There is an EC-2 squadron out of Virginia that is in transit, and an F-18 squadron out of Georgia in transit. In the current budget, they have been decommissioned because there is no money in the current budget for these troops that are en route to fight the battle that is being waged. There is something wrong, and what is wrong is we are underfunding our Guard and Reserve. Perhaps we are putting too much of an emphasis on tax cuts and not enough of an emphasis on the strength that this country needs at this time, and sharing those resources with the Guard and Reserve and plussing them up. In addition, when the Guard and Reserve members go, they leave their jobs behind, they take a cut in pay, and unfortunately they do not get the same benefits that many of our Active do. This has to change if we are going to ask them to serve not just on the weekends, not just once every couple of years, these units have been out there--some of them are on their fourth rotation. I just want to discuss my amendment, to vote on it at the appropriate time, whenever the leadership thinks we can take a few minutes. I hope we can take quite a long time to discuss this, but I know there are other important amendments. I do not know what could be more important than trying to make a few tweaks to this major budget resolution that might send not only a positive signal, but it would actually back up in real meaningful terms the resolution that we voted on 99 to 0 a few hours ago that said we love our troops, we support our troops, our prayers are with our troops. Then let us send some money to our troops, particularly to our Guard and Reserve. This billion dollars would go a long way. We went through the unfunded list. This is a list that the Guard and Reserve say, look, we desperately need this money. We have listed it in a priority. This is not luxury. These are things we actually need. To upgrade the Air Force Reserve, let me give an example. This is a $48 million item to provide the Reserve tactical fight territories, the fighters that we see in the battle as we are watching the televisions, they need the same radar upgrades as the Active Forces. The fighter planes for Active have one kind of radar, and then the Reserve fighters do not have the same radar. So when we say let's keep our troops out of harm's way, one thing that would help is to have the same sophisticated radar that our Reserve and our National Guardsmen are using as are the Actives. That would be one smart way to keep them out of harm's way. If we were talking about $100 billion, if we were talking about $50 billion, if we were talking about a lot of money, I would say maybe we do not have it. But, most certainly, if we are talking about trillions of dollars of tax cuts, we could find $1 billion to make a slight adjustment to pay and put some money up for our Guard and Reserve. I know the leadership is probably going to come back and say we have plans, we are going to put this money in the supplemental. I realize there are other times that we could potentially do this, but I would make two arguments: One, in the past, the rule has been that we do not put new items in the supplemental. This is sort of ongoing items that are funded. You run out of them so you are sort of supplementing it because you are not going to make it through the end of the year. While we anticipate a very large supplemental, I think it would be very meaningful if we would think about making an adjustment right now for the thousands of Guard and Reserve that need this help and support. I finish by asking my colleagues to look at this chart. These are two of our young men. In this list I am holding up of things that are unfunded, some of our units need helmets. Some of our units need biological and chemical covering. Because of the way we have designed a lot of these suits, if they are used once they have to be thrown away. Then they need a new one. If they get attacked and one is contaminated, they are going to have to come home because we cannot leave them out there without suits. So this is not only about doing what is right and fair, this is about keeping our strength in the battlefield, funding the items that help protect them and keep our forces safe and being true to the amendments that we speak about on the floor. For too long, the Guard and Reserve have received hand-me-downs from the Active component. Maybe there was a time that was appropriate because they served as supplemental, but now they are carrying a big weight, and they are doing it magnificently and at great personal sacrifice to their businesses, to their communities, and to their families, because in many instances their pay goes down. Let us invest in our Guard and Reserves and make sure we are giving them what they need and to honor our commitment to them and to win future battles. We need the Guard and Reserve. Let's give them their rifles, their helmets, and their tactical equipment so we can, as we know we will, win this war. Let's remember that when the fighting is over in Iraq and Afghanistan, the Guard and Reserve will be there for us, protecting us. Let's give them the tools they need to succeed. Before I yield the floor, let me spend 1 minute supporting my colleague who will be coming up next, the Senator from Delaware, who is about to offer what I think might be the best amendment of all in terms of balancing the needs to boost our economy, to restrain spending, as well as to give the people of this Nation the tax relief that will help get this economy moving again. The Senator from Delaware will offer an amendment. I am proud to add my name as a cosponsor. The Concord Coalition has looked at all the proposals--the President's proposal, this proposal, that proposal, the leadership proposal--and today they came out and supported Senator Carper's amendment. I think he should be very proud of that. They said this would put us on the path back to economic development, restraint on spending, fiscal discipline, and hopefully prosper, giving us the strength we need to win the wars ahead. This may not be the only one we have to fight and win in the next few months and years ahead. We should reserve our financial strength to be able to make sure we win the war first and then do that which is necessary to protect our freedoms and give us strength. I yield the floor and I add my name as a cosponsor to the next amendment.

Ms. LANDRIEU. It is shocking what has come to my attention as a former member of the Armed Services Committee and now as a member of the Appropriations Committee: The lack of equipment, the lack of money in this budget to fund their current operations. This amendment asks to take a billion dollars away from a tax cut that I think could give an extra billion dollars and transfer that room in this budget to add a billion dollars for the Guard and the Reserves. I have a couple of facts that might help people understand why this is so critical and why I really believe we should--and hope we can do this in a bipartisan way--take this positive step. In 1990, there were 2.5 million men and women in the Active Forces of the United States. Today, there are only 1.4 million. The Reserve and Guard make up a larger portion of our fighting force than ever before in the history of the world. There are 860,000 men and women in the Guard and Reserve. They are from the States of my colleagues, as well as my own State. We all know and have people on our staffs, in our families, our neighbors, who signed up basically to be weekend soldiers and weekend warriors, but they have ended up being regular warriors because of the transformation that is occurring. The transformation is that the Active and Reserve units of this Nation are playing a vital role in our protection, not just on the weekends, not just in training but in the real-life battles. They are as much a part of this war that is underway tonight as our actives. As a member of the Armed Services Committee, I am mindful that we are going through a great transformation in our military. It is something that is supported in a bipartisan way and that this country supports. It is like trying to turn a large aircraft carrier around. It cannot be done right away. It cannot be done quickly, but if directions need to be changed, that directional change needs to be ratcheted so you can go in a different direction. We are trying to move our forces in a different direction because we are no longer fighting World War II. We have done that. We have been there. We did it and we won. We are now fighting an international war on terrorism and it takes quick mobility, lethal action, smart bombs, strategic guidance missile systems, stealth, unmanned vehicles. It takes a different makeup of our Armed Forces. When we fought World War II, we had months to get ready to fight. We had months to build up. Today, we do not know where the attack is going to come. It came to New York City on September 11. It might come to Washington, DC, tomorrow morning. It might come to San Francisco next week. We have to move immediately. So we do not have the luxury of building up for 12 months or 18 months as we did in New Orleans when for 2 years we built the best boats that were built that won World War II, the Higgins boats. We do not have that luxury. So we are restructuring our force in a wise and smart way, which is to say that we will count on our Reserve units. They are not in the Active, so it is a cost-effective way to keep our strength up. We have to give them helmets and rifles. We have to give them helicopters that fly. We have to give them training dollars. We are underfunding our Guard and Reserve. In fact, there are two units that are actually in transit tonight, a Virginia unit and a Georgia unit, and I ask unanimous consent to have this printed in the Record.

Ms. LANDRIEU. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, I rise to discuss an amendment I plan to offer. First, I thank the leadership, particularly the Senator from Oklahoma for his gracious yielding because the time is getting very late tonight and there are other colleagues on the floor who wish to speak briefly on some amendments about which they feel strongly. As we try to offer these amendments and state our case, we realize these votes will take place tomorrow. I thank my colleague from Oklahoma for his leadership and my colleague from North Dakota. First, I have somewhat mixed feelings about offering this amendment or any amendment tonight. I was in the minority of Senators who believed we should have taken a break from this discussion at least for the next couple of days as this war is raging in Iraq. Literally, as we speak, all, I would venture to say, of the television sets in this Nation and many around the world and radios and Internet communication are focused on this extraordinary undertaking that is underway as we speak and 250,000 of our finest citizens are mobilized and en route-- land forces, air forces--in the battle. I was hoping we could take some time and come back to this early next week when we had a better sense. But as the Senate, in its will, decided to move forward, I wanted to come forward and at least offer one amendment, not that all the others are not significant and relevant and most certainly part of this debate, but this particular amendment actually affects the lives, safety, equipment, and strategy of the war we are fighting. The amendment I hope to have voted on tomorrow and will discuss just briefly is very simple. It will add $1 billion to the underlying budget resolution providing an extra billion dollars of the $400 billion that is in the budget for defense. So it is a minor increase in the scheme of things but very important to the beneficiaries of this amendment. Those beneficiaries, of course, are all the citizens of the United States, the citizens of Iraq, and the citizens of our coalition, as well as the people it directly affects, which are the Guard and Reserve, Guard and Reserve members who have been called up to stand alongside the Active Duty. I ask unanimous consent to have several letters printed in the Record.

