Mary Landrieu

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, today I am introducing a modification of legislation I introduced earlier in the 107th Congress relating to the Renewal Community program. The Renewal Community program has been tremendously valuable in promoting job growth and economic development in the poorest areas of the country. There are 40 urban and rural renewal community areas designated under the Community Renewal Tax Relief Act of 2000. The poverty rate in renewal communities is at least 20 percent, and the unemployment rate is one-and-a-half times the national level. The households in the renewal communities have incomes that are 80 percent below the median income of households in their local jurisdictions. Four areas of Louisiana received renewal community designations. Businesses in a renewal community can receive a variety of tax benefits for hiring residents of the same renewal community. These tax benefits include A $1,500 Federal credit for hiring workers from the renewal community, as well as a $2,400 work opportunity credit for hiring employees from groups with traditionally high unemployment rates. There is one important qualification in the program that poses a peculiar problem in Louisiana, as well as a few other parts of the country: a business can only take advantage of these credits if it hires residents from the same renewal community that the business is in. Why is this a problem for Louisiana? Because, some of our renewal communities border each other. Under the rules of the program, the business cannot receive the credit for hiring a resident of a different renewal community. In Louisiana, the closest available job for someone might be at a business two or three miles away, but if that business is not in the same renewal community as the worker, the business cannot get the tax credit. A good example of what I am talking about is in the northern part of Louisiana, home of the North Louisiana Renewal Community and the Ouachita Renewal Community. The city of Monroe is located at the heart of the Ouachita Renewal Community and it serves as the economic hub for Northeast Louisiana. All around Monroe and the Ouachita Renewal Community there are parishes which fall in the North Louisiana Renewal Community, Morehouse Parish to the north, Richland Parish to the east, Caldwell Parish to the south, and Lincoln Parish to the west. People from these parishes will naturally look in Monroe for jobs. But under the rule, businesses in Monroe cannot take advantage of the tax credits even if they hire wokers from only a short distance away. My legislation, the Renewal Community Tax Benefit Improvement Act of 2002, will allow the employers in one renewal community to hire employees from an adjacent or nearby renewal community area and still receive the tax benefits granted through the act. The bill I am introducing today is a slightly more narrow version of my earlier bill to bring needed flexibility to the renewal community program. I am pleased that my colleague from Louisiana, Senator Breaux, is an original cosponsor of this bill. This legislation is a small change that will make a big difference to the people of Louisiana. I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I rise to offer a bill which addresses a growing population who seek a distinct supportive voice: our military dependent children. Education is an issue which many Senators on both sides of the aisle have worked very hard to improve in every State in our union. This bill, however, is unique in that it strives to increase the quality of education for hundreds of thousands of our children of members of the Armed Services by catering to their specific needs and frequent moves. Let me begin by expressing my thanks to most members of this body for always working diligently to introduce and pass great initiatives for education. I firmly believe that we, at this juncture in our Nation's great history, have continued to bring family issues, such as education and the economy to the forefront of our discussion. Further, amid our continued discussion of the possibility of sending our military men and women into harm's way in Iraq, there is no better time to concentrate on their children, children who have the added burden of worrying about a deployed parent, or who must move to a new school many times as their parent or parents move to new assignments around the country. This bill, I am proposing, will provide Stable Transitions I Education for our Active Duty Youth. It is called the STEADY Act and is the first step to a smoother educational career for military dependent children. When I last spoke of this bill, I said that we in ``Congress are becoming wiser and wiser on the issue of education'' by recognizing that our future and our economy depend on the education of our children. It truly is an issue of strengthening our Nation. We cannot have an economically strong and militarily secure Nation moving in a progressive way without an excellent school system. No matter where a child is born, rural or urban, on the east coast or west coast, if we do not do a better job as a Nation of giving our children a quality education, the future of our Nation will not be as bright, and it could put us in jeopardy. I also make the argument that for our military, the same holds true. it is not just about providing our military with the most extraordinary weapons. it is not just about training our military men and women tot he highest levels. It is not just providing them the basics. We have an obligation to recognize that when our men and women sign up to be in our military, they have willingly made sacrifices, but their families' quality of life should not be one of those sacrifices. We need to provide them, between the Department of Defense and the Department of Education, a quality education for their children. When we send our soldiers into battle, we want them focused on the battle and mission at hand. We do not want them worried, as they naturally would be, about spouses and dependents at home, about their happiness, about their comfort, about their security. It makes our military stronger when we provide good, quality-of-life initiatives for their families at home. One of the ways we can do that is by improving the schools for military dependents. There are over 800,000 children who are military dependents out of an overall force strength of 1.4 million adults connected to the military. Many of them are school-age children. Because of the specific demands of our military, which are very unlike the civilian sector, many move every 2 years. Some military members move from the east coast to the west coast, moving families with them. it is very difficult providing an excellent education generally, and yet the military has even more challenges. What is the solution? I offer this bill to strengthen our military schools in the United States in a creative way. This bill will set up the a pilot program to help create military charter schools around the Nation in partnership with local public school systems to provide an opportunity not only for our military dependents, but this framework will also help communities who have a large military presence. The benefit overall is that the community gets a better school, a school that has the opportunity to provide an excellent education, while being extremely flexible to accommodate the unique needs of a military dependent student. The second benefit is that it gives children whose families might not have any connection to the military, an introduction into who military people and what military life can be like. This is a partnership. It is a pilot program that will help establish charter schools, will give important consideration to military children as they move from community to community, and will create for the first time what we call an academic passport. An academic passport will help to stabilize and standardize the curriculum without micromanaging, without dictating what the curriculum should be. It sets up a new approach or a new framework for our local elementary and secondary schools throughout the country to set up a standardized curriculum to address the vast peaks and valleys encountered by military dependent students as they move from one district to another. To illustrate: one school district might require 3 years of a foreign language or 2 years of algebra or 1 year of algebra, or a whole different curriculum. That is part of this bill. It is something about which military families feel very strongly. I hope that with this new pilot program to help create charter schools with a new academic passport, we can begin to focus some of our resources, again, not all within the Department of Defense; some of this is within the jurisdiction of the Department of Education, to create something exciting and wonderful for these 800,000 children. Madam President, 600,000 of these children are in public schools today, at great stress to those public districts; 100,000 of these children are either in private schools or are home schooled; and only 32,000 of the 800,000 are in Department of Defense schools. These schools are concentrated in a few States. There are only 32,000 children, as I said, of 800,000 dependents in DDESS schools in New York, Kentucky, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, and Alabama. As my colleagues can see, dependent children of military personnel are in public schools throughout the country. Sometimes they are good public schools; sometimes they are not so good. We are working hard to make every public school excellent, but I think we have a special obligation to our military families to make sure that those children, with the added burdens they face, are getting an excellent education. If you look at the general population, non-officers in our military, 91.5 percent have a high school degree or GED, 91 percent. In our general population, it is about 80 percent. This is a very upwardly mobile group of Americans. Theses are men and women with great discipline, great patriotism, great commitment to the Nation. Obviously, they are serving their country, but they are committed to their families, their communities, and their education. As one can see, the officers exceed the general population at large. Almost 40 percent have advanced degrees; 99 percent or more have bachelor degrees. This is also a very upwardly mobile population. If we can provide excellent schools and opportunities for the children of this 91 percent, I think we will be doing a very good job in helping to strengthen our military but also helping our country be a better place. It is truly something on which we should focus more. In conclusion, let me tell you of a school of which I am very proud. It might be one of the first military charters, if not the first, in the Nation. This is a school which opened in September and is an even larger success than we anticipated. This is a state-of-the-art, brand new charter school in Plaquemines Parish, which serves the military and civilian community there. It has alleviated a huge burden on the local school district, and is ready for its first expansion. I think we can work all day long on pay raises, on building more ships, on buying more tanks, and on building a stronger Air Force, but truly I think focusing on educational opportunities for military dependent children, will help us build morale, help us improve retention, will help us strengthen our military in the intermediate and the long term, and it is something that, with a little creativity, a little bit of thinking outside of the box, I am convinced we could finance the construction of these schools through means laid out in the bill, and end up coming out with some excellent facilities around this Nation to serve both our military and our nonmilitary families and do a great job for our Defense Department and a great job for our country. That is what this bill would accomplish: again, it sets up a pilot program to establish military charter schools in the neediest areas of the Nation. I would hope that it would be met with enthusiasm from my colleagues who consistently support good education initiatives, and from all of us who know the value of military service to our great Nation. ``Every few years you make new friends, Then you're gone. You do it all the time. I keep in touch. My best friend and I email, and write back and forth.''--Military dependent student.

