Mary Landrieu

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. That certainly is welcome news. I received a similar letter, but I have seen little action from the Air Force leadership. The men and women in the 8th Air Force have worked diligently since the fire destroyed their headquarters, despite the fact that they have been displaced for several months. Much like so many of us in the Hart Building simply wanted for our staffs to be able to return to their desks following the anthrax attacks, I just want those at 8th Air Force Headquarters to be able to return to their normal workplace.

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. Is it your understanding that the COPS interoperable communications funding in the bill will be administered in the same manner as the other COPS grant programs regarding the local match and the waiver process?

Ms. LANDRIEU. I would like to talk to the Senator about the $80 million in interoperable communications funding in the Department of Justice title of the bill. In the District of Columbia Subcommittee we have held hearings on the emergency preparedness needs for Washington, DC. During 9-11, District fire and police personnel had to have the ability to communicate with multiple jurisdictions that responded to the Pentagon. So interoperability is crucial for public safety officials. The funding in the bill would be administered by the COPS program at the Department of Justice. You have been a leader in the Senate in your support of that program. COPS grants require a 25 percent local match for its grants. The COPS program does allow for a full or partial waiver of the local match for communities that are facing severe fiscal distress. Communities can qualify for a waiver in a wide variety of ways. Some qualify because they have been declared a FEMA disaster area or have been placed in receivership or bankruptcy. Communities can also get a waiver if they have had a recent large, one-time financial expense, like replacing a water treatment facility. The COPS program will also grant waivers to communities that had to make across-the- board budget cuts as a result of difficult economic circumstances.

Ms. LANDRIEU. I thank the Senator. I believe that local match requirements are an important shared investment in Federal grant making. So there is a need for it and I think my colleague would agree.

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I would like to engage my colleague, the distinguished chairman of the Commerce, Justice, State appropriations Subcommittee, Senator Hollings, in a colloquy on the local match requirements for Federal grant funding. This pressing concern was raised by the local elected officials we heard from during the Appropriations Committee homeland security hearings. One of them testified that in many of these grant programs, particularly in the public safety area, our larger cities with the greatest needs cannot afford to meet a local requirement, while wealthier area with relatively fewer needs are able to take full advantage of these funds. I hope the distinguished chairman will join me in this colloquy at this time.

Ms. LANDRIEU. I ask unanimous consent to follow the Senator from Wisconsin with two amendments to be called up.

Ms. LANDRIEU. Let me inquire if I could call them up and lay them aside before a decision to vote.

Ms. LANDRIEU. I thank the chairman of the subcommittee. I look forward to working with you on this issue.

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I am sure that each and every member of the United States Senate, if asked, could share fond memories of times they spent with their grandparents. I know that for me many of my most memorable childhood memories were spent with my grandmother and grandfather. Summer vacations, Christmas dinners and school recitals were all the more special because Grandma or Grandpa were there. Grandparents are always there to share words of wisdom and windows to the past with their grandchildren. They provide unconditional love and support to parents and their children as they prepare to become our Nation's next generation. Today, over 4 million grandparents in America are doing more than attending birthday parties and buying their grandchild's first bicycle. The US Census bureau reports that over 4 million grandparents are serving as a full time parent to their grandchildren. In my own State, Louisiana, over 150,000 grandparents are filling these roles. Many of these children have parents who have died, are in prison, or are suffering from substance abuse or mental illness. Others have been taken out of abusive homes. These ``grandfamilies'' come in all shapes and sizes. Some live in rural areas, some live in cities, others in suburbs. They come from all races, ethnicities and social status and they live in every single State in the Nation. Grandparents raising children face many barriers, especially if they do not have legal custody of the children, as is the case with a large portion of these caregivers. Most of these grandparents were at a point in their life when the major decisions faced by their peers are surrounding prescription drug coverage and retirement plans. Instead, these seniors are faced with questions about homework, the cost of baby formula and diapers, and where to find safe and affordable housing big enough for the whole family. While this bill does not address all of these barriers, it does attempt to address the critical need for affordable housing. These families often live in small apartments, assisted living communities or houses that are not suitable for the children they care for. If the grandparent is living in public senior housing, where children are disallowed, they are often subject to eviction if the children are discovered. Furthermore, if a housing development is constructed for seniors, these apartments are often not ``child proofed'' and there are often no places for the children to play safely. If these grandparents can afford to move to housing that is more suitable for the children, they are often forced to give up some of the amenities that improve an elderly person's quality of life, such as ramps and bathroom rails. Many programs throughout the Nation have tried to address the need to provide safe and affordable housing for these families. One program, Grandfamilies House, in Massachusetts provides 26, two, three and four bedroom apartments that come equipped with the safety features needed by the older and younger residents it hopes to serve. In addition, they provide on site services to residents, including support groups, exercise programs and a before and after school program. This program is serving as a model to other communities that are hoping to create such an environment for their intergenerational families. There are many localities that have begun the process of implementing programs like the Grandfamilies House in: Baltimore, MD; Buffalo, NY; Chicago, IL, Detroit, MI, Nashville, TN; New York City, NY; Cleveland, OH and Philadelphia, PA. This bill would allow these programs to grow and prosper as well as encouraging other public and private partners to engage in developing these types of programs. Specifically, this bill authorizes the Secretary of the Housing and Urban Development to provide grants under a demonstration program that would be targeted toward meeting the housing and service needs of grandparent headed households. Furthermore, it clarifies key sections of federal housing law to ensure that grandparents raising grandchildren are able to access the federal assistance provided under federal housing programs. Finally, it directs the Secretary of HUD to provide specialized training to HUD personnel focused on grandparent-headed and relative-headed families. With 4 million children living solely with grandparents or other relatives, safe and affordable housing for these families is a concern that must be addressed. This is a simple and cost efficient way to begin to address this important question. I would like to thank my colleagues, Senator DeWine and Senator Stabenow, for their support of this legislation. I urge my colleagues to join us in support of this bill and hope that it will become law this year.