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I rise to speak to this important issue for a few moments and begin by saying that the event the Senator from Ohio described is indeed extremely troubling and would be classified as horrific by most people. If the Durbin amendment were adopted, that would not happen again unless the mother's life, through the determination of the physician, was in jeopardy, or her grievous physical health. I argue with the Senator from Ohio and the Senator from Pennsylvania that if they were indeed--and I respect both Senators--serious about stopping what Senator DeWine just described, the Durbin amendment has the best chance of stopping that from ever happening again than the pending bill by the Senator from Pennsylvania. That is why I support the Durbin amendment. That is why I am a cosponsor of the Durbin amendment. Many of us come to the floor with very good intentions, to try to work to help fashion some compromises that would end what was just described, but also allowing for the Constitution to provide a framework according to Roe v. Wade, which does not represent--although it has been characterized inappropriately, and not clearly by both sides, because this debate, unfortunately, for 30 years or more, has been held hostage by the extremes on both sides. I want to review, for the purpose of this debate, some writings from Roe v. Wade. To my friends on the pro-choice side, let me remind them of a paragraph in Roe v. Wade, written by Justice Blackmun: Some argue that a women's right is absolute and that she is entitled to terminate her pregnancy at whatever time, in whatever way, and for whatever reasons she alone chooses. With this we do not agree. Roe v. Wade does not support that proposition. Let me read, for the pro-life community, from this decision, which was delicately crafted to address a very complex constitutional provision that was framed initially in the Bill of Rights, supported by the Constitution, and those principles are the principles of life, liberty, and happiness, not just for the fetus, for the unborn, for young children, but life, liberty, and happiness for people of all ages and all conditions in life, male and female, slave and free. For the pro-life community, let me read what the Justices said: A State criminal abortion statute of the current Texas type, that excepts from criminality only a lifesaving procedure on behalf of the mother, without regard to pregnancy stage and without recognition of the other interests involved [obviously], is violative of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. I suggest unless there are a majority of Senators willing to change the Constitution and remove the 14th amendment, this debate is going nowhere. The fact is that the Constitution supports a framework in which life and liberty for everyone, including the unborn, have to be taken into consideration. I argue that the Senator from Illinois puts forth a very good amendment on the floor because we want to attempt, as a society, to outlaw late-term abortions, which violates our sense of decency and morality, within the framework of the Constitution, unless the woman's life is at risk or unless the woman is in grave physical health. The American people do not agree with the extremes on both sides. The fact is, with all due respect to the Senators from Pennsylvania and Ohio, this is not an amendment that anybody could put on the floor that they would agree to, because they are opposed to abortion in every case, under every circumstance. They believe it should be outlawed. They are entitled to that position, to represent it, and they are entitled to run on it, which they have, and they have gotten elected. But I say that the majority of people in the country believe that in some situations abortion should be legal and safe, and we are attempting to make it more rare. But without the support of either the right or the left, the Senator from Illinois puts forth this amendment in good faith, and I support him, and so do some Republican Senators. The country is very torn. In reading this decision, as I just reviewed portions of it, you can understand that the Justices themselves thought it was a very delicate compromise that had to be put together based on the Constitution and the laws and views of the American public. According to recent polling, only 33 percent, or less, of the population would ban all abortions under all circumstances; 29 percent would allow unfettered abortions; and the vast majority of Americans fall in the middle, which is understandable. Late-term abortions are one of those positions we can actually do something about. While people have mixed views about it, this amendment would in fact outlaw all late-term abortions, all procedures. The Santorum amendment only attempts to outlaw one procedure. I argue that once the Court is faced with it, it is not going to uphold it. So the end result of this debate is going to be not stopping one late-term abortion, when Senator Durbin's amendment would actually accomplish that end. The Durbin amendment draws a line at a place that--well, it is not crystal clear, but I ask you, what could possibly be crystal clear about this debate? Is anything crystal clear about it? Even though we think we are the smartest 100 people around, I think we can argue that we could not even make this debate crystal clear. There is no clarity about it. All you can do is do your very best. The Durbin amendment attempts to draw the line of viability. I argue that somebody else could put up another line. But at least viability has some clarity in medical terms. It is understandable, and I think acceptable, to the American people. Viability is a line that was recognized by the Supreme Court as part of the original decision. As medical research gets clearer--not perfectly crystal clear, but as it brings forth new information, it is something we can use in terms of the measurement. The State has still another important and legitimate interest in protecting the potentiality of human life. These interests are separate and distinct. Each grows in substantiality as the woman approaches term and, at a point during pregnancy, each becomes compelling. That was also written by the Court. The Durbin amendment says that when we reach the point of viability, the interest in the potential of human life is compelling; it cannot be ended without serious cause. This amendment raises the standards for late-term abortions from its current just general health to physical health, which is why many on the left cannot support it. I think given the urgency of the Court and the Congress to protect viable life, perhaps raising the standard is necessary and I hope will be upheld by the Court. If my colleagues are interested in actually banning late-term abortion--which I most certainly support, and the vast majority of people in Louisiana support--we should not engage in the politics of division but try to reach common ground to do this. I believe the Durbin amendment offers us that very opportunity. I urge my colleagues to look beyond the rhetoric and to leave the fringe and move to the middle. Is this the answer to this whole question? No. But is it a step in the right direction to minimize abortions in this country? Yes. Is it something that would meet the constitutional test? Yes. Is it something that could be perfected over time? Yes. It is something that could have a direct impact on building the kind of compromise of which I think we could be proud. So I strongly urge my colleagues to support the Durbin amendment based on all that I have outlined. I yield back the remainder of my time.