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I rise to offer a bill which addresses a growing population who seek a distinct supportive voice: our military dependent children. Education is an issue which many Senators on both sides of the aisle have worked very hard to improve in every State in our union. This bill, however, is unique in that it strives to increase the quality of education for hundreds of thousands of our children of members of the Armed Services by catering to their specific needs and frequent moves. Let me begin by expressing my thanks to most members of this body for always working diligently to introduce and pass great initiatives for education. I firmly believe that we, at this juncture in our Nation's great history, have continued to bring family issues, such as education and the economy to the forefront of our discussion. Further, amid our continued discussion of the possibility of sending our military men and women into harm's way in Iraq, there is no better time to concentrate on their children, children who have the added burden of worrying about a deployed parent, or who must move to a new school many times as their parent or parents move to new assignments around the country. This bill, I am proposing, will provide Stable Transitions I Education for our Active Duty Youth. It is called the STEADY Act and is the first step to a smoother educational career for military dependent children. When I last spoke of this bill, I said that we in ``Congress are becoming wiser and wiser on the issue of education'' by recognizing that our future and our economy depend on the education of our children. It truly is an issue of strengthening our Nation. We cannot have an economically strong and militarily secure Nation moving in a progressive way without an excellent school system. No matter where a child is born, rural or urban, on the east coast or west coast, if we do not do a better job as a Nation of giving our children a quality education, the future of our Nation will not be as bright, and it could put us in jeopardy. I also make the argument that for our military, the same holds true. it is not just about providing our military with the most extraordinary weapons. it is not just about training our military men and women tot he highest levels. It is not just providing them the basics. We have an obligation to recognize that when our men and women sign up to be in our military, they have willingly made sacrifices, but their families' quality of life should not be one of those sacrifices. We need to provide them, between the Department of Defense and the Department of Education, a quality education for their children. When we send our soldiers into battle, we want them focused on the battle and mission at hand. We do not want them worried, as they naturally would be, about spouses and dependents at home, about their happiness, about their comfort, about their security. It makes our military stronger when we provide good, quality-of-life initiatives for their families at home. One of the ways we can do that is by improving the schools for military dependents. There are over 800,000 children who are military dependents out of an overall force strength of 1.4 million adults connected to the military. Many of them are school-age children. Because of the specific demands of our military, which are very unlike the civilian sector, many move every 2 years. Some military members move from the east coast to the west coast, moving families with them. it is very difficult providing an excellent education generally, and yet the military has even more challenges. What is the solution? I offer this bill to strengthen our military schools in the United States in a creative way. This bill will set up the a pilot program to help create military charter schools around the Nation in partnership with local public school systems to provide an opportunity not only for our military dependents, but this framework will also help communities who have a large military presence. The benefit overall is that the community gets a better school, a school that has the opportunity to provide an excellent education, while being extremely flexible to accommodate the unique needs of a military dependent student. The second benefit is that it gives children whose families might not have any connection to the military, an introduction into who military people and what military life can be like. This is a partnership. It is a pilot program that will help establish charter schools, will give important consideration to military children as they move from community to community, and will create for the first time what we call an academic passport. An academic passport will help to stabilize and standardize the curriculum without micromanaging, without dictating what the curriculum should be. It sets up a new approach or a new framework for our local elementary and secondary schools throughout the country to set up a standardized curriculum to address the vast peaks and valleys encountered by military dependent students as they move from one district to another. To illustrate: one school district might require 3 years of a foreign language or 2 years of algebra or 1 year of algebra, or a whole different curriculum. That is part of this bill. It is something about which military families feel very strongly. I hope that with this new pilot program to help create charter schools with a new academic passport, we can begin to focus some of our resources, again, not all within the Department of Defense; some of this is within the jurisdiction of the Department of Education, to create something exciting and wonderful for these 800,000 children. Madam President, 600,000 of these children are in public schools today, at great stress to those public districts; 100,000 of these children are either in private schools or are home schooled; and only 32,000 of the 800,000 are in Department of Defense schools. These schools are concentrated in a few States. There are only 32,000 children, as I said, of 800,000 dependents in DDESS schools in New York, Kentucky, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, and Alabama. As my colleagues can see, dependent children of military personnel are in public schools throughout the country. Sometimes they are good public schools; sometimes they are not so good. We are working hard to make every public school excellent, but I think we have a special obligation to our military families to make sure that those children, with the added burdens they face, are getting an excellent education. If you look at the general population, non-officers in our military, 91.5 percent have a high school degree or GED, 91 percent. In our general population, it is about 80 percent. This is a very upwardly mobile group of Americans. Theses are men and women with great discipline, great patriotism, great commitment to the Nation. Obviously, they are serving their country, but they are committed to their families, their communities, and their education. As one can see, the officers exceed the general population at large. Almost 40 percent have advanced degrees; 99 percent or more have bachelor degrees. This is also a very upwardly mobile population. If we can provide excellent schools and opportunities for the children of this 91 percent, I think we will be doing a very good job in helping to strengthen our military but also helping our country be a better place. It is truly something on which we should focus more. In conclusion, let me tell you of a school of which I am very proud. It might be one of the first military charters, if not the first, in the Nation. This is a school which opened in September and is an even larger success than we anticipated. This is a state-of-the-art, brand new charter school in Plaquemines Parish, which serves the military and civilian community there. It has alleviated a huge burden on the local school district, and is ready for its first expansion. I think we can work all day long on pay raises, on building more ships, on buying more tanks, and on building a stronger Air Force, but truly I think focusing on educational opportunities for military dependent children, will help us build morale, help us improve retention, will help us strengthen our military in the intermediate and the long term, and it is something that, with a little creativity, a little bit of thinking outside of the box, I am convinced we could finance the construction of these schools through means laid out in the bill, and end up coming out with some excellent facilities around this Nation to serve both our military and our nonmilitary families and do a great job for our Defense Department and a great job for our country. That is what this bill would accomplish: again, it sets up a pilot program to establish military charter schools in the neediest areas of the Nation. I would hope that it would be met with enthusiasm from my colleagues who consistently support good education initiatives, and from all of us who know the value of military service to our great Nation. ``Every few years you make new friends, Then you're gone. You do it all the time. I keep in touch. My best friend and I email, and write back and forth.''--Military dependent student.

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. Yes.

Ms. LANDRIEU. I thank the Senator, and I am pleased to have him cosponsor this resolution. It has been said Stephen Ambrose was not a historian's historian, but he was a student's historian. He was truly an exceptional teacher. In my mind, when I think of an exceptional teacher, it is not someone who just communicates facts but someone who teaches in a way that inspires one to be better, to help one understand the context in which one lives. He was not an exceptional teacher just for the brightest kids in the class but for every kid in the class. He taught--I used to say he taught at UNO--at the University of New Orleans, and kids would say their whole life was changed hearing him lecture. He lectured in the Senate, which changed many of our lives and outlooks. He was an extraordinary man and left us way too soon. He left a number of works and disciples, if you will, of his work. He certainly will live on, and we were blessed to know him.

Ms. LANDRIEU. Yes.

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, this resolution is to honor--I am not sure words can actually do appropriate justice--a great American who passed away this last weekend. That American is Stephen Ambrose, the author of a number of books, a man who helped our Nation understand the dynamics of war, the spectacular strengths of the American infantry men and women in uniform. He passed away quite a young man in his midsixties. He was a professor of history, known by many of us personally, and was a personal friend of the Senator from Alaska. I submit for the Record this resolution, to have it appear in the Congressional Record to honor a great American, someone Louisiana has lost and the Nation has lost. I am not sure we can ever replace him.