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I am sure that each and every member of the United States Senate, if asked, could share fond memories of times they spent with their grandparents. I know that for me many of my most memorable childhood memories were spent with my grandmother and grandfather. Summer vacations, Christmas dinners and school recitals were all the more special because Grandma or Grandpa were there. Grandparents are always there to share words of wisdom and windows to the past with their grandchildren. They provide unconditional love and support to parents and their children as they prepare to become our Nation's next generation. Today, over 4 million grandparents in America are doing more than attending birthday parties and buying their grandchild's first bicycle. The US Census bureau reports that over 4 million grandparents are serving as a full time parent to their grandchildren. In my own State, Louisiana, over 150,000 grandparents are filling these roles. Many of these children have parents who have died, are in prison, or are suffering from substance abuse or mental illness. Others have been taken out of abusive homes. These ``grandfamilies'' come in all shapes and sizes. Some live in rural areas, some live in cities, others in suburbs. They come from all races, ethnicities and social status and they live in every single State in the Nation. Grandparents raising children face many barriers, especially if they do not have legal custody of the children, as is the case with a large portion of these caregivers. Most of these grandparents were at a point in their life when the major decisions faced by their peers are surrounding prescription drug coverage and retirement plans. Instead, these seniors are faced with questions about homework, the cost of baby formula and diapers, and where to find safe and affordable housing big enough for the whole family. While this bill does not address all of these barriers, it does attempt to address the critical need for affordable housing. These families often live in small apartments, assisted living communities or houses that are not suitable for the children they care for. If the grandparent is living in public senior housing, where children are disallowed, they are often subject to eviction if the children are discovered. Furthermore, if a housing development is constructed for seniors, these apartments are often not ``child proofed'' and there are often no places for the children to play safely. If these grandparents can afford to move to housing that is more suitable for the children, they are often forced to give up some of the amenities that improve an elderly person's quality of life, such as ramps and bathroom rails. Many programs throughout the Nation have tried to address the need to provide safe and affordable housing for these families. One program, Grandfamilies House, in Massachusetts provides 26, two, three and four bedroom apartments that come equipped with the safety features needed by the older and younger residents it hopes to serve. In addition, they provide on site services to residents, including support groups, exercise programs and a before and after school program. This program is serving as a model to other communities that are hoping to create such an environment for their intergenerational families. There are many localities that have begun the process of implementing programs like the Grandfamilies House in: Baltimore, MD; Buffalo, NY; Chicago, IL, Detroit, MI, Nashville, TN; New York City, NY; Cleveland, OH and Philadelphia, PA. This bill would allow these programs to grow and prosper as well as encouraging other public and private partners to engage in developing these types of programs. Specifically, this bill authorizes the Secretary of the Housing and Urban Development to provide grants under a demonstration program that would be targeted toward meeting the housing and service needs of grandparent headed households. Furthermore, it clarifies key sections of federal housing law to ensure that grandparents raising grandchildren are able to access the federal assistance provided under federal housing programs. Finally, it directs the Secretary of HUD to provide specialized training to HUD personnel focused on grandparent-headed and relative-headed families. With 4 million children living solely with grandparents or other relatives, safe and affordable housing for these families is a concern that must be addressed. This is a simple and cost efficient way to begin to address this important question. I would like to thank my colleagues, Senator DeWine and Senator Stabenow, for their support of this legislation. I urge my colleagues to join us in support of this bill and hope that it will become law this year.

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. I have an amendment at the desk, and I ask for its immediate consideration, amendment No. 3470.

Ms. LANDRIEU. I yield. Amendment No. 3450 Withdrawn

Ms. LANDRIEU. If I could, I would like to speak for a minute about another problem that has arisen because of this 30-percent tariff on steel that is not related to my amendment. While I have a minute, I wish to speak about our fabrication industry. Senators are now very familiar with me coming to the floor to try to explain the importance of the oil and gas industry to our Nation. We talked a lot about this in our energy debate, but I need to make this point today on this trade bill. This tariff is very hurtful to the maritime workers who I am trying to help in a very modest, but meaningful way so they can qualify and get their TAA benefits under this trade bill. I also want to bring to the attention of this body--not that I have a solution for it because I cannot figure out an amendment that would actually help this; if I could I would offer it--what a great harm this tariff has also brought to a great industry in south Louisiana; that is, in the manufacturing business, using a lot of steel to help build our boats and platforms and equipment that help us get oil and gas safely out of the ground in the gulf and bring it to the shore to try to help light up this beautiful Chamber and everybody in New York and California and Illinois and in Louisiana--the whole country. We have a very vibrant fabrication industry, as you can imagine, with industries such as McDermott Industries and Gulf Island Fabricators. These are large fabricators. I am here to say, after contacting many of them over the last several months, that some of them will absolutely go out of business and we are then going to lose hundreds of jobs, if not thousands, in south Louisiana, for the simple reason that because of the cheaper steel that they were importing from other places in the world, bringing it to Louisiana through the mighty Gulf of Mexico or other large bodies of water to south Louisiana to build these great platforms, we cannot now compete against the same sort of manufacturing in places all over the world. Our delegation that is voting for trade--and we are happy to vote for the trade bill--has been caught in crosswinds, you might say, because of an administrative decision about trade. As a result, we are losing not only jobs in our maritime industry, which this trade bill should be helping to protect, but also we are getting hurt because of our lack of ability now to compete with other manufacturers in other parts of the Nation to get our oil and gas out of the ground. Now we are in a situation of having fabrication done offshore to float these tremendous platforms and rigs into the gulf. Our workers do not get the benefit of these jobs. Our oil and gas is taken out of our ground, right off of our shore, and 100 percent of the proceeds of the taxes paid come to the Federal Government. So Louisianians don't get the taxes from the royalties, we don't get the jobs making the platforms, we get beat up constantly because we are producing oil and gas, and my maritime workers have to pick up an unemployment check instead of a paycheck. If I sound as if I am complaining a little bit, I mean to try to lay out this problem. Again, I thank Senator Grassley and Senator Baucus. I support the trade bill, but I ask them for their assistance in helping a few thousand maritime workers who are not being hard hit by the trade bill they are recommending, which I support, but they are being hard hit because of an administration decision that is keeping imports down, therefore putting maritime workers out of business. When I can meet with Senator Breaux and get a solution for our fabricators, I will most certainly be bringing up that amendment, though not to this bill. But I will get as much relief as I can for good industries, good companies that have produced good jobs, industries that are going to be hurt, and I will ask the President as well as the leadership in the House and the Senate, both Democrats and Republicans, to come up with some potential solution--cost effective for the taxpayer--to our problem in Louisiana. People in Louisiana deserve a fair share and an opportunity to work hard. I yield any remaining time. Amendment No. 3461