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, today I am happy to join my colleagues in the House of Representatives, Congressman Moran and Congressman McGovern, in re-introducing the Product Safety Notification and Recall Effectiveness Act. As my colleagues may recall, this legislation makes it easier for parents to learn when a product they bought may harm their children, so that they might take steps to return the item or have it repaired. On January 6 of this year, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration released a study that contained a lot of good news for parents. In its study, NHTSA found that its child safety seat registration program has been incredibly successful. NHTSA implemented this program in March of 1993, and the information that is starting to come in shows that nine times more child safety seats are now registered than before the program was launched. In fact, in 1993 only 3 percent of seats were registered; now 27 percent are. And this is significant, because this has directly led to more effective recalls of defective child seats--the recall repair rate has increased by more than half since 1993, from 13.8 percent to 21.5 percent. The reason I mention this study to my colleagues is because NHTSA's program is very much like the one that this bill would establish. This legislation would require the Consumer Product Safety Commission to issue a rule requiring manufacturers to establish and maintain a system for notifying consumers of the recall of certain products that may cause harm to children. The database could be assembled through the use of shortened product registration cards, Internet registration, or other alternate means of encouraging consumers to provide vital contact information. There is a very clear reason why such a database is necessary. As we all know, these products come with registration cards. The intent of these cards should be that customers will fill them out and send them in, which gives the companies a way to contact purchasers. Unfortunately, many times consumers do not return these cards, and there is a good reason behind this. These cards sometimes contain 40 to 50, or even more, different questions or boxes to fill out. They ask about marital status, salary information, and about what kind of products a person buys. Either a person does not wish to reveal that much personal information, or they simply do not have time to fill out the card. In fact, the intent seems to be more to get personal marketing information from consumers than anything else. That is why its such a good idea to shorten the card and just ask for the basic information, like a customer's name, address, phone number, and e-mail address. Not only have studies done by companies like Mattel and BrandStamp shown that these methods increase the number of consumers who respond, NHTSA--working on almost ten years of real data--has clearly proven a dramatic increase in registration and, as a result, in the number of products successfully recalled. But a card is not the only way to compile this information. For instance, many companies are now using online registration, where customers can log on to their website and quickly enter the information. For Americans with Internet connections, this is often much less of a hassle than filling out a card, attaching a stamp, and mailing it in. It's quick and easy. And this legislation allows for the use of alternate methods such as this in compiling this database. I am sure that some of my colleagues might be concerned about the cost of setting up such a program. I say to my colleagues that I also have no desire to pass along more costs to the companies that make these products and, ultimately, to the consumer. However, let me again point to the NHTSA study. The indirect cost of consumers for the car seat program is 43 cents per seat sold. Forty-three cents. I do not know of a single parent who would not pay an extra forty-three cents to ensure the safety of their child. But I would say to my colleagues, don't take my word for it--ask the thousands of parents who have returned recalled car seats since 1993. I'm sure they would tell you that was the best 43 cents they had ever spent. The need for this legislation is only highlighted by the CPSC's refusal to consider such a rule last Friday, despite intense efforts by consumer groups like the Consumer Federation of America and SAFE to highlight the importance of this change to the way recalls work. I world urge my colleagues to join me in sponsoring this important bill, and I hope that we can pass this legislation into law as soon as possible. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, today I am happy to join my colleagues in the House of Representatives, Congressman Moran and Congressman McGovern, in re-introducing the Product Safety Notification and Recall Effectiveness Act. As my colleagues may recall, this legislation makes it easier for parents to learn when a product they bought may harm their children, so that they might take steps to return the item or have it repaired. On January 6 of this year, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration released a study that contained a lot of good news for parents. In its study, NHTSA found that its child safety seat registration program has been incredibly successful. NHTSA implemented this program in March of 1993, and the information that is starting to come in shows that nine times more child safety seats are now registered than before the program was launched. In fact, in 1993 only 3 percent of seats were registered; now 27 percent are. And this is significant, because this has directly led to more effective recalls of defective child seats--the recall repair rate has increased by more than half since 1993, from 13.8 percent to 21.5 percent. The reason I mention this study to my colleagues is because NHTSA's program is very much like the one that this bill would establish. This legislation would require the Consumer Product Safety Commission to issue a rule requiring manufacturers to establish and maintain a system for notifying consumers of the recall of certain products that may cause harm to children. The database could be assembled through the use of shortened product registration cards, Internet registration, or other alternate means of encouraging consumers to provide vital contact information. There is a very clear reason why such a database is necessary. As we all know, these products come with registration cards. The intent of these cards should be that customers will fill them out and send them in, which gives the companies a way to contact purchasers. Unfortunately, many times consumers do not return these cards, and there is a good reason behind this. These cards sometimes contain 40 to 50, or even more, different questions or boxes to fill out. They ask about marital status, salary information, and about what kind of products a person buys. Either a person does not wish to reveal that much personal information, or they simply do not have time to fill out the card. In fact, the intent seems to be more to get personal marketing information from consumers than anything else. That is why its such a good idea to shorten the card and just ask for the basic information, like a customer's name, address, phone number, and e-mail address. Not only have studies done by companies like Mattel and BrandStamp shown that these methods increase the number of consumers who respond, NHTSA--working on almost ten years of real data--has clearly proven a dramatic increase in registration and, as a result, in the number of products successfully recalled. But a card is not the only way to compile this information. For instance, many companies are now using online registration, where customers can log on to their website and quickly enter the information. For Americans with Internet connections, this is often much less of a hassle than filling out a card, attaching a stamp, and mailing it in. It's quick and easy. And this legislation allows for the use of alternate methods such as this in compiling this database. I am sure that some of my colleagues might be concerned about the cost of setting up such a program. I say to my colleagues that I also have no desire to pass along more costs to the companies that make these products and, ultimately, to the consumer. However, let me again point to the NHTSA study. The indirect cost of consumers for the car seat program is 43 cents per seat sold. Forty-three cents. I do not know of a single parent who would not pay an extra forty-three cents to ensure the safety of their child. But I would say to my colleagues, don't take my word for it--ask the thousands of parents who have returned recalled car seats since 1993. I'm sure they would tell you that was the best 43 cents they had ever spent. The need for this legislation is only highlighted by the CPSC's refusal to consider such a rule last Friday, despite intense efforts by consumer groups like the Consumer Federation of America and SAFE to highlight the importance of this change to the way recalls work. I world urge my colleagues to join me in sponsoring this important bill, and I hope that we can pass this legislation into law as soon as possible. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, today I rise to introduce the Emergency Communications and Competition Act, ECCA, along with my colleague from New Hampshire, Senator Sununu. We are joined by twelve of our colleagues, led by Senator Burns, the distinguished chairman of the Commerce Communications Subcommittee, as well as Senators Dodd, Gregg, Hutchison, Inouye, Jeffords, Lott, Kennedy, Leahy, Lieberman, Mikulski, and Miller. The bill we introduce today is identical to S. 2922, the measure which Senator Burns and I co-authored in the 107th Congress. I was very pleased and grateful for the tremendous support this legislation received from local television broadcasters and a wide range of public interest groups that speak for consumers, minority groups, rural Americans, health care, public safety, and property rights. This bill will ensure that consumers will soon be able to avail themselves of an innovative new wireless technology that has been approved by the Federal Communications Commission. It is called the Multichannel Video Distribution and Data Service, MVDDS, a title which accurately describes what this new service will provide consumers: cable competition and high speed access to the Internet. As I indicated in my introductory remarks to S. 2922 last September, unless Congress enacts this legislation, it may be years before MVDDS is actually deployed to the public. That would be a lost opportunity for consumers. We need to improve our communications infrastructure, not only for greater access to cable and the Internet, but also for public safety purposes. MVDDS technology can address all of these needs, and we should remove unnecessary and counterproductive regulatory obstacles that prevent its swift deployment. The Consumers Union, like many, has supported ECCA because it will help ensure that competition rapidly emerges for video programming as well as high speed Internet services. Earlier this year, the Consumers Union issued a report, ``Cable Mergers, Monopoly Power and Price Increases,'' which documents the most recent steep rate increases imposed by cable operators. The report noted, for instance, that cable rates in Baton Rouge soared 7 percent last November. This was typical of rate increases throughout the country. According to the most recent data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, cable rates rose 11.4 percent in just the last two years. This compares to a 3.8 percent increase in the Consumer Price Index over the same period. According to the FCC, just one percent of cable communities enjoy ``effective competition.'' I submit that this startling lack of competition, more than anything else, explains why local cable rates have increased at three times the inflation rate. If MVDDS can go head-to-head with incumbent cable systems in all parts of the country, I believe that this good old fashioned competition will result in lower prices and better service for consumers--even for those who don't choose to subscribe to MVDDS. Rural organizations recognize the extraordinary opportunity this new wireless technology can offer rural Americans. They understand that the FCC's Order, which authorized MVDDS, will likely fail to ensure this new technology will indeed adequately serve rural America. Local television broadcasters support this measure because it will ensure consumers in their markets can view all local television stations. Today, satellite operators DirecTV and EchoStar do not carry over 1,000 local TV channels--and no stations from ten States: Alaska, Arkansas, Idaho, Maine, Montana, Mississippi, North and South Dakota, West Virginia, and Wyoming. As you know, the satellite operators sought to merge so that they would have sufficient capacity to carry all local TV stations, but federal regulators rejected the merger on anticompetitive grounds. The Emergency Communications and Competition Act, which we are re- introducing today, will restore fairness in the FCC licensing process, and in so doing, speed the deployment of MVDDS to applicants that are ready to launch service to the public now. The bill provides that MVDDS applicants will be licensed in the same manner as satellite companies who applied on the same day to share the same spectrum. Currently, the FCC plans to subject only MVDDS applicants to an auction process. This would impose a discriminatory tax on an innovative new technology. Unfortunately, this is more of the same burdensome regulation that I believe has contributed to the collapse of the telecommunications sector. Government regulation is necessary, certainly, but we must be smart in how we regulate business. We must ensure that our laws and regulations are technologically neutral so that government policies don't replace the role of the marketplace in determining the fate of consumer products and services. In an Order released last month, the FCC recognized the need to prevent disparity in licensing when it authorized certain satellite spectrum to be re-used for mobile terrestrial service without requiring a spectrum auction. Similarly, the ECCA would prohibit the FCC from conducting an auction for licenses that re-use satellite spectrum for fixed terrrestrial operations. Furthermore, an action would drastically delay the introduction of service to the public. Mr. President, this is quite the opposite of what spectrum auctions are supposed to do. In this case, industry incumbents can abuse the auction process to block the introduction of new competition. A company with vast resources available could easily trounce a small startup in an auction--and then, under the terms of the FCC's Order, it would not have to deploy service for 10 years. Consumers cannot and should not have to wait while this spectrum is ``shelved'' for an entire decade. The ECCA solves this problem by ensuring that only qualified applicants will be licensed. That is, within six months of enactment, the FCC would issue licenses to any applicant that can demonstrate through independent testing that it will employ a technology that won't cause harmful interference to DBS operators with whom they would share spectrum. Then, to be sure that service is in fact deployed, the ECCA requires licensees to provide service to consumers within five rather than ten years. This legislation also requires that parties who apply for licenses under this provision must assume specific public interest obligations in exchange for their prompt licensing. The bill requires full must- carry of local television stations, and an additional set aside of 4 percent of system capacity for other pubic interest purposes such as telemedicine and distance learning. I can assure my colleagues that these are issues particularly important in rural areas in states like Louisiana. The ECCA will also promote public safety, in two ways. First, it will require MVDDS licensees to air Emergency Alert System warnings, including AMBER alerts for missing children. EAS warnings are presently carried by cable systems and over-the-air broadcasters, but they are not seen by those who get their programming from DBS unless the viewer happens to be watching a local channel. Obviously, the need for greater dissemination of EAS warnings is particularly important for the ten states in which no local stations are carried via satellite. Second, this legislation requires MVDDS licensees to make their transmission systems available to national security and emergency preparedness personnel on a top-priority basis in times of need. We all know that when emergencies strike, the need for public safety personnel to communicate with one another skyrockets. MVDDS wireless networks, which will be deployed ubiquitously throughout the country, can help alleviate this thirst for spectrum. For these reasons, I believe that Congress should act on this matter as soon as possible. I urge my colleagues to support his bill and vote for enactment. I as, unanimous consent that the text of this bill be printed in the Record.