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of S. Res. 342; that the resolution and the preamble be agreed to; that the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table; and that any statements relating to the resolution be printed in the Record.

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I rise to address a subject on which there is no disagreement. The President would agree, as would Senate Democrats and Republicans and many Members of Congress; that is, to congratulate the senior Senator from Louisiana, John Breaux, on 30 years of service in the Congress. We celebrated that momentous anniversary this past Saturday. He received, of course, many well wishes from his many friends and supporters in Louisiana and around the Nation. I know his family is very proud. I want to say for a minute how proud I am of his service to our State of Louisiana. Thirty years ago, Senator John Breaux, then a Congressman, came to Washington as a young lawyer from a small town, the city of Crowley. He was elected to the House of Representatives at a very young age. In fact, when he got here, he was the youngest Member of Congress. He has served our State admirably ever since. Now he is in his third term in the U.S. Senate, and I have every hope he will run again and have no doubt he will be reelected. John likes to say he started campaigning in nursery school. Those of us who know him well would almost believe that. That is probably no stretch. He said he was going to city council meetings with his grandfather when he was 7 years old. In high school he was a popular athlete who played hard but was always fair to his teammates as well as his opponents. He learned the lessons on those athletic fields of hard work, teamwork, and leadership, which serve him well. Frankly, it is so obvious to all of us who know him and his affable manner, his very approachable way, always with a kind word to say, always a joke, and always something to lighten up a discussion at the appropriate time. Those traits have served him well as an outstanding Congressman and Senator. In addition, because none of us come here on our own, he has come here as a husband, a father, and now as a grandfather. His wife, Lois, has truly been a tremendous partner, at great sacrifice to herself and her family. John and Lois brought their Cajun roots to our Nation's capital, and we are proud of that. He has never lost sight of who he is or where he has come from. We know him at home in many ways, but in Washington he is known as a strong, vocal, and effective advocate for agriculture. His hometown sits right in the heart of rice country, in Crowley, LA, and in the heart of, in many ways, sugarcane country in south Louisiana; and he is familiar with all of our row crops, cattle, and other aquaculture and agricultural commodities. He is a strong and effective advocate of energy policy for the Nation, and his voice has been one that has brought us to the center, with a balanced approach on our energy policy. In addition, on our health care industry and issues, he has been particularly noted as a leader. As a member of the Finance Committee, there is not an important compromise that is developed on that committee--or outside of that Committee, for that matter--that he is not part and parcel of, which is a great strength as a Senator, particularly in these times when our parties seem to have a hard time coming together and finding middle ground and working out a compromise. Senator Breaux brings so much effort in that regard and so much help. To mention a few things--and after his 30 years, I could stay here all night and I could talk for hours. I will highlight a few of the things that would not have passed without his able help and assistance: the Welfare Reform Act, many health insurance reform bills, the balanced budget amendment, and tax cut packages that have passed here. He chaired the Special Committee on Aging and to that committee has brought a tremendous amount of passion on the issues of Social Security and Medicare, which have served this Nation well. I will conclude by saying we have all been blessed by his leadership and his talent. He has used it to help Louisiana to grow and expand economically. Mr. President, he has had a tremendous impact on the Nation at large. He has fought for businesses, schools, workers, students, and opportunities for all. He is a founder of the DLC, of the new Democratic Network. I could not have a better partner in the U.S. Senate than John Breaux. He is a mentor, a friend, and a partner in helping to strengthen our State. I wanted to spend a few moments to acknowledge the 30th anniversary and wish him 30 more years. He is in great health. He plays tennis regularly, with Democrats and Republicans alike, and beats us all on the court. He wins many of his battles on the Senate floor as well. Again, I congratulate Senator John Breaux.

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I will now address the Reservists and Guard Paid Protection Act, which I introduced last week. I'm looking forward to working diligently in the months and years ahead--hopefully, it won't take years--to pass this bill. I think it is a bill we probably should have addressed some years ago. I will speak to what the bill does. The Reservists and Guard Paid Protection Act attempts to put into law a tax credit for employers who voluntarily--because it is not mandatory--pay their reservists and maintain their salary level when they are called up to represent us, to fight for us, to stand in harm's way, to preserve our freedom, whether it be in Afghanistan, Bosnia, or Iraq, or anyplace our flag needs to continue to wave. Mr. President, as you might know--and I am certain most people in America don't realize--when our reservists are called up, their salary is cut. When our reservists are called up to defend us--because the President, our Commander in Chief, and this Congress have authorized us to call on them, to call on their lives, their health, and strength to defend us--they, in most instances, take a pay cut. Why? Because their salaries are generally higher in the civilian sector than we are able to compensate them. No soldier works for a paycheck, I realize that. If they did, we would not have any soldiers, because their paychecks are not what they need to be. They are patriotic and they believe in our Nation and they want to do their part. For that, they should be commended. This Reservists and Guard Protection Act gives their employers, if they voluntarily keep their salaries at the level they were before they were called up to serve, a 50 percent tax credit. So it helps the employer, who also is making a sacrifice, might I say, in the new system we have on relying more on reservists and guardsmen. The employers themselves are, of course, by law mandated to keep that job open so when the Reservists come back, they have a job. They are not mandated--and should not be--to pick up the tab for their salary, but we can help, and the cost is really minimal compared to the benefits that would result. In addition, this bill also would mandate the Federal Government would maintain, for those reservists who are Federal employees--and we have a good percentage--not a majority, but a number of our Federal employees who might work at Treasury during the day, but are weekend warriors, and now they are full-time warriors because they have been called up--this bill would mandate the Federal Government simply maintain their pay at their regular level. Instead of taking the paycheck and sending part of it back to the Treasury while they defend us, they would be allowed to keep that paycheck, which would make a tremendous amount of sense. I know it would mean a tremendous amount to the spouses and family members at home, who have to keep the lights on, pay the mortgage, pay the rent, or pay the car payment monthly, food bills, et cetera. Just because one person in the family--one of the breadwinners, and in some cases it may be the sole breadwinner--has been called up to go to war, the family bills don't stop coming. They need to be paid. So anything we can do to keep our reservists' and our guardsmen's pay where it was so they are not taking a cut to defend us, I think would be appropriate at this time. Basically, that is what this bill does. Let me make another point before I close. Since 1991, the U.S. military has significantly scaled down its active troops because we came to the end of the cold war and we thought we could scale back our active troops. Now we are scaling up, of course, to meet these new threats, and into the foreseeable future, by calling on our Reserves more and more. In fact, they represented 40 to 50 percent of our troop force in Desert Storm. We have called on them in somewhat a disproportionate way to defend us in Bosnia, Afghanistan, and no doubt, if we go to Iraq, our active force will be perhaps 100,000, if not 200,000, in number, and many of them will be reservists. Gone are the cold war days when we had massive military personnel positioned all over the world. Now we are relying on a leaner force. The reservists have become a part of that leaner force because we need flexibility in putting our force together to serve a great purpose. In addition, with the new war--and you know, Mr. President, because you serve on the Armed Services Committee and the Emerging Threats Subcommittee which I chair, you are familiar with the fact we are going to need new skill sets in our armed services--linguists, cultural experts, historians. We are going to need different skill sets, highly technical individuals--public relations people, individuals who have skills about setting up civil authorities. So our new Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marines have to be a group of men and women who are highly trained in specialized skills. Sometimes we can get those specialized skills from those on active duty, but it is smarter, more economical, and actually more effective if we are able to pull certain types of skills out of the civilian force when needed to apply them to that specific goal or objective. That is the way this new military is going to be designed for the future. It is different from the First World War, different from the Second World War, different than the cold war strategy. With a new strategy and new weapons, we are asking the reservists to do more. Let's not ask them to do more with less. Let's not ask them to do more and cut their pay. Let's do right by our reservists by supporting them. They are weekend warriors, but now they are simply warriors. Our benefits to them and our pay systems should reflect this new demand on their schedules. OPTEMPO is up. Our conflicts and our challenges are right before us, and we need to respond. I am hoping we will gain support for this act. I look forward to debating and presenting it to the committee, but I think this is the least we can do to support a segment of our national security force that is so important and so crucial for us to win the war on terrorism, to establish the peace around the world, so this economy, and economies around the world, can grow and people truly can live in peace and prosperity. These are the people who are on the front line making that happen. This is a very important bill. I hope we will gain a lot of support for it as the months and weeks unfold.