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I understand a procedure is established that amendment No. 3470 will come up for a vote later in the afternoon before we have final passage on the measure before the Senate. I rise to speak for the allotted 15 minutes as arranged under a previous consent agreement. Mr. President, I rise to offer an amendment that I hope will be voted on favorably. I suggest it would help the underlying bill. I will certainly support the work that Senator Grassley and Senator Baucus on our side have done to bring this important bill to the floor. I have been supportive of the overarching concept and many of the details of the bill. I am proud to say our entire Louisiana delegation--both Senators, Senator Breaux and myself, as well as all seven Members of our House delegation--have been very pro trade, and for good reasons: Not only because we think it is important for our Nation but for our own State of Louisiana that has positioned itself historically as a great trading hub. Although there are some disadvantages in the short term, and there are some jobs and industries that may be temporarily negatively affected, the long-term trends for the State of Louisiana and, frankly, for this Nation are very positive. I thank Senator Grassley and Senator Baucus. I support their efforts to streamline some of our trade policies, recognizing there are legitimate concerns about environmental and labor issues. The underlying bill has addressed, if not perfectly--has attempted to address in good spirit and in good, strong rules and regulations--those efforts. This could be a continuing work in progress. We in Louisiana feel very strongly about that. The amendment is not an attempt to undermine or scuttle this grand compromise and great package. It is an attempt to perfect and modify it for a group of workers who have been hard hit by something that is not in line with this free trade bill; that is, when the President just a few months ago issued a 201 ruling to put tariffs on raw steel that comes into the United States--which I vigorously objected to; so did the senior Senator from Louisiana and many Senators--and what has happened since that administrative decision to put this tariff in, in hopes of helping other areas of the Nation and other Senators and their States that produce this steel, States such as West Virginia, Kentucky, and Maryland. I can understand these efforts to try to build consensus. The bottom line is it has hurt our maritime industry. I will give you some facts and figures. My amendment seeks to simply expand the trade adjustment assistance for not only workers who might lose their jobs because they have either moved overseas or have lost their jobs because of a flood of imports, but also this small group of maritime workers, about 38,000, for a limited period of time who were losing their jobs because of the lack of imports coming in because of this 20- to 30-percent tariff. Again, I disagreed with the President's decision. I continue to disagree with that decision. My amendment does not seek to overturn it. I am just trying to help workers who are directly affected by that decision in an effort to make the whole situation a bit more perfect for the workers from the steel-producing States we are trying to help, as well as to try to give some necessary and urgent relief to maritime workers who find themselves on the other side of that decision because they are losing their jobs because steel is not coming in to the port of New Orleans. We have lost tons and tons, in just a couple of months, of steel coils, steel plates and sheets, steel bars, tin plates, and stainless steel bars that are coming into the ports of Louisiana, primarily the ports of New Orleans. We are not the only port that has been hurt very badly. The Port of Houston, the ports of the Great Lakes--we have ports all over the Nation, so 38,000 maritime workers literally are having to pick up an unemployment check instead of a paycheck because of the decision that was made. I tried to stop the decision but it was an administrative decision. My amendment does not seek to overturn it. My amendment only says, since it has been a consensus of the administration and Congress to help the steelworkers and special parts of our Nation, let's also, by this small amendment--that only costs $10 million and it sunsets after 4-plus years--help the maritime workers. Under the current bill, they are not entitled to benefits because they are not being affected by a flood of imports. Their jobs are not necessarily being moved overseas. They just do not have the steel to bring on to the wharves because of this tariff. It does not cost us very much money in the scheme of things, but it will help thousands of workers in Louisiana, and many thousands of workers temporarily, until this situation can get worked out. That is the essence of my amendment. It is about 8,000 jobs that are at risk in New Orleans, a major port in our Nation. It is about 7,500 jobs in the Port of Houston, the President's home State. It is about 5,000 jobs, approximately, in California, in the Los Angeles Port; in Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and Delaware--Mr. President, your own State-- combined, about 4,400 jobs that could be at risk; in the Great Lakes and Upper Mississippi, about 2,000 jobs. It is estimated for smaller ports around the Nation, it is about 10,000 jobs. Why? Because steel is one of the major imports, until this tariff was placed 2 months ago, that was coming into our Nation. While it caused great heartburn in the steel-producing areas of our State, it was actually very good business for our ports. Suffice it to say we cannot go back and overturn everything, but we certainly can vote today to help maritime workers directly affected by this decision. Again, it only costs us $10 million. It sunsets in 4- plus years. It is a minor help that we can give to people who show up at the docks every morning and stay late almost every day. They have children to send to college. They have mortgages on their houses. They have other bills and responsibilities, maybe an elderly person who is at home. These are hard-working Americans and because of action taken in Washington they have to now pick up an unemployment check instead of a paycheck. These are not welfare recipients; these are people who have worked 10, 15, 25, 30 years at what I would consider--as would most everybody--hard labor. The Presiding Officer is familiar with this picture because he comes from a port State. This is a New Orleans dock but it could be anyplace in America where you have stevedors and longshoremen loading and unloading ships. This is one of the great benefits of trade because these, in many cases, are unionized jobs, very high-paying jobs with a lot of protection for these workers. This is dangerous business. This goes on in America every day. There are thousands and thousands of these workers. What you will not see in this picture is a welfare recipient. What you see is a worker, many years working on the docks. Because of this tariff and the bill we are discussing, a lot of these guys cannot pick up a paycheck--or women are now working on the docks. My amendment seeks to give them some small relief--not upset the bill, not turn the compromise on its head, but to give us some relief. I hope when we have an opportunity to vote later this afternoon we will get a good, bipartisan vote on this small amendment that will help bring us some relief. Mr. President, how much time do I have remaining?