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, today I rise to introduce the Emergency Communications and Competition Act, ECCA, along with my colleague from New Hampshire, Senator Sununu. We are joined by twelve of our colleagues, led by Senator Burns, the distinguished chairman of the Commerce Communications Subcommittee, as well as Senators Dodd, Gregg, Hutchison, Inouye, Jeffords, Lott, Kennedy, Leahy, Lieberman, Mikulski, and Miller. The bill we introduce today is identical to S. 2922, the measure which Senator Burns and I co-authored in the 107th Congress. I was very pleased and grateful for the tremendous support this legislation received from local television broadcasters and a wide range of public interest groups that speak for consumers, minority groups, rural Americans, health care, public safety, and property rights. This bill will ensure that consumers will soon be able to avail themselves of an innovative new wireless technology that has been approved by the Federal Communications Commission. It is called the Multichannel Video Distribution and Data Service, MVDDS, a title which accurately describes what this new service will provide consumers: cable competition and high speed access to the Internet. As I indicated in my introductory remarks to S. 2922 last September, unless Congress enacts this legislation, it may be years before MVDDS is actually deployed to the public. That would be a lost opportunity for consumers. We need to improve our communications infrastructure, not only for greater access to cable and the Internet, but also for public safety purposes. MVDDS technology can address all of these needs, and we should remove unnecessary and counterproductive regulatory obstacles that prevent its swift deployment. The Consumers Union, like many, has supported ECCA because it will help ensure that competition rapidly emerges for video programming as well as high speed Internet services. Earlier this year, the Consumers Union issued a report, ``Cable Mergers, Monopoly Power and Price Increases,'' which documents the most recent steep rate increases imposed by cable operators. The report noted, for instance, that cable rates in Baton Rouge soared 7 percent last November. This was typical of rate increases throughout the country. According to the most recent data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, cable rates rose 11.4 percent in just the last two years. This compares to a 3.8 percent increase in the Consumer Price Index over the same period. According to the FCC, just one percent of cable communities enjoy ``effective competition.'' I submit that this startling lack of competition, more than anything else, explains why local cable rates have increased at three times the inflation rate. If MVDDS can go head-to-head with incumbent cable systems in all parts of the country, I believe that this good old fashioned competition will result in lower prices and better service for consumers--even for those who don't choose to subscribe to MVDDS. Rural organizations recognize the extraordinary opportunity this new wireless technology can offer rural Americans. They understand that the FCC's Order, which authorized MVDDS, will likely fail to ensure this new technology will indeed adequately serve rural America. Local television broadcasters support this measure because it will ensure consumers in their markets can view all local television stations. Today, satellite operators DirecTV and EchoStar do not carry over 1,000 local TV channels--and no stations from ten States: Alaska, Arkansas, Idaho, Maine, Montana, Mississippi, North and South Dakota, West Virginia, and Wyoming. As you know, the satellite operators sought to merge so that they would have sufficient capacity to carry all local TV stations, but federal regulators rejected the merger on anticompetitive grounds. The Emergency Communications and Competition Act, which we are re- introducing today, will restore fairness in the FCC licensing process, and in so doing, speed the deployment of MVDDS to applicants that are ready to launch service to the public now. The bill provides that MVDDS applicants will be licensed in the same manner as satellite companies who applied on the same day to share the same spectrum. Currently, the FCC plans to subject only MVDDS applicants to an auction process. This would impose a discriminatory tax on an innovative new technology. Unfortunately, this is more of the same burdensome regulation that I believe has contributed to the collapse of the telecommunications sector. Government regulation is necessary, certainly, but we must be smart in how we regulate business. We must ensure that our laws and regulations are technologically neutral so that government policies don't replace the role of the marketplace in determining the fate of consumer products and services. In an Order released last month, the FCC recognized the need to prevent disparity in licensing when it authorized certain satellite spectrum to be re-used for mobile terrestrial service without requiring a spectrum auction. Similarly, the ECCA would prohibit the FCC from conducting an auction for licenses that re-use satellite spectrum for fixed terrrestrial operations. Furthermore, an action would drastically delay the introduction of service to the public. Mr. President, this is quite the opposite of what spectrum auctions are supposed to do. In this case, industry incumbents can abuse the auction process to block the introduction of new competition. A company with vast resources available could easily trounce a small startup in an auction--and then, under the terms of the FCC's Order, it would not have to deploy service for 10 years. Consumers cannot and should not have to wait while this spectrum is ``shelved'' for an entire decade. The ECCA solves this problem by ensuring that only qualified applicants will be licensed. That is, within six months of enactment, the FCC would issue licenses to any applicant that can demonstrate through independent testing that it will employ a technology that won't cause harmful interference to DBS operators with whom they would share spectrum. Then, to be sure that service is in fact deployed, the ECCA requires licensees to provide service to consumers within five rather than ten years. This legislation also requires that parties who apply for licenses under this provision must assume specific public interest obligations in exchange for their prompt licensing. The bill requires full must- carry of local television stations, and an additional set aside of 4 percent of system capacity for other pubic interest purposes such as telemedicine and distance learning. I can assure my colleagues that these are issues particularly important in rural areas in states like Louisiana. The ECCA will also promote public safety, in two ways. First, it will require MVDDS licensees to air Emergency Alert System warnings, including AMBER alerts for missing children. EAS warnings are presently carried by cable systems and over-the-air broadcasters, but they are not seen by those who get their programming from DBS unless the viewer happens to be watching a local channel. Obviously, the need for greater dissemination of EAS warnings is particularly important for the ten states in which no local stations are carried via satellite. Second, this legislation requires MVDDS licensees to make their transmission systems available to national security and emergency preparedness personnel on a top-priority basis in times of need. We all know that when emergencies strike, the need for public safety personnel to communicate with one another skyrockets. MVDDS wireless networks, which will be deployed ubiquitously throughout the country, can help alleviate this thirst for spectrum. For these reasons, I believe that Congress should act on this matter as soon as possible. I urge my colleagues to support his bill and vote for enactment. I as, unanimous consent that the text of this bill be printed in the Record.