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I rise to add my words on this issue and also to thank the Senator from West Virginia for his comments, as well as the Senator from Florida. The Senator from West Virginia is absolutely correct; this is a very important issue to Americans generally, particularly in the context in which we find ourselves, getting ready to perhaps fight yet another war and honing our designs on homeland security, but particularly to the veterans and their families that are affected. Unfortunately, the President has stated he will, in fact, veto the Defense bill over this issue. I urge him--and I am sure many of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle do as well--to reconsider. While there is a cost associated with this, clearly it is an injustice that should be corrected. A veteran, a person who has put their life on the line, particularly in recent years, been called up again and again and again into active reserves and also reservists have been called up, to have a person injured or disabled and then to serve out their 20 years, only to come to the realization that they can receive their retirement but they can't receive their full disability is a very unfair situation, something for which our veterans most certainly deserve our better attention. As we allocate our resources to strengthen our military, not only do we need smarter weapons, but we need to keep our promises to our men and women in uniform. We need to keep our promises about health care-- you take care of us now, we will take care of you in your senior years. We are doing a better job of that by stepping up with the TRICARE and health benefits. But this concurrent receipt issue is where the rubber hits the road and trying to get some sort of commitment to helping our veterans who are disabled on the battlefield or injured on the battlefield, that disability then is subsequent to that injury, to allow them and their families to take the full benefit of their retirement as well as their disability seems to me in the scheme of what we have been talking about: Investing in our military, trying to keep up their morale, keep up our promises, and live up to our promises to our men and women in uniform as to what we should be doing. I am hopeful this situation will resolve itself to the benefit of veterans. I, for one, am prepared to stay here and work toward that end.

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, as Members of this body, there is no issue we face as grave and important as determining whether we should authorize force against Iraq that might place our men and women in uniform in mortal danger in order to protect the freedoms we cherish, and extend these freedoms to the people of Iraq, through the disarmament of a tyrant committed to harming his own people and the rest of the world. As a member of the Armed Services Committee, and as a citizen, I have given great consideration and thought to this course of action. Can I in good conscience authorize the use of force that could place someone's child, or my child, or someone's husband, wife, mother, or father in harm's way? Should the President commit troops to Iraq, American blood will certainly be shed. But, the authorization of force is recourse we must take. For 11 years, Saddam Hussein has openly violated 16 U.N. resolutions calling on him to disarm; cease his production of weapons of mass destruction; and stop the ethnic cleansing of his own people. For 11 years, the people of Iraq have suffered. Furthermore, Saddam Hussein has made the world a much more dangerous place. His relish to produce chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons has only increased since the end of the Gulf War. Now, we have learned that he is harboring al-Qaida terrorists; strengthening his ties to al-Qaida; and financing terrorist organizations that promote suicide bomb attacks in Israel. I am confident that the enactment of this resolution will give our President the tools he needs to bring the world community together to disarm this brutal tyrant through diplomacy. But, this resolution also gives the President authority to follow diplomacy with force, if necessary, to ensure that the threats Saddam Hussein brings to the world are neutralized. The threat from Saddam Hussein's WMD programs is real and growing every day we fail to take action to disarm him. He has used WMD against his own people and his neighbors. We should not wonder whether he has any interest in using them against the U.S. or our allies. As chair of the Emerging Threats and Capabilities Subcommittee, along with Senator Roberts, the Subcommittee held a hearing in February to investigate the status of his WMD programs since inspectors left and the threat those weapons could pose to the U.S. At that hearing, the Subcommittee was faced with the blunt findings that Saddam successfully hid weapons while U.N. inspectors were in Iraq. Moreover, there are no mechanisms in place to prohibit Iraq from ramping up its production of biological and chemical weapons, and its quest for nuclear weapons. At the hearing, Anthony Cordesman, from the Center for Strategic and International Studies, stated Iraq admitted in 1995, ``that it had produced 30,000 liters of bulk biological agents. Iraq admitted it produced anthrax, botulinum toxins, and aflatoxins.'' We must remember it took only a few grams of Anthrax to throw the Senate and the East Coast of the U.S. into disarray. Worse yet, Iraq admitted it had affixed these biological agents to missile warheads and bombs. Dr. Cordesman went on to say that UNSCOM believed Iraq had produced as much as 120,000 liters of biological weapons, not the 30,000 it admitted--enough to kill millions. Furthermore, UNSCOM has been out of Iraq for 4 years, yet UNSCOM stated that Iraq could reconstitute its biological weapons program within a matter of weeks after UNSCOM's departure. Imagine the destruction that could be caused by Saddam Hussein with his unchecked inventory of hundreds of thousands of liters of biological weapons. Again, he has the capability to injure or kill millions. The Subcommittee also received testimony that Iraq has actively rebuilt its chemical weapons programs since UNSCOM was thrown out of Iraq. UNSCOM reported to the Security Council that Iraq withheld information related to Iraq's chemical weapons program. UNSCOM uncovered only a small portion of Iraq's chemical weapons. In fact, Iraq confiscated information gathered by UNSCOM regarding Iraq's chemical weapons, so the information could not be transmitted to the Security Council. Iraq also told UNSCOM Iraq had not armed missiles with VX gas--one of the deadliest of nerve agents. Yet, in 1998, UNSCOM discovered missiles tipped with VX. Soon after, UNSCOM was told to leave Iraq and Iraq has resumed chemical weapons production. It takes only 10 milligrams of VX to kill a person. A wine bottle full of VX could kill at least 75 people. We must find out how much VX Saddam has, and destroy it. Moreover, Saddam Hussein is devoting much of his defense budget to becoming a nuclear power. After the Gulf War, we learned from the U.N. weapons inspectors that Iraq was within 1 year of developing nuclear weapons. Prior to the war, we thought Iraq was 5 to 7 years away. Since 1998, we cannot say with any certainty that we know the status of Iraq's nuclear program. Once again, Saddam could be less than a year away from a nuclear bomb. The world must know how close he is, and he must stop his nuclear development. Once he develops a nuclear program, we will never be able to shut it down. For these reasons, we cannot take our time in passing this resolution. We must act now. Saddam Hussein has shown, on numerous occasions, his willingness to use WMD to attack his countrymen and his neighbors. He has killed 20,000 Iraqis in 40 villages with WMD. As President Bush said two nights ago, ``Saddam Hussein is a homicidal dictator who is addicted to weapons of mass destruction.'' I want to read from Charles Duelfer's testimony before the Emerging Threats and Capabilities Subcommittee's hearing on Iraq's WMD programs on February 27, 2002. Mr. Duelfer was the Deputy Executive Chairman of UNSCOM. He said that it is inconceivable that Iraq did not resume its WMD programs after UNSCOM left. Mr. Duelfer said it is difficult ``to imagine circumstances under which this regime would end these programs'' of WMD because . . . ``the regime in Baghdad will devote full resources to its weapons programs . . . This has not changed even under sanctions . . . The regime seeks to dominate the region . . . The use of force comes naturally'' to Saddam Hussein. WMD are his tools to dominate the region. If we wait to pass this resolution, Saddam will only continue to enlarge his WMD program; threaten the Middle East; and then threaten the U.S. He will never end his programs unless the world reins down on him to eliminate his tremendous capacity for killing. This resolution is the proper tool to give the Administration a firm hand in negotiating with the world to disarm Saddam Hussein and eliminate his capacity to kill. We should pass the Lieberman-McCain Resolution immediately and overwhelmingly to show the world we are united. We must not tie the President's hands and the hands of Secretary Powell to negotiate a new Security Council Resolution that calls for the disarmament of Iraq--and the threat of force against Iraq if Saddam does not abide by the resolution. We can bring the Security Council on board if we can show them the United States stands together to disarm Saddam Hussein. If this body is divided, the U.N., and especially Saddam Hussein, will pay us no mind. The best outcome is a new Security Council resolution that calls for unfettered inspections throughout Iraq, including Saddam's presidential palaces; the disarmament of all WMD; and the threat of force should Saddam Hussein not comply. That outcome has a better chance of becoming a reality if we pass this resolution. The new U.N. resolution the President and Secretary Powell seek is our best chance to avoid a war. But the threat of force must be present to enforce a new resolution because Saddam only understands force. Again, Charles Duelfer testified before the Iraqis were perfectly willing to thumb their nose at UNSCOM because the U.N. had not authorized force to make Iraq comply. Iraq's Deputy Foreign Minister, Tariq Aziz, regularly told Mr. Duelfer, ``You are not General MacArthur (referring to MacArthur's occupation/disarmament of the Japanese) . . . Therefore, there are limits to what you can do.'' What Aziz meant was you have no authorized force; you have no army with you to make us show you what we have and where it is. A new resolution will only work if the threat of force lurks behind any Iraqi failure to obey. This resolution is also a narrowly tailored authorization of force. It seeks peace before war to enforce past and future U.N. resolutions against Iraq. This resolution does not give the President carte blanche to use force throughout the Middle East for any reason. Force is only authorized to bring Iraq into compliance with U.N. resolutions--so that Iraq disarms its WMD; ceases production of WMD; does not threaten its neighbors, and does not repress and commit atrocities against its citizens with WMD. This resolution correctly authorizes force for the violation of all 16 U.N. resolutions, because Saddam's crimes against humanity should concern America as much as his WMD capabilities. America has been a tremendous defender of human rights. But, at times, we have not always defended the victims of ruthless dictators. In Rwanda, 800,000 Rwandans were slaughtered in 12 months, yet America did nothing to stop the ethnic cleansing. America's failure to act in Rwanda could be the lowest point in American history. We should not make the same mistake by turning a blind eye to the Kurds and Shiites Saddam has tortured for years. Any resolution to dismantle his WMD must also call for him to end ethnic cleansing in Iraq. In 1944, two Jews who escaped Auschwitz--and revealed the horrors of concentration camps to the world--asked the U.S. War Department and the War Refugee Board to bomb train tracks leading to Auschwitz so no more Jews could be brought there. U.S. bombers were already bombing fuel dumps near Auschwitz. Yet the War Refugee Board refused this simple request. John McCloy, the head of the Refugee Board, denied the request. He stated the operation did ``not warrant the use of our resources.'' How could saving lives not warrant the use of American resources? As a result, between 500,000 and 800,000 Jews died at Auschwitz in the final year of WWII. These lives could have been saved, but we did not make it a priority. We shouldn't now say that human rights are not worthy of U.S. and international diplomacy. We should not say that we are unwilling to disarm a dictator who brutalizes his people. If we do, we will have failed the world, again. Fortunately, I think this body and the American people do care about human rights. We stood up for human rights in Kosovo. We used force against a sovereign leader, Milosevic, who was committed to the genocide of ethnic Albanians. Through American force, Milosevic was removed from power and indicted for numerous war crimes. We did the right thing for an oppressed people. And, I must remind you President Clinton did not seek Congressional authorization to use force in Kosovo. Today, unlike in Kosovo, the President does seek Congressional approval for force in an effort to seek a unified American front to disarm another leader threatening his people and the world. But, I must say, again, that force is a last option under this resolution. The resolution requires the president not to use force until he presents his determination to Congress that diplomacy is no longer an option. This resolution is not a call to arms. The President will not roll tanks into Iraq as soon as we pass the Lieberman-McCain resolution. As the President said on Monday, ``War is neither desirable nor inevitable.'' War can be avoided. The President will seek Security Council support and support from other allies to bring about a diplomatic answer to disarm Saddam Hussein. I have no doubt that the President's first hope is to neutralize the Iraqi threat without invading Iraq. But, if a Security Council resolution cannot be achieved and Saddam continues to jeopardize the livelihood of Americans--or if Saddam violates any future resolution--the President should have the authority to use force. Because his most important job as Commander in Chief is to keep the American people safe from a tyrant. In conclusion, I want to, once again, reiterate my support for the Lieberman-McCain resolution. As a co-sponsor, this resolution is America's best effort to stand united to show the world, and especially Saddam Hussein, that we are committed to disarm Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, which are a clear and present danger to America and the world. Hopefully, this can be accomplished diplomatically with the world-wide support. But, this resolution also sends a clear signal that we are willing to use force to change Iraq's ways if Iraq continues to threaten the U.S.; if Iraq disobeys a new Security Council resolution; or if the President determines all diplomatic efforts have been exhausted. At that time, force may be necessary for America to defend herself. This resolution is the proper mix of diplomacy and force. As President Kennedy said, ``Either alone, will fail.'' I hope the Senate will pass this resolution overwhelmingly to show solidarity and resolve to our friends and our enemies.