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

Ms. LANDRIEU

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

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I want to begin by thanking the chairman and ranking member of this committee. I do support the underlying bill. I have tried to be helpful through this process in passing this bill. However, there are maritime workers in our Nation who have been adversely affected because of a recent ruling. They are not entitled to benefits under this bill. Instead of picking up employment checks, or paychecks, they will be picking up unemployment checks, unless this amendment passes. So for port communities such as New Orleans and Houston and New Jersey and New York and Seattle, where maritime workers could qualify, this amendment will help. It only costs $10 million. It lasts for only 3 years. Out of an $8 billion bill, our maritime workers deserve some help. They have earned it; they deserve it. That is what my amendment does. Thank you, Mr. President.

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I would like to take this opportunity to thank the members of the bioterrorism conference committee who have worked tirelessly over the last few months to craft this comprehensive response to our Nation's needs in bioterrorism. I rise today to make one point for the record in regards to this legislation. Following the September 11th attacks, Secretary Thompson, under the authority granted to him by Section 319 of the Public health Services Act, provided resources to rebuild and replenish our Nation's emergency health care providers who were directly affected by this terrible disaster. In sum, the Secretary awarded over $35 million in grants to hospitals, ambulance companies, and other first responders who responded or stood ready to respond to the health needs of those injured in the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. These awards were made in recognition of the contributions that these providers made, regardless of their ownership. I commend the Secretary for this action. Disaster strikes without respect to hospital ownership. By exercising his discretion to award grants to all hospitals who responded, both private and public, Secretary Thompson recognized this important point and more importantly, fulfilled the statutory purpose of Section 319, providing continued access to necessary acute care, Nationally, there are 5,194 hospitals, and of those approximately 1,200 are for-profits. That is one out of every four hospitals. In many markets, for-profit hospitals--not the tax-exempts--serve as the safety net or sole- community providers and that makes them 100 percent of the market in their communities. In my home State, approximately \1/3\ of the hospitals are for-profit. If a bio-terrorist attack were to ever happen in Louisiana, I can guarantee you that our investor-owned hospitals will play a critical role in the response. Those who are affected by a bio-terrorist attack will go to their local hospital for help; they will not check first to see how the hospital is being run. I am pleased that the conferees added language in this bill to strengthen the Secretary's authority to act as he did in this regard following September 11th. I hope that this administration and the administrations that follow will continue to recognize the important role that all of our hospitals play in the delivery of emergency health care.

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I rise today to honor a member of our military who has faithfully served the United States for over 30 years. LTG Thomas J. Keck is to retire this Friday and I think it is appropriate that we honor him here on the Senate floor today. Lieutenant General Keck graduated from the Air Force Academy in 1969. After completing flight training, he was sent to Vietnam. While there, he flew B-52 missions over North Vietnam, and distinguished himself in combat numerous times. In recognition of his gallantry, Lieutenant General Keck was awarded the Distinguished Flying Cross and the Air Medal. The bravery he displayed in Vietnam is demonstrative of the characteristics that define the Air Force Officer's Core Values: Integrity first, Service Before Self, Excellence in all that is done. He has certainly displayed these values throughout his career. After the War, Lieutenant General Keck came back to the U.S., and served in a variety of commands in the Air Force. Throughout his career, Lieutenant General Keck has flown twenty-two different planes in several different missions. He logged over 4,600 flying hours, 886 of which were in combat. He has certainly shown himself to be an able and adaptable pilot, perhaps one of the finest that the Air Force has produced. Lieutenant General Keck served in many places throughout the U.S. and abroad, including California, Arizona, Nebraska, Guam, Alabama, and Panama. I think it is also appropriate to recognize his family on this occasion as well, as they have supported him throughout many years and many moves. Lieutenant General Keck leaves the military as the Commander of the Eighth Air Force. The Eighth Air Force, or ``Mighty Eighth'' as it is known, consists of nine wings and two groups--nearly 500 aircraft, more than 53,000 active duty and civilian personnel, and 80 major installations world wide. The Mighty Eighth is headquartered at Barksdale Air Force Base in Northwest Louisiana. I am extremely proud to have my state host this exemplary unit. The relationship between the people of Northwest Louisiana and the community on base is excellent, and Lieutenant General Keck has only made that relationship better. On September 11th, Air Force One landed at Barksdale while it was on its way back to Washington. Lieutenant General Keck and Briadier General Bedke played host to President Bush. Less than a month later, numerous units from the Mighty Eighth would be deployed across the globe, defending America from the menace of terrorism. As Lieutenant General Keck leaves the service, we are a nation at war, but our Air Force is no doubt stronger as a result of Lieutenant General Keck's leadership. In the years to come, the Eighth Air Force will undertake many more missions in Operation Enduring Freedom, and there is no doubt in my mind that they will be successful. In closing, I would like to thank Lieutenant General Keck for his years of dedicated service to our country. I would also like to thank his family for the support they have provided over all of these years. I wish him well in the future and success in all of his endeavors.