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, 137 years ago, before the term homeland security was even coined, a group of men devoted themselves to securing the frontiers of this Nation. They protected Americans in their homes; they deterred hostile invaders, and they secured the blessings of liberty for a young country. Even more remarkable, they secured these blessings for others, while they could not fully enjoy them themselves. I am referring to the Buffalo Soldiers. These brave men instituted a tradition of professional military service for African Americans that spans the greater part of American history. African American military service is as old as our Nation. There were black soldiers during the Revolution, a unit of free black men played a pivotal role in the Battle of New Orleans, and the exploits of African Americans during the Civil War have been captured in novels and on film. However, it was not until the Army Reorganization Act of 1866 that soldiering and service to country became a realistic option for African Americans seeking to improve their quality of life. In so doing, they raised the bar of freedom, and revealed the injustice of preventing the defenders of democracy from fully participating in it. The city of New Orleans, and the State of Louisiana have a rich history. They have given more than their fair share of sons to the service of our Nation. Much of this history is commemorated throughout the State. Yet, these great sons of New Orleans remain unacknowledged in their home. For in Louisiana's great military tradition, surely two of its greatest military contributions were the 9th Cavalry Regiment and the 25th Infantry Regiment. These two forces, recruited and organized in New Orleans, represent half of all the units of Buffalo Soldiers. The 9th Cavalry alone constituted 10 percent of all the American cavalry. Their list of adversaries reads like a who's who of the Old West--Geronimo, Sitting Bull, Pancho Villa. In movies, when settlers encounter Apaches, the cavalry always comes to the rescue. Yet how many times were the cavalry that rode over the horizon African American? Of course, the reality is that the Buffalo Soldiers comprised some of our Nation's most capable and loyal troops. Despite suffering the worst deprivations known to any American soldiers of the period, they had the lowest desertion rates in the Army. The 9th Cavalry was awarded 10 Congressional Medals of Honor, including a native Louisianan, SGT. Emanuel Stance--a farmer from Carrol Parish. For these reasons, I am offering legislation that would authorize the creation of a suitable memorial in New Orleans for these gallant soldiers. There is an excellent statue to the Buffalo Soldiers at Fort Leavenworth, KS. It commemorates the 10th Cavalry Regiment stationed there. However, I believe that these men deserve to be recognized in their home city. Furthermore, it should be in a location where thousands of visitors will have the opportunity to come to appreciate the legacy of the Buffalo Soldiers. I believe that the city of New Orleans is the perfect location. Mr. President, we have made a number of changes to this legislation after consultations with the American Battle Monuments Commission. I believe these changes should address any concerns that they have expressed. Furthermore, we have an able and dedicated organization of individuals in the State who desperately want to see this project to completion. Last year, I had the pleasure of being in New Orleans with another of this Nation's great military heroes, Senator Daniel Inouye. We addressed a group of distinguished veterans from all around the State. Among them was George Jones, President of the Greater New Orleans Chapter of the Buffalo Soldiers Association. They have been working with Eddie Dixon, the artist for the beautiful Fort Leavenworth statue, to develop an appropriate memorial in the city of New Orleans for over a decade. This bill will fulfill that noble ambition. Mr. President, this Nation has sadly found the need to say thank you to its service men and women after the fact on more than one occasion. Unfortunately, this is another. We are fortunate to have living memories of the 9th and 10th Cavalry Regiments today. The regiments were not disbanded until the conclusion of World War II, where they served with distinction. We should take this opportunity to honor these veterans, and in so doing, honor the principles of liberty, freedom and democracy for which they fought and sacrificed. They have given so much to their Nation, we owe them this public expression of gratitude. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that these remarks appear in the Record, contiguous to the introduced bill and that the bill be printed in the Record.

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I was surprised and disappointed by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals' decision not to reconsider its ruling in the case of Newdow versus U.S. Congress. To remind my colleagues, in the Newdow case, a three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit held that the reference to God in the Pledge of Allegiance was unconstitutional. The Bush administration requested that the Ninth Circuit reconsider its ruling in the case. At the end of last week, the Ninth Circuit meeting en banc refused to reconsider its ruling. The case will likely go to the Supreme Court. When the court first made its decision in Newdow last year, I introduced a proposed constitutional amendment that simply said that references to God in the Pledge of Allegiance and on our currency did not affect an establishment of religion under the first amendment. In light of the en banc Ninth Circuit's refusal to reconsider its ruling, I am reintroducing my proposed amendment today. Mr. President, references to God are found in every one of our founding documents from the Declaration of Independence to the Constitution, as well as in the Pledge of Allegiance. The phrase ``In God We Trust'' appears on all of our currency and on many public buildings. Every day, we begin Senate sessions with a prayer and the pledge. I firmly believe that the Framers of the Constitution and the first amendment did not want to ban all references to God from public discourse when they wrote the establishment clause. What they wanted to prevent was the establishment of an official national religion and to keep the Government from getting intimately involved in the organization of one religion over another. These references to God are ceremonial. Certainly, they do have meaning, but individuals are free to put whatever meaning on the word they choose. Indeed, I fully respect and support the rights of people not to participate in the pledge or in ceremonial prayer and my amendment will not coerce anyone to recite the Pledge of Allegiance in public or in school. Mr. President, I had hoped that the Ninth Circuit would reconsider its earlier holding. It has not. The Supreme Court may have the oppoortunity to hear arguments in this case. Should the Supreme Court ddcide not to hear the case or to overrule the lower court, then Congress should restore the appropriate balanced separation between church and state that I believe was the intent of the Framers. I urge my colleagues to support this joint resolution. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the joint resolution be printed in the Record.

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, 137 years ago, before the term homeland security was even coined, a group of men devoted themselves to securing the frontiers of this Nation. They protected Americans in their homes; they deterred hostile invaders, and they secured the blessings of liberty for a young country. Even more remarkable, they secured these blessings for others, while they could not fully enjoy them themselves. I am referring to the Buffalo Soldiers. These brave men instituted a tradition of professional military service for African Americans that spans the greater part of American history. African American military service is as old as our Nation. There were black soldiers during the Revolution, a unit of free black men played a pivotal role in the Battle of New Orleans, and the exploits of African Americans during the Civil War have been captured in novels and on film. However, it was not until the Army Reorganization Act of 1866 that soldiering and service to country became a realistic option for African Americans seeking to improve their quality of life. In so doing, they raised the bar of freedom, and revealed the injustice of preventing the defenders of democracy from fully participating in it. The city of New Orleans, and the State of Louisiana have a rich history. They have given more than their fair share of sons to the service of our Nation. Much of this history is commemorated throughout the State. Yet, these great sons of New Orleans remain unacknowledged in their home. For in Louisiana's great military tradition, surely two of its greatest military contributions were the 9th Cavalry Regiment and the 25th Infantry Regiment. These two forces, recruited and organized in New Orleans, represent half of all the units of Buffalo Soldiers. The 9th Cavalry alone constituted 10 percent of all the American cavalry. Their list of adversaries reads like a who's who of the Old West--Geronimo, Sitting Bull, Pancho Villa. In movies, when settlers encounter Apaches, the cavalry always comes to the rescue. Yet how many times were the cavalry that rode over the horizon African American? Of course, the reality is that the Buffalo Soldiers comprised some of our Nation's most capable and loyal troops. Despite suffering the worst deprivations known to any American soldiers of the period, they had the lowest desertion rates in the Army. The 9th Cavalry was awarded 10 Congressional Medals of Honor, including a native Louisianan, SGT. Emanuel Stance--a farmer from Carrol Parish. For these reasons, I am offering legislation that would authorize the creation of a suitable memorial in New Orleans for these gallant soldiers. There is an excellent statue to the Buffalo Soldiers at Fort Leavenworth, KS. It commemorates the 10th Cavalry Regiment stationed there. However, I believe that these men deserve to be recognized in their home city. Furthermore, it should be in a location where thousands of visitors will have the opportunity to come to appreciate the legacy of the Buffalo Soldiers. I believe that the city of New Orleans is the perfect location. Mr. President, we have made a number of changes to this legislation after consultations with the American Battle Monuments Commission. I believe these changes should address any concerns that they have expressed. Furthermore, we have an able and dedicated organization of individuals in the State who desperately want to see this project to completion. Last year, I had the pleasure of being in New Orleans with another of this Nation's great military heroes, Senator Daniel Inouye. We addressed a group of distinguished veterans from all around the State. Among them was George Jones, President of the Greater New Orleans Chapter of the Buffalo Soldiers Association. They have been working with Eddie Dixon, the artist for the beautiful Fort Leavenworth statue, to develop an appropriate memorial in the city of New Orleans for over a decade. This bill will fulfill that noble ambition. Mr. President, this Nation has sadly found the need to say thank you to its service men and women after the fact on more than one occasion. Unfortunately, this is another. We are fortunate to have living memories of the 9th and 10th Cavalry Regiments today. The regiments were not disbanded until the conclusion of World War II, where they served with distinction. We should take this opportunity to honor these veterans, and in so doing, honor the principles of liberty, freedom and democracy for which they fought and sacrificed. They have given so much to their Nation, we owe them this public expression of gratitude. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that these remarks appear in the Record, contiguous to the introduced bill and that the bill be printed in the Record.