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I understand several of my colleagues have come to the floor to speak in favor of this piece of legislation Senator Lincoln is championing so well and appropriately. I rise to take a moment to add my words of support for this very important measure. I understand the Senator from Missouri will be following me, if possible. Last year in Louisiana, there were about 67,000 children born. If you think about a medium-sized town, that is like a medium-sized town born every year.

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for 2 minutes.

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, 67,000 babies were born in Louisiana last year. It would be most certainly in the interest not only of those particular children and those particular families but the community that reaches out, in the broader sense, to the people of our Nation to make sure those new babies, and their moms who are delivering them, are coming into the world in the healthiest way possible. Not only does that help us across the board in health issues, it helps us because then we are better able to educate those children because they have been born in a healthy manner, we are more able to reach out and prevent all sorts of illnesses and diseases and mental health problems, and save the taxpayers of this country billions of dollars. So the Senator from Arkansas is so right. The rule proposed in the House falls short. Let us pass this bill that encompasses the health of children and their mothers and give them the prenatal care they need to get these children born healthy for their own benefit and for the benefit of the taxpayers in our Nation. I thank the Senator from Missouri for his strong leadership on this issue as well. I yield the floor.

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, in 1999, several of us, including the late John Chafee and former First Lady, Hillary Clinton, took a long hard look at our Nation's foster care system and in particular those whom the system failed. Each year 25,000 young people leave our foster care system without ever finding a permanent family. Too many of these young people have been in this system for the majority of their lives, moved from home to home to home, school to school, with no one to count on or turn to for guidance and no where to call ``home.'' Studies show that within two to four years of leaving foster care, only half have completed high school, fewer than half are employed, one-fourth have been homeless for at least one night, 30 percent did not have access to needed health care, 60 percent of the young women have given birth, and less than one-in-five are completely self- supporting. In addition, many States report that the overwhelming majority of youth offenders housed in their State prisons were once a part of our Nation's foster care system. While these statistics are, in and of themselves. disturbing, as author, Ruth Sidel, once said, ``statistics are people with the tears wiped away.'' It is easier for us to think of the almost 600,000 children making their way through our foster care system as numbers, but they are not. They are children. And like every child, they are born with a need to belong, to be loved, to feel protected and sheltered. When we were working on the John Chafee Foster Care Independence Act of 1999, a young woman named Lisa, who had spent her life in foster care explained this concept better than I ever could. She said, ``even at 21, I dream about having someone to call when I am not sure whether you wash whites in warm or cold water, someone to tell me that they are proud that I got an A on my Biology test, and most importantly someone who will love me no matter what. Other kids have that and they are lucky.'' One of my goals as United States Senator is to change our foster care system so children like Lisa do not fall through it's cracks. When you stop and think about it, there is no such thing as a foster care ``system'', its just people, and these children do not fall through ``cracks'', they fall through our fingers. I, for one, intend to do what I can to ensure that each and every child in the world goes to bed at night blanketed with the security that only a family of their own can provide. The legislation that I am here to introduce today by no means solves the many problems facing our kids in care, but it will go a long way toward ensuring that they do not fall through our fingers. The Foster Care Mentoring Act of 2002 authorizes $15 million a year to be used by States to create a statewide foster care mentor program that aims to match a trained, responsible adult with each and every child in care. Last week, I had the chance to sit down with an organization, Children Uniting Nations and the First Lady of California, Sharon Davis, and they shared with me the enormous success they have had in California with a program like this. The mentors provide friendship, guidance, academic tutoring and most importantly consistency to children who are in desperate need of such things. In addition, this legislation provides Federal student loan forgiveness for each mentor that contributes at least 200 hours a year to a child in need. Although a mentor can never take the place of a permanent family, they can make sure these children do not get lost in a system designed to protect them. Mentors can give these children the tools they need to survive and help guide and protect them as they wait for the permanent home they need and deserve. I hope that my colleagues will join me in support of this legislation.