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, the United States Government and all of us personally have conducted a serious reassessment of our priorities in the months since the horrific events of September 11, 2001. The work of this body has been radically reshaped as we work together to effectively combat the menace of international terrorism. We have appropriated billions of dollars so our military can wage war in Afghanistan and prepare for the possibility of future military operations. We have devoted billions of dollars to strengthening our homeland defense capabilities, everything from beefing up border and port security to manufacturing additional vaccines to prepare for the possibility of a biological weapons attack. The time has also come to reassess what needs to be done to ensure that nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass destruction and the expertise to employ them do not leak out of the former Soviet Union and find their way into the hands of terrorist or terrorist states. Last year, I sponsored the Nuclear Threat Reduction Act of 2001, S. 1117, which called for expanding and accelerating programs to prevent diversion and proliferation of Russian nuclear weapons, and fissile materials; reducing the number of nuclear warheads in the United States and Russian arsenals; and for reducing the number of nuclear weapons of those two nations that are on high alert. The NTRA enjoyed success on a number of fronts: U.S.-Russia threat reduction and non-proliferation programs were expanded and accelerated; the Senate, working with the Administration, paved the way for the deep cuts that Presidents Bush and Putin generally agreed to in November 2001; and the possibility of taking some weapons off high alert was studied as part of the Nuclear Posture Review. Solid steps were taken, but we all know that more needs to be done. I rise today to introduce legislation that will help to address what is probably the most serious threat to U.S. national security: the possibility that terrorists or terrorist states will acquire nuclear weapons and materials, and other weapons of mass destruction from the massive and poorly secured former Soviet nuclear weapons complex. The scope of the problem that we face is difficult to fathom, but I will attempt to illuminate it by citing a few facts. Today, Russia possesses approximately 20,000 nuclear weapons and enough weapons-grade material to fabricate over 60,000 more. Not including the United States, Russia possesses approximately 95 percent of the world's nuclear weapons and weapons-grade material, a testimony to the great resources and effort that both sides devoted in waging the cold war. These weapons and material are stored in literally hundreds of sites across Russia's 11 time zones. Making this problem even more disconcerting is the fact that Russia is unable to reliably account for its huge stock of warheads and materials, having inherited a sub- standard accounting system from the totalitarian Soviet state. Additionally, there are over 20,000 scientists and technicians in the former Soviet Union that are considered proliferation risks. As the Members of this Chamber will recall proudly, Senators Sam Nunn and Richard Lugar, along with others, took the lead in the early 1990s to put together a suite of programs that still work to address the threat posed by the possible proliferation of former Soviet nuclear weapons and other materials. As the Soviet Union and Warsaw Pact fell apart, there was a palpable fear that nuclear weapons and materials would proliferate widely. In conjunction with the work in the Senate, the first Bush administration also took up the challenge by backing the Nunn-Lugar programs as well as supporting initiatives to help Soviet Premier Gorbachev as he attempted to keep the Soviet Union from radical collapse. The events of September 11 serve as another wake-up call. There is a growing realization that Russia desperately needs our help. But more remains to be done--much, much more. Fortunately, the Bush Administration has devoted considerable time and effort to working to increase cooperation between the United States and Russia on these matters, as exemplified by U.S.-Russian cooperation in the war against terrorism, the Bush-Putin summit in November 2001, and the May 2002 U.S.-Russia summit in Russia. The administration wisely realizes that only through greater cooperation with Russia can we deal effectively with this problem. As I mentioned, Russian nuclear weapons and materials are stored in hundreds of sites. While helping to improve the security of these sites is a daunting task, we should ponder how much more difficult preventing an attack would become if even a miniscule portion of these warheads or materials were to proliferate. As members of this body know, the warning signs are growing. It is well known that groups such as al Qaeda and states such as Iraq, Iran, and North Korea wish to develop or acquire WMD. Even more disconcerting are reports that members of al Qaeda have attempted to break into Russian nuclear weapon facilities. We would do well to meditate on these reports and ask ourselves if the United States is doing enough to prevent the myriad groups and states that wish to acquire WMD from Russia from being able to do so. Mindful of this serious challenge to U.S. and global security I am introducing the Nuclear and Terrorism Threat Reduction Act of 2002, NTTRA. The NTTRA would promote policies that will greatly reduce the likelihood of nuclear terrorism. First, the NTTRA states that it is the policy of the United States to work cooperatively with the Russian Federation in order to prevent the diversion of weapons of mass destruction and material, including nuclear, biological and chemical weapons, as well scientific and technical expertise necessary to design and build weapons of mass destruction. As a review by the Bush administration found last year, ``most U.S. programs to assist Russia in threat reduction and nonproliferation work well, are focused on priority tasks, and are well managed,'' The NTTRA proposals complement the increases that the Bush administration has proposed for these programs. The NTTRA also calls for the President to deliver to Congress, no later than six months after the enactment of the NTTRA, a series of recommendations on how to enhance the implementation of U.S.-Russia non-proliferation and threat reduction programs, including suggestions on how to improve and streamline the contracting and procurement practices of these programs and a listing of impediments to the efficient and effective implementation of these programs. Second, recognizing the shortcomings in the Russian system for accounting for nuclear warheads and weapons-grade material, the NTTRA states that it is the policy of the United States to establish cooperatively with Russia comprehensive inventories and data exchanges of Russian and U.S. weapons-grade material and assembled warheads with particular attention to tactical, or ``non-strategic,'' warheads--one of the most likely weapons a terrorist organization or state would attempt to acquire--and with particular attention focused on weapons which have been removed from deployment. Only through such an accounting system will we be able to reliably say that Russian warheads and materials are sufficiently secure. Third, the NTTRA calls upon the President to deliver to Congress a plan laying out progress toward irreversibility involving the elimination of launchers and transparency measures involving warheads. As the Bush administration works to lock in the gains that the United States and Russia have generally agreed to, this plan will help keep the Senate fully apprised. Fourth, the NTTRA calls for the establishment of a joint U.S.-Russia Commission on the Transition from Mutually Assured Destruction to Mutually Assured Security. The U.S. side of the Commission would be composed of private citizens who are experts in the field of U.S.- Russia strategic stability. The NTTRA also calls upon the President to make every effort to encourage the Russian Government to establish a complementary Commission that would jointly meet and discuss how to preserve strategic stability during this time of rapid and positive change in the U.S.-Russia relationship. Working with Russia to address the many serious issues which still exist over 10 years after the end of the cold war should be one of the top U.S. priorities in the overall battle against global terrorism. Allow me to be frank and to say that this work will not be easy and there will certainly be testing times as the United States and Russia work to fully put the cold war to rest and to reach a level of foreign and defense policy cooperation which was unfathomable only a few years ago. But we are faced with few other options. We must shore up our first line of defense against the possibility of terrorism turning nuclear. I call upon the members of this body to collectively redouble our efforts to prevent the unthinkable from happening by supporting the Nuclear and Terrorism Threat Reduction Act of 2002. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, the United States Government and all of us personally have conducted a serious reassessment of our priorities in the months since the horrific events of September 11, 2001. The work of this body has been radically reshaped as we work together to effectively combat the menace of international terrorism. We have appropriated billions of dollars so our military can wage war in Afghanistan and prepare for the possibility of future military operations. We have devoted billions of dollars to strengthening our homeland defense capabilities, everything from beefing up border and port security to manufacturing additional vaccines to prepare for the possibility of a biological weapons attack. The time has also come to reassess what needs to be done to ensure that nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass destruction and the expertise to employ them do not leak out of the former Soviet Union and find their way into the hands of terrorist or terrorist states. Last year, I sponsored the Nuclear Threat Reduction Act of 2001, S. 1117, which called for expanding and accelerating programs to prevent diversion and proliferation of Russian nuclear weapons, and fissile materials; reducing the number of nuclear warheads in the United States and Russian arsenals; and for reducing the number of nuclear weapons of those two nations that are on high alert. The NTRA enjoyed success on a number of fronts: U.S.-Russia threat reduction and non-proliferation programs were expanded and accelerated; the Senate, working with the Administration, paved the way for the deep cuts that Presidents Bush and Putin generally agreed to in November 2001; and the possibility of taking some weapons off high alert was studied as part of the Nuclear Posture Review. Solid steps were taken, but we all know that more needs to be done. I rise today to introduce legislation that will help to address what is probably the most serious threat to U.S. national security: the possibility that terrorists or terrorist states will acquire nuclear weapons and materials, and other weapons of mass destruction from the massive and poorly secured former Soviet nuclear weapons complex. The scope of the problem that we face is difficult to fathom, but I will attempt to illuminate it by citing a few facts. Today, Russia possesses approximately 20,000 nuclear weapons and enough weapons-grade material to fabricate over 60,000 more. Not including the United States, Russia possesses approximately 95 percent of the world's nuclear weapons and weapons-grade material, a testimony to the great resources and effort that both sides devoted in waging the cold war. These weapons and material are stored in literally hundreds of sites across Russia's 11 time zones. Making this problem even more disconcerting is the fact that Russia is unable to reliably account for its huge stock of warheads and materials, having inherited a sub- standard accounting system from the totalitarian Soviet state. Additionally, there are over 20,000 scientists and technicians in the former Soviet Union that are considered proliferation risks. As the Members of this Chamber will recall proudly, Senators Sam Nunn and Richard Lugar, along with others, took the lead in the early 1990s to put together a suite of programs that still work to address the threat posed by the possible proliferation of former Soviet nuclear weapons and other materials. As the Soviet Union and Warsaw Pact fell apart, there was a palpable fear that nuclear weapons and materials would proliferate widely. In conjunction with the work in the Senate, the first Bush administration also took up the challenge by backing the Nunn-Lugar programs as well as supporting initiatives to help Soviet Premier Gorbachev as he attempted to keep the Soviet Union from radical collapse. The events of September 11 serve as another wake-up call. There is a growing realization that Russia desperately needs our help. But more remains to be done--much, much more. Fortunately, the Bush Administration has devoted considerable time and effort to working to increase cooperation between the United States and Russia on these matters, as exemplified by U.S.-Russian cooperation in the war against terrorism, the Bush-Putin summit in November 2001, and the May 2002 U.S.-Russia summit in Russia. The administration wisely realizes that only through greater cooperation with Russia can we deal effectively with this problem. As I mentioned, Russian nuclear weapons and materials are stored in hundreds of sites. While helping to improve the security of these sites is a daunting task, we should ponder how much more difficult preventing an attack would become if even a miniscule portion of these warheads or materials were to proliferate. As members of this body know, the warning signs are growing. It is well known that groups such as al Qaeda and states such as Iraq, Iran, and North Korea wish to develop or acquire WMD. Even more disconcerting are reports that members of al Qaeda have attempted to break into Russian nuclear weapon facilities. We would do well to meditate on these reports and ask ourselves if the United States is doing enough to prevent the myriad groups and states that wish to acquire WMD from Russia from being able to do so. Mindful of this serious challenge to U.S. and global security I am introducing the Nuclear and Terrorism Threat Reduction Act of 2002, NTTRA. The NTTRA would promote policies that will greatly reduce the likelihood of nuclear terrorism. First, the NTTRA states that it is the policy of the United States to work cooperatively with the Russian Federation in order to prevent the diversion of weapons of mass destruction and material, including nuclear, biological and chemical weapons, as well scientific and technical expertise necessary to design and build weapons of mass destruction. As a review by the Bush administration found last year, ``most U.S. programs to assist Russia in threat reduction and nonproliferation work well, are focused on priority tasks, and are well managed,'' The NTTRA proposals complement the increases that the Bush administration has proposed for these programs. The NTTRA also calls for the President to deliver to Congress, no later than six months after the enactment of the NTTRA, a series of recommendations on how to enhance the implementation of U.S.-Russia non-proliferation and threat reduction programs, including suggestions on how to improve and streamline the contracting and procurement practices of these programs and a listing of impediments to the efficient and effective implementation of these programs. Second, recognizing the shortcomings in the Russian system for accounting for nuclear warheads and weapons-grade material, the NTTRA states that it is the policy of the United States to establish cooperatively with Russia comprehensive inventories and data exchanges of Russian and U.S. weapons-grade material and assembled warheads with particular attention to tactical, or ``non-strategic,'' warheads--one of the most likely weapons a terrorist organization or state would attempt to acquire--and with particular attention focused on weapons which have been removed from deployment. Only through such an accounting system will we be able to reliably say that Russian warheads and materials are sufficiently secure. Third, the NTTRA calls upon the President to deliver to Congress a plan laying out progress toward irreversibility involving the elimination of launchers and transparency measures involving warheads. As the Bush administration works to lock in the gains that the United States and Russia have generally agreed to, this plan will help keep the Senate fully apprised. Fourth, the NTTRA calls for the establishment of a joint U.S.-Russia Commission on the Transition from Mutually Assured Destruction to Mutually Assured Security. The U.S. side of the Commission would be composed of private citizens who are experts in the field of U.S.- Russia strategic stability. The NTTRA also calls upon the President to make every effort to encourage the Russian Government to establish a complementary Commission that would jointly meet and discuss how to preserve strategic stability during this time of rapid and positive change in the U.S.-Russia relationship. Working with Russia to address the many serious issues which still exist over 10 years after the end of the cold war should be one of the top U.S. priorities in the overall battle against global terrorism. Allow me to be frank and to say that this work will not be easy and there will certainly be testing times as the United States and Russia work to fully put the cold war to rest and to reach a level of foreign and defense policy cooperation which was unfathomable only a few years ago. But we are faced with few other options. We must shore up our first line of defense against the possibility of terrorism turning nuclear. I call upon the members of this body to collectively redouble our efforts to prevent the unthinkable from happening by supporting the Nuclear and Terrorism Threat Reduction Act of 2002. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, as you walk the halls of the Senate today, you might have noticed many young and bright faces. Today we are celebrating the 10th anniversary of ``Take Our Daughters to Work Day.'' Senate Hutchinson and I have been pleased to oversee today's activities with our colleagues. Over 11-million girls ages 9-15 are spending today with their parents, relatives, friends, neighbors and other mentors experiencing the wide range of careers the world has to offer. Since 1993, 71-million young women--and yes, some young men, too-- have participated in this outstanding program. According to a recent poll commissioned by the Ms. Foundation for Women, girls believe the program increased their interest in education, broadened their thinking about the future, and strengthened their relationship with their parents and other caring adults. This morning's Senate activities began with a breakfast and a tour of the Senate floor for approximately 200 girls and their sponsors, many of them Senate staff members and assistants who wanted to share with their girls the excitement and challenges of working in our Nation's Capitol, and in particular, here in the Senate. This year I am happy to host ten young ladies, all with very promising futures, most from my home State of Louisiana. Please welcome: Miss Lily Cowles of Shreveport, LA; Miss Caroline Pullen and Miss Claire Pullen of Houston, TX; Miss Keely Childress of Monroe, LA; Miss Elisabeth Whitehead of Baton Rouge, LA; Miss Megan Haverstock and Miss Lauren Haverstock; Miss Kathleen Warner of Lynn Haven, FL; Miss Ashley Bageant of Spotsylvania, VA; Miss Annie Ballard of Baton Rouge, LA; Miss Erin Douget of Opelousas, LA. In closing, I would like to thank the Ms. Foundation--the founder and organizer of this outstanding program that has impacted in a very positive way the lives of millions of girls and has become a tradition for thousands of workplaces across the country.