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I was surprised and disappointed by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals' decision not to reconsider its ruling in the case of Newdow versus U.S. Congress. To remind my colleagues, in the Newdow case, a three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit held that the reference to God in the Pledge of Allegiance was unconstitutional. The Bush administration requested that the Ninth Circuit reconsider its ruling in the case. At the end of last week, the Ninth Circuit meeting en banc refused to reconsider its ruling. The case will likely go to the Supreme Court. When the court first made its decision in Newdow last year, I introduced a proposed constitutional amendment that simply said that references to God in the Pledge of Allegiance and on our currency did not affect an establishment of religion under the first amendment. In light of the en banc Ninth Circuit's refusal to reconsider its ruling, I am reintroducing my proposed amendment today. Mr. President, references to God are found in every one of our founding documents from the Declaration of Independence to the Constitution, as well as in the Pledge of Allegiance. The phrase ``In God We Trust'' appears on all of our currency and on many public buildings. Every day, we begin Senate sessions with a prayer and the pledge. I firmly believe that the Framers of the Constitution and the first amendment did not want to ban all references to God from public discourse when they wrote the establishment clause. What they wanted to prevent was the establishment of an official national religion and to keep the Government from getting intimately involved in the organization of one religion over another. These references to God are ceremonial. Certainly, they do have meaning, but individuals are free to put whatever meaning on the word they choose. Indeed, I fully respect and support the rights of people not to participate in the pledge or in ceremonial prayer and my amendment will not coerce anyone to recite the Pledge of Allegiance in public or in school. Mr. President, I had hoped that the Ninth Circuit would reconsider its earlier holding. It has not. The Supreme Court may have the oppoortunity to hear arguments in this case. Should the Supreme Court ddcide not to hear the case or to overrule the lower court, then Congress should restore the appropriate balanced separation between church and state that I believe was the intent of the Framers. I urge my colleagues to support this joint resolution. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the joint resolution be printed in the Record.

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, many bills were introduced in the last Congress that would lower the age at which Reservists can receive retirement benefits. Most of these bills were met with resistance from the Department of Defense, due to cost estimates over a 10-year period. It is my hope that his Bill, the Reserve Retirement and Retention Act of 2003, will serve as a compromise measure and deliver retirement benefits to Reservists and Guardsmen at an earlier age. This legislation would lower the retirement age of a Reservist by one year for every 2-year period that he or she serves past the requisite 20 years for retirement. For example, if a Reservist should serve for 22 years, he or she could receive retirement benefits at age 59. This legislation will serve as a critical tool in encouraging the most experienced Reservists and Guardsmen to stay past the 20-year mark. It is my hope that this measure will encourage our Reservists and Guardsmen to stay in their units longer, while making their retirement benefits more generous for them and their families. I ask unanimous consent that the text of this bill be printed in the Record.

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, When the President give the order to activate reservists and National Guardsmen, the lives of those men and women are put on hold. Businesses, careers, and families are left behind so that America's interests may be served. Students make up a substantial part of our National Guard and Reserve forces. When these students are activated, it jeopardizes their academic standing, as well as their scholarships and grants. This bill would preserve their academic standing for the duration of their service as well as a one year period that follows that service. It would also preserve their scholarships and grants, as well as entitle them to a refund of unused tuition and fees. Federal law already safeguards the employment status of activated reservists and Guardsmen. It is time that we extend the same guarantee to students. This legislation would require colleges, universities, and community colleges to grant National Guardsmen and reservists a leave of military absence when they are called to active duty. This leave of absence would last while the student is serving on active duty and a one year period at the conclusion of active service. This bill would preserve the academic credits that the student had earned before being activated. It would also preserve the scholarships and grants awarded to the student before being activated. Under this legislation, students would be entitled to receive a refund of tuition and fees or credit the tuition and fees to the next period of enrollment after the student returns from military leave. If a student elects to receive a refund, it would allow them to receive a full refund, minus the percentage of time the student spent enrolled in classes. The protections that are already afforded our reservists and Guardsmen are appropriate considering the hardships they endure on the nation's behalf. We need to acknowledge the many college students who are in the ranks of the Guard and Reserve and extend to them the protections they deserve. In this day of uncertainty on the world stage, our reservists must be prepared to be called up at a moments notice. Thousands have already been activated for Operations Enduring Freedom, and many thousands more are either in Kuwait or on their way there. Once they get to their duty station, they need to focus all of their attention on the mission. This legislation provides our student reservists with the proper safeguards on their academic career which will allow them to accomplish their mission. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of this bill be printed in the Record.

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I rise today to offer legislation that will help our Nation's reservists and members of the National Guard who have been called to active duty. Since 1991, the U.S. military has significantly scaled down its troop levels to reflect the end of the Cold War. With the reduction of active duty troops, the military has become increasingly dependent on the Reserves and National Guard to supplement troops who have been sent to deal with crises all over the world. In addition to this, we have had to rely on an increasingly diverse group of people to fight our wars. The conflict in Afghanistan was heavily reliant on new technologies in the air and personnel intensive techniques on the ground. In order to properly execute the war on terror, we have relied on highly skilled individuals such as linguists and Civil Affairs personnel who have worked closely with the population of Afghanistan. We will have to rely on them again in Iraq. Many of these men and women have been reservists. These two trends reflect a dramatic shift in the structure of our armed forces. Gone are the Cold War days when we had a massive military positioned all over the globe. We are now reliant on a much leaner force, which views the Reserves and National Guard as necessary components to any conflict, and not forces of last resort. Between 1945 and 1989, a period which encompassed most of the Cold War, reservists and Guardsmen were called up four times: during the Korean War, the Berlin Crisis of 1961, the Cuban Missile Crisis, and the Vietnam War. A majority of those mobilized during this period were called up during the Korean War, when over 800,000 troops were activated to supplement the 900,000 active duty forces fighting in Korea. Between 1990 and today, reservists and Guardsmen have been called up six separate times. Over 230,000 reservists and Guardsmen were mobilized for the Gulf War, forming nearly half of the force that drove Iraqi forces from Kuwait. Since then, reservists and Guardsmen have been activated for the Haiti Intervention, the ongoing Bosnian Peacekeeping mission, the ongoing patrol of the No Fly Zones in Iraq, the Kosovo conflict, and the War on Terrorism which has seen 151,348 reservists and Guardsmen activated in support of Operations Enduring Freedom and Noble Eagle. Many of them are in the Persian Gulf Region today. Over the past ten years, the OPTEMPO of the Reserves has increased by fifty percent. This OPTEMPO has had a significant strain on reservists and their families. In almost every instance, when a reservist or Guardsman is activated, their military salary is significantly smaller then their civilian salary. In many cases, service member's income is cut in half. This places a particular strain to reservists and Guardsmen as their household budget is structured by their civilian salary. The decrease in income that activation brings makes it increasingly difficult to pay the bills. Whether or not the Nation is at war, mortgages, rent, credit card debt, student loans, and other household expenses must be paid. When we send our fighting men and women into harm's way, it is important that they concentrate on one thing: their mission. When Guardsmen and reservists are worried about having enough money for rent of the mortgage or whether their children have enough to see a doctor, they cannot concentrate on the mission, and this becomes a readiness issue. Many corporations volunteer to make up the difference between the military and civilian salaries of their Guardsmen and reservists. Not only do these employers sacrifice important members of their companies for national defense, they hold their jobs for them and they voluntarily choose to continue paying them. In some instances, employers have continued to provide health insurance and other benefits. This represents a significant burden that the employer has undertaken, in order to ensure that their employees and their families are taken care of during times of national emergency. In order to alleviate the burden that these employers face and to encourage more employers to pay the difference to Reserve and Guard employees, I have drafted legislation that would provide an incentive for employers to make up the difference between the military and civilian pay of activated reservists. The Reservists and Guardsmen Pay Protection Act of 2003 provides a tax credit to employers who continue paying their service members after they are activated. It also requires the Federal Government to make up the difference between civilian and military pay for Federal employees who are activated. I ask unanimous consent that the text of this bill be printed in the Record.