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, in 1999, several of us, including the late John Chafee and former First Lady, Hillary Clinton, took a long hard look at our Nation's foster care system and in particular those whom the system failed. Each year 25,000 young people leave our foster care system without ever finding a permanent family. Too many of these young people have been in this system for the majority of their lives, moved from home to home to home, school to school, with no one to count on or turn to for guidance and no where to call ``home.'' Studies show that within two to four years of leaving foster care, only half have completed high school, fewer than half are employed, one-fourth have been homeless for at least one night, 30 percent did not have access to needed health care, 60 percent of the young women have given birth, and less than one-in-five are completely self- supporting. In addition, many States report that the overwhelming majority of youth offenders housed in their State prisons were once a part of our Nation's foster care system. While these statistics are, in and of themselves. disturbing, as author, Ruth Sidel, once said, ``statistics are people with the tears wiped away.'' It is easier for us to think of the almost 600,000 children making their way through our foster care system as numbers, but they are not. They are children. And like every child, they are born with a need to belong, to be loved, to feel protected and sheltered. When we were working on the John Chafee Foster Care Independence Act of 1999, a young woman named Lisa, who had spent her life in foster care explained this concept better than I ever could. She said, ``even at 21, I dream about having someone to call when I am not sure whether you wash whites in warm or cold water, someone to tell me that they are proud that I got an A on my Biology test, and most importantly someone who will love me no matter what. Other kids have that and they are lucky.'' One of my goals as United States Senator is to change our foster care system so children like Lisa do not fall through it's cracks. When you stop and think about it, there is no such thing as a foster care ``system'', its just people, and these children do not fall through ``cracks'', they fall through our fingers. I, for one, intend to do what I can to ensure that each and every child in the world goes to bed at night blanketed with the security that only a family of their own can provide. The legislation that I am here to introduce today by no means solves the many problems facing our kids in care, but it will go a long way toward ensuring that they do not fall through our fingers. The Foster Care Mentoring Act of 2002 authorizes $15 million a year to be used by States to create a statewide foster care mentor program that aims to match a trained, responsible adult with each and every child in care. Last week, I had the chance to sit down with an organization, Children Uniting Nations and the First Lady of California, Sharon Davis, and they shared with me the enormous success they have had in California with a program like this. The mentors provide friendship, guidance, academic tutoring and most importantly consistency to children who are in desperate need of such things. In addition, this legislation provides Federal student loan forgiveness for each mentor that contributes at least 200 hours a year to a child in need. Although a mentor can never take the place of a permanent family, they can make sure these children do not get lost in a system designed to protect them. Mentors can give these children the tools they need to survive and help guide and protect them as they wait for the permanent home they need and deserve. I hope that my colleagues will join me in support of this legislation.

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I want to commend the chairman and ranking member of the Finance Committee for bringing the Armed Forces Tax Fairness Act of 2002 to the floor and winning Senate passage of this important legislation. This bill contains some valuable tax benefits for the men and women who defend out country, fighting the war against terrorism. I am very pleased that this bill contains provisions based on a bill I introduced, S. 2807, to clarify that dependent care benefits paid to our armed forces are excluded from their gross incomes. S. 2807 fixes what I believe was an oversight in the Tax Reform Act of 1986. That Act consolidated the laws regarding the tax treatment of certain military benefits. The conference report to the 1986 Act contained a long list of benefits to be excluded from the gross incomes of military personnel. According to the report, this list was to be exhaustive. The problem was that dependent and child care benefits were not included on the list. The Treasury Secretary does have the authority to expand the list of benefits in the 1986 Act, but so far no Treasury Secretary has chosen to expand the list. As a matter of practice, we do not tax these benefits, but the Department of Defense is concerned that this may change without greater clarification. The Defense Department came to us to clarify the tax treatment of dependent and child care benefits once and for all. I was proud to help them. I thank Senator Baucus, the chairman of the Finance Committee and the ranking member, Senator Grassley, for including my legislation in this package. Throughout our history, in times of war and in times of peace we have worked to make sure that our armed forces have everything they need and we have spared no expense in this regard. The Armed Forces Tax Fairness Act of 2002 is another symbol of this support. I hope the House of Representatives will pass this bill as well and move it on to the President's desk for passage into law before we adjourn this session of Congress. The men and women of our armed forces and their families deserve this legislation.

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I rise today to congratulate Hunt Downer of Houma, LA, for his Senate confirmation to the rank of Brigadier General in the Army National Guard. I have known General Downer for years, and I know he will make an excellent member of the general officer corps. Moreover, he will serve with great competence, skill, and leadership in the Louisiana Army National Guard. General Hunt Downer epitomizes the Citizen Soldier and has dedicated his life to public service. Not only has Hunt had a long and successful career in the Louisiana National Guard, but Hunt has served in the Louisiana House of Representatives since 1975. During that time, he has always been an advocate for his constituents and the entire State of Louisiana. I served with Hunt in the House of Representatives, where I gained great respect for him. Moreover, he was respected by his peers because they chose him to serve as the Speaker of the House of Representatives. Despite the pressures on his time stemming from his commitments to the Louisiana National Guard and his duties as an elected official, Hunt also runs a successful legal practice in Houma, LA. Most importantly, Hunt Downer has a wonderful family. I know they must be proud of Hunt. So today, I also want to congratulate Hunt's wife, Linda Lee, and his children, Mary and Blair.