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation to help continue the District of Columbia's fiscal resurgence. The District of Columbia Fiscal Integrity Act will give the District's Chief Financial Officer, CFO, authority to manage personnel, procurement practices, and to maintain independent control over the budget of the Office of the Chief Financial Officer. This bill was introduced in the House by Congresswoman Eleanor Holmes Norton and Congresswoman Connie Morella. I appreciate their leadership on this issue and I am pleased to join with them in introducing this legislation here in the Senate. As my colleagues know, from 1995 to 2000, a Control Board oversaw management of the District of Columbia in an attempt to reform the city's finances and administration. One of the key features of that reform was the establishment of a strong Chief Financial Officer for the District with wide-ranging authority over the fiscal management of the city. That model worked. The city balanced its budget, restored its investment bond rating, and improved many city services. As a result, the District met the requirements set forth by the Control Board Act and today the elected representatives of the District of Columbia are in charge and doing a great job. They do not want the Control Board to come back on their watch and neither do I. It is critical that the Senate work its will by marking up and passing this legislation as quickly as possible. When the Control Board went out of business, some of the Chief Financial Officer's authorities lapsed, but his responsibility for the District's financial management was not put on hold. The Congress provided temporary authority for the CFO in the FY 2002 District of Columbia Appropriations Act to continue the smooth operation of the City, but this temporary authority will expire at the end of June this year. Congress must fulfill its responsibility to the District of Columbia by ensuring that local leaders have the authority and resources to maintain and promote the city's growth. I encourage the Government Affairs Committee to begin their work right away. In addition to restoring some of the authorities the CFO previously exercised during the Control Board era, this bill establishes an early warning system, implemented by the CFO, to examine the city's financial management and the surrounding economic environment and determine whether the city's fiscal integrity is at risk. Should the CFO determine that trouble is on the horizon, the Mayor must develop an action plan to respond to the problem. This unique fiscal management tool will ensure accountability in how the District manages its finances. Mr. President, in the past the congressional schedule has often interfered with the smooth operations of the District. Like the Federal Government, the District Government's fiscal year begins on October 1. We, the Congress, have the authority to approve the District's budget-- a budget derived from locally-generated tax dollars. We rarely do that before the start of the fiscal year, in fact one or two months often go by before we pass the District's budget. This delay creates a great deal of uncertainty for District officials in their programming and financial planning. To remedy this situation, this legislation establishes budget autonomy for the District of Columbia beginning with fiscal year 2004. The local budget would become effective once it has been approved by the City Council and signed by the Mayor. The Congress will retain the authority to approve the Federal funding now contained in the D.C. Appropriations bill and will continue its general oversight of the District. We can still pass general provisions governing city operations and we can still hold hearings, but this bill will ensure that Congress' schedule will not hamstring the smooth operation of the District. Mr. President, the Mayor and the City Council have worked very hard to restore fiscal integrity to the District Government, as well as the people's faith in that government. The District is enjoying a renaissance. Once a fiscal and management nightmare, the city has turned its economic ship around. When once the city was ruled by the Control Board, today the accountable authority is vested in officials elected by the District's citizens. A rampant crime rate chased citizens from District neighborhoods into the suburbs, now people are coming back. Property values are rising, new businesses are opening, and the city is working to beautify the Anacostia waterfront. This legislation will continue this transformation by maintaining the strong independence of the Chief Financial Officer and will demonstrate Congress's confidence in he District's elected leadership and its citizens by giving them greater control over their local budget. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation. The Congress has a Constitutional responsibility to the District of Columbia, now is the time to support the city and ensure that locally-elected leaders have the necessary tools for success.