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, When the President give the order to activate reservists and National Guardsmen, the lives of those men and women are put on hold. Businesses, careers, and families are left behind so that America's interests may be served. Students make up a substantial part of our National Guard and Reserve forces. When these students are activated, it jeopardizes their academic standing, as well as their scholarships and grants. This bill would preserve their academic standing for the duration of their service as well as a one year period that follows that service. It would also preserve their scholarships and grants, as well as entitle them to a refund of unused tuition and fees. Federal law already safeguards the employment status of activated reservists and Guardsmen. It is time that we extend the same guarantee to students. This legislation would require colleges, universities, and community colleges to grant National Guardsmen and reservists a leave of military absence when they are called to active duty. This leave of absence would last while the student is serving on active duty and a one year period at the conclusion of active service. This bill would preserve the academic credits that the student had earned before being activated. It would also preserve the scholarships and grants awarded to the student before being activated. Under this legislation, students would be entitled to receive a refund of tuition and fees or credit the tuition and fees to the next period of enrollment after the student returns from military leave. If a student elects to receive a refund, it would allow them to receive a full refund, minus the percentage of time the student spent enrolled in classes. The protections that are already afforded our reservists and Guardsmen are appropriate considering the hardships they endure on the nation's behalf. We need to acknowledge the many college students who are in the ranks of the Guard and Reserve and extend to them the protections they deserve. In this day of uncertainty on the world stage, our reservists must be prepared to be called up at a moments notice. Thousands have already been activated for Operations Enduring Freedom, and many thousands more are either in Kuwait or on their way there. Once they get to their duty station, they need to focus all of their attention on the mission. This legislation provides our student reservists with the proper safeguards on their academic career which will allow them to accomplish their mission. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of this bill be printed in the Record.

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, many bills were introduced in the last Congress that would lower the age at which Reservists can receive retirement benefits. Most of these bills were met with resistance from the Department of Defense, due to cost estimates over a 10-year period. It is my hope that his Bill, the Reserve Retirement and Retention Act of 2003, will serve as a compromise measure and deliver retirement benefits to Reservists and Guardsmen at an earlier age. This legislation would lower the retirement age of a Reservist by one year for every 2-year period that he or she serves past the requisite 20 years for retirement. For example, if a Reservist should serve for 22 years, he or she could receive retirement benefits at age 59. This legislation will serve as a critical tool in encouraging the most experienced Reservists and Guardsmen to stay past the 20-year mark. It is my hope that this measure will encourage our Reservists and Guardsmen to stay in their units longer, while making their retirement benefits more generous for them and their families. I ask unanimous consent that the text of this bill be printed in the Record.

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I rise today to offer legislation that will help our Nation's reservists and members of the National Guard who have been called to active duty. Since 1991, the U.S. military has significantly scaled down its troop levels to reflect the end of the Cold War. With the reduction of active duty troops, the military has become increasingly dependent on the Reserves and National Guard to supplement troops who have been sent to deal with crises all over the world. In addition to this, we have had to rely on an increasingly diverse group of people to fight our wars. The conflict in Afghanistan was heavily reliant on new technologies in the air and personnel intensive techniques on the ground. In order to properly execute the war on terror, we have relied on highly skilled individuals such as linguists and Civil Affairs personnel who have worked closely with the population of Afghanistan. We will have to rely on them again in Iraq. Many of these men and women have been reservists. These two trends reflect a dramatic shift in the structure of our armed forces. Gone are the Cold War days when we had a massive military positioned all over the globe. We are now reliant on a much leaner force, which views the Reserves and National Guard as necessary components to any conflict, and not forces of last resort. Between 1945 and 1989, a period which encompassed most of the Cold War, reservists and Guardsmen were called up four times: during the Korean War, the Berlin Crisis of 1961, the Cuban Missile Crisis, and the Vietnam War. A majority of those mobilized during this period were called up during the Korean War, when over 800,000 troops were activated to supplement the 900,000 active duty forces fighting in Korea. Between 1990 and today, reservists and Guardsmen have been called up six separate times. Over 230,000 reservists and Guardsmen were mobilized for the Gulf War, forming nearly half of the force that drove Iraqi forces from Kuwait. Since then, reservists and Guardsmen have been activated for the Haiti Intervention, the ongoing Bosnian Peacekeeping mission, the ongoing patrol of the No Fly Zones in Iraq, the Kosovo conflict, and the War on Terrorism which has seen 151,348 reservists and Guardsmen activated in support of Operations Enduring Freedom and Noble Eagle. Many of them are in the Persian Gulf Region today. Over the past ten years, the OPTEMPO of the Reserves has increased by fifty percent. This OPTEMPO has had a significant strain on reservists and their families. In almost every instance, when a reservist or Guardsman is activated, their military salary is significantly smaller then their civilian salary. In many cases, service member's income is cut in half. This places a particular strain to reservists and Guardsmen as their household budget is structured by their civilian salary. The decrease in income that activation brings makes it increasingly difficult to pay the bills. Whether or not the Nation is at war, mortgages, rent, credit card debt, student loans, and other household expenses must be paid. When we send our fighting men and women into harm's way, it is important that they concentrate on one thing: their mission. When Guardsmen and reservists are worried about having enough money for rent of the mortgage or whether their children have enough to see a doctor, they cannot concentrate on the mission, and this becomes a readiness issue. Many corporations volunteer to make up the difference between the military and civilian salaries of their Guardsmen and reservists. Not only do these employers sacrifice important members of their companies for national defense, they hold their jobs for them and they voluntarily choose to continue paying them. In some instances, employers have continued to provide health insurance and other benefits. This represents a significant burden that the employer has undertaken, in order to ensure that their employees and their families are taken care of during times of national emergency. In order to alleviate the burden that these employers face and to encourage more employers to pay the difference to Reserve and Guard employees, I have drafted legislation that would provide an incentive for employers to make up the difference between the military and civilian pay of activated reservists. The Reservists and Guardsmen Pay Protection Act of 2003 provides a tax credit to employers who continue paying their service members after they are activated. It also requires the Federal Government to make up the difference between civilian and military pay for Federal employees who are activated. I ask unanimous consent that the text of this bill be printed in the Record.

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. The Senator's understanding of the purpose of this appropration is correct. Furthermore, through this appropriation a good-faith partnership between the Federal Government, the District of Columbia, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the marina lessee, the marina will be restored for the benefit of all District of Columbia citizens.

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I rise today to speak on an issue of great importance to our military retirees. This issue I want to address is the Survivor's Benefit Plan and the need to eliminate the Social Security offset. The Survivor's Benefit Plan, SBP, has been in existence for nearly 30 years. Under this plan, military retirees may contribute part of their monthly retirement pay to the SBP, with the knowledge that after their death, their spouses can continue to receive 55 percent of their monthly retirement pay. But, when the surviving spouse reaches the age of 62, something disturbing happens. At the age of 62, the widow or widower of a military retiree sees his or her payments under the SBP shrink to 35 percent. This reduction is an offset for the Social Security payments that the survivor has begun to collect. The survivors of military retirees find this to be unjust, and rightly so. The SBP is a fund that their spouses payed into, with the expectation that their survivors would be taken care of after they pass away. The SBP is not a lavish monthly payment, but reflects the low salaries that men and women on active duty receive. In a recent article in the Shreveport Times, Billie Combs, who is 73, and is the widow of an Air Force Master Sergeant commented on the strain that the Social Security Offset imposes on their budget. She said: ``It curtails my spending. It stops me from buying the things that I need; I just cut back and make sure that I have enough to carry me through to the next month.'' The legislation that I introduce today would slowly phase out the social security offset to Survivor Benefit Plan, reducing it significantly by 2007, and completely erasing it by 2013. Those who choose the military as their profession don't do it for the money. They do it because they have a love for country. They have a love for country that runs so deep, they would gladly sacrifice their lives in defense of the homeland. Despite the extreme sacrifice our Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen, and Marines are willing to make, they are not well compensated. And we don't just ask the servicemen to sacrifice, we ask their families to make a sacrifice. They endure long periods of separation, they live in military housing which in many cases is substandard, and we ask them to get by on low pay. The least we can do for our servicemen is to given them a decent retirement system. The very least we can do for their widows, is to restore the funds that are unjustly removed from their survivor's benefit plan. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the article and the text of this bill be printed in the Record.