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. Madam President, I wish to express, as have many of my colleagues today who joined the tribute to Senator Jesse Helms, my appreciation of working with Senator Helms. Particularly, I have enjoyed working with him, and the people of Louisiana have truly benefitted and have been truly grateful for this man's work, in the area of child welfare and adoption. As you might know, when Senator Helms chaired the Foreign Relations Committee several years ago, he had many grave matters under his jurisdiction including several important treaties. Many people asked for his support to call up a number of issues, but, of course, he could not champion them all. Again, so many things competed for his attention, yet he managed to put the treaty for the international adoption of children on the table and to a vote. This is the first treaty of its kind in the world. Every treaty is important, and everybody who is interested, particularly the groups affected, thinks theirs is the most important. I would be pressed to find a group more vulnerable in the world than orphans. Consider this--orphans really have no one. They do not have any parents. They do not have immediate relatives to look after them to protect, feed, clothe, and educate them. Orphaned minors are a class with no vote. They might live in countries where, even if they are adults, they have no voice or vote. They are often just lost wanderers trying to raise themselves. Senator Helms, with all he could have done, took the time of his committee to push forward a resolution that was not without controversy. The treaty said something profoundly beautiful: That we believe a child deserves at least one caring, responsible, and loving parent; that the governments of the world should break down barriers, should do more to see that children are attached to grownups, that children should not raise themselves on the street or should not have to sell themselves into prostitution; that kids should not be abused by adults, and they should be protected by parents. Mr. President, there are too many orphans in this world. One is too many. Unfortunately, the number is growing astronomically every day, and these children face an AIDS epidemic, war, and famine. In our own country, we have thousands of orphans. People do not believe we have orphans in the United States of America, but we do. We have approximately 500,000 children in foster care, and about 100,000 of them, enough to fill up the Super Dome--every seat and the aisles in the Super Dome stadium--have no parents at all. They think no one wants them. They are all ages, shapes, colors, and creeds. They are all loveable kids. They just do not have anybody to love them and to call their own. This Senator worked hard with many other Senators to pass this treaty. We did. It is a big deal to a lot of people in the world. It is helping pave the way for the possibility that we could establish laws and rules that would help connect orphans to parents. If you have ever seen a child who has been adopted--I know hundreds of people who have been affected positively by adoption, including my own family, who have had wonderful outcomes. It is not what we read about in the press, the one or two adoptions that go wrong. But throughout the world, there are parents grateful for the blessing to raise children and children grateful that they have been attached to a family. As you know, that is the building block of our society. Our society cannot be strong if our families are not strong, and families can be built to be strong physically, emotionally, and spiritually through adoption. Senator Helms knows that. I wanted to say on this special day that we honor him, he can be honored for a lot of his work, but I think that his contributions to children and his consistent belief in children with special needs deserve to be recognized. I join my colleagues honoring him, and I am glad he is back with us in the Senate to end his long career.

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I rise to speak on three important matters. Let me begin with the most important matter to the people of Louisiana at this moment, which is the pending hurricane. Hurricane Lili is in the Gulf of Mexico, and she is headed Louisiana's way. Unfortunately, this will be the second major storm in less than a week we have had to protect ourselves against and prepare for the consequences of the aftermath. Let me begin by thanking the President and FEMA, and particularly all of the FEMA officials who are now down in Louisiana helping us prepare again. FEMA Director Joe Albaugh was with us in Louisiana last week, as we dodged a bullet with Isadore--a storm that was huge in its mass but short in its intensity. As a result, while there was some sporadic flooding and some very damaging flooding to approximately 1,000, homes and businesses, including some that were ruined completely, it wasn't the widespread damage we have become familiar with in the Gulf South from hurricanes. Hurricane Lili is packing winds of 140 miles per hour; barreling toward our coast and is likely to hit somewhere between New Orleans and Galveston. It could hit Lafayette or Lake Charles, somewhere on the coast of Louisiana. The reason I rise to speak about this storm is not because there is a whole lot we can do in Washington, today. We will be down there this weekend. We will get to assess the damage. We can't do anything today. But there is a great deal we can do from Washington in the future to help the Gulf Coast the coasts of Louisiana, Mississippi, Texas, Alabama, Georgia and Florida. From Washington, we can begin to focus on the kind of investments we should be making along the Gulf Coast that help protect us against the consequences of such storms--particularly as it comes to protecting the energy infrastructure in this Nation, which is so vital and crucial to the economic stability and well-being of the Nation. We produce about 80 percent of all of the offshore oil and gas in the Nation off the coast of Louisiana. Right now, as I speak, the Gulf of Mexico has been evacuated. I have been on the phone with officers of chemical companies, and oil and gas companies, and they are shutting down refineries and platforms in the Gulf of Mexico. Why? Because you cannot keep them running when you have storms such as this, or you could gravely endanger the lives of those working out in the Gulf. I wish I could paint a more vivid picture, but over 20,000 miles of pipeline, many refineries, and thousands of platforms out in the gulf, all of which are critical to America's energy supply, will be directly threatened by Hurricane Lili. We take a lot of taxes out of the gulf region. There are a lot of taxes that the oil and gas industry pays, and that money leaves south Louisiana and Texas and goes right up to the Federal Treasury. Then it funds various projects all over the country. You would think some of that money might come back to Louisiana to invest in Louisiana to elevate and improve our highways and provide better security to this infrastructure. After all, its through these highways and this infrastructure that energy is carried and produced to support not just Louisiana, Mississippi, and Texas, but to turn the lights on in the entire country. Even when the winds are blowing down south, we keep the lights on up north. At the energy conference--my able partner, Senator Breaux, is going to be carrying this message as a member of the energy conference. Of course, Congressman Tauzin from Louisiana is chairing the conference. We are going to carry this message directly into the energy conference to see if there is something we can get the Congress to do in a bipartisan way that says, yes, Louisiana, Mississippi, and Texas--the oil and gas-producing States--should share in some of these revenues so we can invest on the front end in terms of what the Gulf South needs to secure these energy resources. Congress must be fair to people in Louisiana, who are happy to serve as hosts to this offshore oil and gas industry. We are proud of the way we are doing it in a much more environmentally sensitive way. But we need help to ensure we receive a fair share of the royalties that come from our rich natural resources. The country does not also realize the great loss of wetlands and the erosion Louisiana has experienced. Think about this. There is a hurricane coming off the Gulf of Mexico. The only thing between it and the cities or towns is the marsh. The bigger that marsh is, the greater the buffer is from the storm. It will break the wind, break the tides. As that marsh erodes away, there is nothing to break the wind or the tide, so the destruction becomes greater and greater, year after year after year. The reason the marsh is subsiding is that we have tamed the Mississippi River. We have levied it. We levied it not just for the people in Louisiana so we would not flood, but so the ships can take grain from Kansas and Iowa. This commerce then comes down the Mississippi and can go to any number of countries. Louisiana is an importing and exporting station for so many of the goods coming into and out of this country. This benefits everyone. We are telling you and begging this Senate and this Congress to recognize benefits Louisiana provides to the Nation. Louisiana is proud of that, but we need extra Federal help to secure this marshland, to help rebuild it, and protect us. If Louisiana does not receive help the wetlands will disappear, and the people of Louisiana will be sitting ducks for future floods and storms. I am sure Senator Breaux and I will be back on the Senate floor on Monday and Tuesday trying to explain to everybody the horrible damage that has occurred because of Hurricane Lili and the importance of trying to be smart and invest some of these monies on the front end in Louisiana. This is not only fair and the right thing to do, but for the taxpayers, we would just as soon pay a little now or we are going to pay a lot in claims when these homes and businesses are destroyed in the Gulf South. There is nothing we can do about keeping hurricanes from coming ashore. We cannot prevent them. People say: Senator, can't you do something? I say: If I could pass a resolution, I would. But, of course, there is nothing we can do about that. But we can be more prepared than we are. While we are making progress, we have a long way to go. So whether it is at the energy conference, where I hope we will have a positive outcome, or in the new transportation bill where we can talk about the highways and evacuation routes in south Louisiana and the Gulf South need our attention. Not only do they serve as economic highways that are really necessary for commerce to flourish, but, as you know, when the hurricanes come, it is the only way for people to flee the storm. We don't have trains, as people do in the Northeast, to get out of harm's way. All we have in Louisiana are highways dangerously crowded with automobiles and pickup trucks. We need to make sure people can get north to higher ground. Hundreds of thousands of people in my state are jamming the highways to escape Lili and head for higher ground in north Louisiana, Arkansas, Mississippi, and Texas. Hotel rooms are scarce, and people will have trouble finding safe-haven from Lili. So we will be back talking about it. There are opportunities in the transportation bill, and when we debate the Corps of Engineers bill, to try to make right this situation. The Senate will then debate whether to help Louisiana in a direct way--not just Louisiana, but the whole gulf coast region. The final point I want to share is a figure I came across a couple years ago that was startling to me. I think I spend a lot of my time worrying and thinking about coastal communities because I represent a large number of people on the coast. Two-thirds of the American people live within 50 miles of the coast. So our country is really a ring. So the coastal communities and their special needs and their special requirements deserve some more attention from Congress. I have to say that NOAA and the Department of Commerce are really doing some very good work. I think we need a little bit more attention to our coastal communities in this country than we are giving. There are ways we can do that. Let me turn my attention to another issue on a completely different subject. But, this a grave threat facing our Nation, and that is our potential conflict with Iraq. I support Joint Resolution No. 46, which was introduced this morning. I am proud to be a cosponsor with Senators Lieberman, Warner, McCain, and Bayh and to add my name to that resolution. I do so with the greatest of seriousness. I do so because I am convinced that this is the right course. I commend the President and the Members of Congress who have worked in a bipartisan way to fashion a resolution that does the job, that gives us what we need, which is a tool, a weapon, in some ways, that will try to force a regime that has been recalcitrant and reluctant to abide by international law and dismantle its weapons of mass destruction. In the international community, Iraq is a regime that is quite dangerous to the people it purports to serve--and of course it does not serve--the people of Iraq. It is dangerous also to the people of the United States and to Iraq's neighbors in the Middle East. I have the great privilege to serve on the Armed Services Committee and to chair the Emerging Threats Subcommittee. I want to stress that it is the Emerging Threats and Capabilities, because I don't want to mention only threats. We have so many great capabilities in this Nation that we do not have to cower in fear. We have the strongest military, the greatest brain power, and great technology. Most importantly, we are founded on freedom and liberty. We have tremendous capabilities. But, we are in a great and historic process in this Nation of restructuring our Armed Forces, both in the traditional sense that we know of our Navy, Army, Marines, and Air Force, and in a totally nontraditional way, which is standing up homeland defense to fight these new threats. The new threats are people just like Saddam Hussein--rogue leaders with no decency, who play by no normal rules, who govern by fear, and at the slightest provocation, for reasons we might not understand, could either themselves use weapons of mass destruction, or allow to be used by terrorists or nonstate actors. It is clear for all to see that Saddam Hussein possesses biological and chemical weapons, and he has designs to increase his stockpile. To our knowledge, he does not have nuclear capabilities. However, evidence most certainly suggests Saddam Hussein is actively trying to develop nuclear weapons. Weapons he could use against the United States and our allies. I think a resolution such as this is important for us to express our unity, as an elected institution, that we are prepared to use force, if necessary, to dismantle weapons of mass destruction, to disarm this regime, to change this regime and try to establish for the benefit of the United States, our allies, the people of Iraq, and the world, a more worthy regime for Iraq. What I support specifically about the resolution, and helped in some ways to craft with words, comments, and suggestions, is that this bipartisan resolution has stressed at least three important principles. The resolution requires--and I think this is very important--all diplomatic means be exhausted. This is critically important and necessary because we never want to rush to war. We do not want to be trigger happy. We want to use all diplomatic means to meet our ends. For 10 years, we have tried many things with Iraq--economic sanctions, back channel diplomacy, meetings and conventions, and other diplomatic means to compel Saddam Hussein to comply with international law. Nothing yet has worked. But let's hope that something will work, and let's exhaust those means. Once we reach that point, this resolution authorizes the President to use all necessary force to enforce what we know is right. I am pleased we have the diplomatic requirement in the resolution. But we know all too well that Saddam only respects force. With the threat of force, diplomacy may yet win out. The second principle outlined in this resolution, which I greatly support, is that it is limited in scope to Iraq. The original language I thought, and many of us expressed, was somewhat vague and called for language to establish stability in the region. Such language created a lot of unanswered questions. This resolution is more clear in its language that the scope is limited to Iraq and greatly strengthens this resolution. This resolution thoroughly makes clear that our goal is not a war against the people of Iraq, but a war against a leader who has discredited himself, thumbing his nose at 16 resolutions, and not playing by the rules of a civilized government. Should we go to war, this war will be waged to disarm Saddam Hussein, to dismantle his weapons, and to use force to change his regime. This is not without risk. I am mindful of the risks, and I am mindful of the price that may need to be paid in terms of treasure and lives. I am also confident that it is the right resolution at the right time in the right spirit to give the President the authorization to use force to do what needs to be done, which is to dismantle this dictator's ability to wreak havoc on the civilized world. The timing of the attack, of course, and all the military strategies should be carried out with great care and the consultation of our best military minds. It could be this year, it could be next month, it could be a year from now--whenever our military believes it is the time and everything is in place. We must be mindful not to second-guess or try to use any political influence to sway the military in terms of their strategy to accomplish this end. What Congress can do is authorize the Commander in Chief to use force, if necessary, with this specific resolution which I think is a very good document for how we should approach this possible war. Furthermore, this resolution places a necessary vital requirement on the President to report to Congress on a periodic basis on the progress of the war. Because we, under the Constitution, of course, have a responsibility to determine if this effort should receive funding. War comes with so many great costs, and we must regularly re-evaluate the need to pay those costs of war. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Vermont and the Senator from Utah for their very hard work over a long period of time on this major piece of legislation. The vote was overwhelming in the House, and it is due to the bipartisan work that has gone into crafting the reauthorization of the Justice Department. I look forward to voting for that legislation later today. I have been contacted by many of my sheriffs and law enforcement officials and, of course, I have been particularly interested in some specific aspects of the bill particularly dealing with violence against women and violence against children and child abuse and the good work that the Department of Justice is doing to help our local counties and communities fight these terrible incidents that occur in our country. My heart is heavy and very sad to say that just this last weekend we lost another child to child abuse in a horrific way. A little 7-year- old was stabbed to death in front of about 10 people by a deranged and very sick individual who had threatened the life of this child's mother. The 7-year-old was trying to protect his mother and was killed on the streets of New Orleans. The Senator from Vermont knows well the great needs of the country regarding these issues. I thank him for working so hard on them.