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation to help continue the District of Columbia's fiscal resurgence. The District of Columbia Fiscal Integrity Act will give the District's Chief Financial Officer, CFO, authority to manage personnel, procurement practices, and to maintain independent control over the budget of the Office of the Chief Financial Officer. This bill was introduced in the House by Congresswoman Eleanor Holmes Norton and Congresswoman Connie Morella. I appreciate their leadership on this issue and I am pleased to join with them in introducing this legislation here in the Senate. As my colleagues know, from 1995 to 2000, a Control Board oversaw management of the District of Columbia in an attempt to reform the city's finances and administration. One of the key features of that reform was the establishment of a strong Chief Financial Officer for the District with wide-ranging authority over the fiscal management of the city. That model worked. The city balanced its budget, restored its investment bond rating, and improved many city services. As a result, the District met the requirements set forth by the Control Board Act and today the elected representatives of the District of Columbia are in charge and doing a great job. They do not want the Control Board to come back on their watch and neither do I. It is critical that the Senate work its will by marking up and passing this legislation as quickly as possible. When the Control Board went out of business, some of the Chief Financial Officer's authorities lapsed, but his responsibility for the District's financial management was not put on hold. The Congress provided temporary authority for the CFO in the FY 2002 District of Columbia Appropriations Act to continue the smooth operation of the City, but this temporary authority will expire at the end of June this year. Congress must fulfill its responsibility to the District of Columbia by ensuring that local leaders have the authority and resources to maintain and promote the city's growth. I encourage the Government Affairs Committee to begin their work right away. In addition to restoring some of the authorities the CFO previously exercised during the Control Board era, this bill establishes an early warning system, implemented by the CFO, to examine the city's financial management and the surrounding economic environment and determine whether the city's fiscal integrity is at risk. Should the CFO determine that trouble is on the horizon, the Mayor must develop an action plan to respond to the problem. This unique fiscal management tool will ensure accountability in how the District manages its finances. Mr. President, in the past the congressional schedule has often interfered with the smooth operations of the District. Like the Federal Government, the District Government's fiscal year begins on October 1. We, the Congress, have the authority to approve the District's budget-- a budget derived from locally-generated tax dollars. We rarely do that before the start of the fiscal year, in fact one or two months often go by before we pass the District's budget. This delay creates a great deal of uncertainty for District officials in their programming and financial planning. To remedy this situation, this legislation establishes budget autonomy for the District of Columbia beginning with fiscal year 2004. The local budget would become effective once it has been approved by the City Council and signed by the Mayor. The Congress will retain the authority to approve the Federal funding now contained in the D.C. Appropriations bill and will continue its general oversight of the District. We can still pass general provisions governing city operations and we can still hold hearings, but this bill will ensure that Congress' schedule will not hamstring the smooth operation of the District. Mr. President, the Mayor and the City Council have worked very hard to restore fiscal integrity to the District Government, as well as the people's faith in that government. The District is enjoying a renaissance. Once a fiscal and management nightmare, the city has turned its economic ship around. When once the city was ruled by the Control Board, today the accountable authority is vested in officials elected by the District's citizens. A rampant crime rate chased citizens from District neighborhoods into the suburbs, now people are coming back. Property values are rising, new businesses are opening, and the city is working to beautify the Anacostia waterfront. This legislation will continue this transformation by maintaining the strong independence of the Chief Financial Officer and will demonstrate Congress's confidence in he District's elected leadership and its citizens by giving them greater control over their local budget. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation. The Congress has a Constitutional responsibility to the District of Columbia, now is the time to support the city and ensure that locally-elected leaders have the necessary tools for success.