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. Madam President, I rise today in celebration of Black History Month and a true American hero, General Daniel ``Chappie'' James, Jr. To commemorate Daniel ``Chappie'' James' life, I submit a resolution, today, to create a postage stamp in his honor. General James was a patriot for his country and broke down racial walls in the Armed Forces for all people of color. Not only was General James the first African American four-star general in the Air Force, but he was the first African American four-star general in any service. Regrettably, too few Americans know of his heroism and contributions to the United States. General James dedicated his career to the defense of the United States and improving the plight of Blacks in the military. ``Chappie'' James learned to fly as a student at the Tuskegee Institute in Alabama. In 1943 he was commissioned in the segregated U.S. Army Air Corps. He was a member and trainer of the famed Tuskegee Airmen. Due to harsh prejudice, White officers doubted Blacks could be competent pilots, but the Tuskegee Airmen answered all critics by remarkably executing over 200 dangerous escort missions for American bombers during World War II without losing a single bomber. Following World War II, General James flew 179 fighter missions over Korea and North Vietnam. He commanded the Bolo MiG sweep over North Vietnam which destroyed seven North Vietnamese MiG-21s--the highest total kill of any one Air Force mission during the Vietnam War. Throughout his life in the Air Force, Chappie James continued to break the color barrier. It was not an easy task, as it was fraught with road blocks. Nevertheless, General James pressed on to become a Brigadier General and the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Public Affairs in 1970. In 1975, Daniel James achieved the rank of General and was named chief-of-staff of the North American Aerospace Defense Command. General James never forgot the struggles he faced as a Black man in the United States military, but his love for America never wavered. General James sought to right the wrongs he encountered, not run from them. In summation of his 35 years in the Air Corps and Air Force, he said, ``I've fought in three wars and three more wouldn't be too many to defend my country. I love America and as she has weaknesses or ills, I'll hold her hand.'' General James spent a life-time in service to his country and curing her of her weakness and ills. We should aspire to the same and continue his fight for equality. To commemorate General James' life, I am submitting a resolution, today, to create a postage stamp in his honor. I hope my colleagues will support this measure and join me paying tribute to a great American.

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I rise today to speak on an issue of great importance to our military retirees. This issue I want to address is the Survivor's Benefit Plan and the need to eliminate the Social Security offset. The Survivor's Benefit Plan, SBP, has been in existence for nearly 30 years. Under this plan, military retirees may contribute part of their monthly retirement pay to the SBP, with the knowledge that after their death, their spouses can continue to receive 55 percent of their monthly retirement pay. But, when the surviving spouse reaches the age of 62, something disturbing happens. At the age of 62, the widow or widower of a military retiree sees his or her payments under the SBP shrink to 35 percent. This reduction is an offset for the Social Security payments that the survivor has begun to collect. The survivors of military retirees find this to be unjust, and rightly so. The SBP is a fund that their spouses payed into, with the expectation that their survivors would be taken care of after they pass away. The SBP is not a lavish monthly payment, but reflects the low salaries that men and women on active duty receive. In a recent article in the Shreveport Times, Billie Combs, who is 73, and is the widow of an Air Force Master Sergeant commented on the strain that the Social Security Offset imposes on their budget. She said: ``It curtails my spending. It stops me from buying the things that I need; I just cut back and make sure that I have enough to carry me through to the next month.'' The legislation that I introduce today would slowly phase out the social security offset to Survivor Benefit Plan, reducing it significantly by 2007, and completely erasing it by 2013. Those who choose the military as their profession don't do it for the money. They do it because they have a love for country. They have a love for country that runs so deep, they would gladly sacrifice their lives in defense of the homeland. Despite the extreme sacrifice our Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen, and Marines are willing to make, they are not well compensated. And we don't just ask the servicemen to sacrifice, we ask their families to make a sacrifice. They endure long periods of separation, they live in military housing which in many cases is substandard, and we ask them to get by on low pay. The least we can do for our servicemen is to given them a decent retirement system. The very least we can do for their widows, is to restore the funds that are unjustly removed from their survivor's benefit plan. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the article and the text of this bill be printed in the Record.

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation to pay tribute to one of our Nation's most prominent individuals, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. The Martin Luther King, Jr. Commemorative Coin Act of 2003 instructs the Secretary of the Treasury to mint coins to recognize Dr. King's contribution to the people of the United States. Revenues from the surcharge on the coin would go to the Library of Congress to purchase and maintain historical documents and other materials associated with the life and legacy of Martin Luther King, Jr. This honor is long overdue. His contributions to our Nation are well known and well documented. From 1955 when he helped lead the Montgomery Boycott to his death at the hands of an assassin in 1968, Dr. King dedicated his life to the cause of civil rights. In those 13 years, he was jailed several times, got cursed at and stoned by mobs, reviled by racist attacks in the South. Civil rights marches for freedoms we take for granted today like the right to vote or drink from the same water fountain, were met with police dogs and fire hoses. Honoring Dr. King also means honoring those local leaders in the civil rights struggle who kept Dr. King's vision alive at the grassroots. In my particular home State of Louisiana, Rev. Dr. T.J. Jemison led a successful bus boycott in our State capital Baton Rouge. He became an advisor to Dr. King during the Montgomery Bus boycott. Many of these local leaders faced constant danger at home. One Louisianan, Dr. C.O. Simpkins of Shreveport had his home bombed simply because he dared to stand by Dr. King and demand that the buses in Shreveport be integrated. But Dr. King urged us to fight hate with love, quell violence with peace, and to replace ignorance with understanding. He believed in a higher calling for America. In his famous ``I Have a Dream'' speech at the Lincoln Memorial in 1963, he called on America to live up to its creed, that all men were created equal. America heeded his call by passing landmark civil rights legislation in 1958 and 1964. For his work, he received the Novel Peace Prize in 1964. At 35 years old, Dr. King was the youngest recipient of the Peace Prize. Today, our Nation is a better place than it was just 40 years ago. It is truly remarkable how much this nation has changed in the lifetimes of virtually everyone currently serving in the Senate. Our nation has made great strides forward, but race relations in our country are not perfect. But we are working to get there. A nineteenth century rabbi named Zadok Rabinwitz said that ``A man's dreams are an index to his greatness.'' Dr. King had a dream. His dream is becoming our nation's reality. By any measure his dreams were great and they made a great Nation even greater. I urge my colleagues to support the Martin Luther King, Jr. Commemorative Coin Act of 2003.

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation to pay tribute to one of our Nation's most prominent individuals, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. The Martin Luther King, Jr. Commemorative Coin Act of 2003 instructs the Secretary of the Treasury to mint coins to recognize Dr. King's contribution to the people of the United States. Revenues from the surcharge on the coin would go to the Library of Congress to purchase and maintain historical documents and other materials associated with the life and legacy of Martin Luther King, Jr. This honor is long overdue. His contributions to our Nation are well known and well documented. From 1955 when he helped lead the Montgomery Boycott to his death at the hands of an assassin in 1968, Dr. King dedicated his life to the cause of civil rights. In those 13 years, he was jailed several times, got cursed at and stoned by mobs, reviled by racist attacks in the South. Civil rights marches for freedoms we take for granted today like the right to vote or drink from the same water fountain, were met with police dogs and fire hoses. Honoring Dr. King also means honoring those local leaders in the civil rights struggle who kept Dr. King's vision alive at the grassroots. In my particular home State of Louisiana, Rev. Dr. T.J. Jemison led a successful bus boycott in our State capital Baton Rouge. He became an advisor to Dr. King during the Montgomery Bus boycott. Many of these local leaders faced constant danger at home. One Louisianan, Dr. C.O. Simpkins of Shreveport had his home bombed simply because he dared to stand by Dr. King and demand that the buses in Shreveport be integrated. But Dr. King urged us to fight hate with love, quell violence with peace, and to replace ignorance with understanding. He believed in a higher calling for America. In his famous ``I Have a Dream'' speech at the Lincoln Memorial in 1963, he called on America to live up to its creed, that all men were created equal. America heeded his call by passing landmark civil rights legislation in 1958 and 1964. For his work, he received the Novel Peace Prize in 1964. At 35 years old, Dr. King was the youngest recipient of the Peace Prize. Today, our Nation is a better place than it was just 40 years ago. It is truly remarkable how much this nation has changed in the lifetimes of virtually everyone currently serving in the Senate. Our nation has made great strides forward, but race relations in our country are not perfect. But we are working to get there. A nineteenth century rabbi named Zadok Rabinwitz said that ``A man's dreams are an index to his greatness.'' Dr. King had a dream. His dream is becoming our nation's reality. By any measure his dreams were great and they made a great Nation even greater. I urge my colleagues to support the Martin Luther King, Jr. Commemorative Coin Act of 2003.