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. Yes. Thank you, I say to the assistant majority leader. I wish to talk about the West Nile virus for a few moments because it is an issue that is so important to Louisiana and many States.

Ms. LANDRIEU. Maybe 10 minutes. But we may not be ready. The House is passing their bill. I am kind of open to the time.

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I thank the Senator. While this underlying bill is important, I wish to take a moment this afternoon to urge my colleagues to take up another bill that does not have the same breadth and depth as the one that was just described. The people of Louisiana, and I might add, the people of Illinois--Senator Durbin has been working hard on this particular issue--and many other States have been severely affected by the West Nile virus. In fact, over 17 people have died in Louisiana and over 2,400 people have been affected and infected by this very frightening disease. If we can manage today--and I have had discussions with the leadership--we are going to hopefully pass this bill by unanimous consent, which will give grants to our counties and parishes in Louisiana to help their local officials do more effective pest eradication, whether that is through traditional spraying or larvacide techniques that are used to kill mosquitos at their various stages before they can attack human beings and carry this deadly disease. The effects are quite frightening. People in my State are having a very tough week. We had a terrible storm that was not a hurricane but nonetheless it was a very large and intense tropical storm. So the headlines at home have been filled with storm warnings, storm preparations, and consequences of the storm management. Now, in the gulf, we find ourselves facing yet another potential hurricane that is moving toward the shores of Louisiana. So this summer has been a very anxious time between the storms and the West Nile virus at home where a lot of the parishes in Louisiana were affected. Seventeen deaths are quite extraordinary. I think it is the largest outbreak in many years. We are really struggling with providing some help to the local communities and parishes that, in fact, do have mosquito abatement control districts and, under normal circumstances, can take care of those needs on a local level. But when something such as this breaks out, it is important for us to step up to the plate and help. This bill will give local governments an opportunity to submit for grants to take care of their businesses and to upgrade their eradication programs. There are other parts of the Federal Government that can be helpful in educating people about how to stay safe from this virus, such as what to do, what symptoms it shows. This bill that I hope we can take up today will provide hard dollars, not for bureaucracies, not for a new Federal agency but to get grants to Georgia, the State of the Presiding Officer, and my State, for those local jurisdictions to get their spraying up to par and to do it in an environmentally safe way. Hopefully, the worst is behind us, but we do need to prepare in the event we have another outbreak. Getting this grant program established will help us next year if this happens again. I urge my colleagues to consider H.R. 4793--I am not asking that it be called up at this time--which I hope we can pass by unanimous consent later on today. I yield the floor.