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I have had the privilege of hosting some of the future leaders of America in my office as part of Ms. Magazine's Take Our Daughters to Work Day. As part of the day's activities I asked them to write a speech on what they would do if elected to serve as a United States Senator. I am proud to submit for the record some of their responses. If I were a United States Senator by Annie Ballard, 5th Grade, Future US Senator 2021. As a Senator of the United States I will find equality for all peoples of the Nation. For every man, woman and child of all races and types. Every man and woman should have equal pay and treatment. In some places of the country, women and people of color are not payed or treated equally to whites and men. Hispanics might be payed $2.29 for 13 hours of work each day. Some women are qualified for jobs and have to give them up because of a less qualified man. Teams of sports will choose males over females in football, baseball and other sports. In this bill, I plan to equalize all jobs, sports and pay for all people of the United States of America. What I would do if I were Senator, by Ashley Bageant. I would increase security at big buildings and airports so our environment can be more safe. I would do that by hiring more police officers. I would try to treat everybody the same. I would do what I would think would be right for our country. I would pay my people more money so they would have enough money to build homeless shelters to get homeless people off the street. What I would do if I were Senator? By Kathleen Warner, 9th Grade, Future US Senator 2018. As a high school student and a Catholic, I am pro-life and feel that my opinion should be strongly considered. My reasoning on the abortion issue is that a child is a life from the point of conception and therefore should by the state just like any other citizen. Also, if a child is conceived unexpectedly the mother can put the child up for adoption where he or she has the same opportunity as other children to live a strong, successful life. Finally, let me say, I am proud to live in a country where I can express my opinion like this.