Mary Landrieu

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. I appreciate those remarks. The Senator from New Mexico has been an extraordinary leader in this field of nuclear energy. I compliment the industry. The Senator from New Mexico understands that the oil and gas industry has been, in the last couple of years, broadening its horizons and outlook in welcoming these new sources of energy. They are turning themselves from oil companies to energy companies, from gas companies to energy companies, opening up possibilities for new sources of energy. I commend the industry and hope this bill that Senator Domenici has worked on so hard will compliment the work in the private sector to help this country get to the freedom we need from imported sources so we can set our own destiny. I am proud to be a sponsor of this amendment and others like it.

Ms. LANDRIEU. Will the Senator yield?

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Ms. LANDRIEU

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I know there are amendments that have been laid down and are open for discussion, but I want to take this opportunity to give a statement for the record in regard to the energy debate. I will begin by thanking the chairman and our excellent leader, Senator Bingaman, for laying down a bill that is a real building block, a real stepping stone toward the kind of energy policy with which our Nation could grow and prosper. I thank him for including many of the issues I raised with him on behalf of the State of Louisiana and other petroleum- and gas-producing States, as well as provisions that Senator Domenici, Senator Voinovich, and I have worked on relating to electricity generation, expansion of nuclear energy, and others. He has been very open to many of the ideas we have suggested. The bill, however, is only a starting point. I believe we have to build some additional provisions into this underlying bill. To begin with, I am reminded of the words of Thomas Edison. He once said: Opportunity is missed by most people because it comes dressed up in overalls, and it looks like work. I think, as we begin this energy debate, that is an appropriate quote of which to be mindful. The situation that presents itself here--energy policy--rarely captures the attention of Congress, but at this very moment it really is a wonderful opportunity for us. We have a real opportunity--an opportunity to impact our economy and our environmental and foreign policy, all through the adoption of an effective and coherent national energy policy. But getting there is going to require some real work and some real compromise. I am concerned that this is an opportunity dressed up like hard work. I am hoping that the Senate is appropriately dressed. I am not quite sure. I know many of us have worked diligently, and, hopefully, with leadership on both sides and with strong leadership from the President, we can actually get a bill that makes sense for where our Nation is today-- but, more importantly, where we need to be in the future. The American people are ready for a different kind of energy policy. A recent poll found that three-fourths of the public believes that if we don't address our energy needs now, in 20 years Americans will not be able to live their lives in the way they choose. I think the American people, even prior to September 11, were very mindful of this fragile situation in which we find ourselves. But now, post-September 11, I know the people in my State are very concerned about our overdependence on foreign oil and energy sources. Of course, the American people are right. They recognize our vulnerability. This is the moment, and we must seize it. I thank the chair of our committee again for his excellent work, and I thank Senator Daschle for bringing this bill to the floor for our consideration. Many, including myself, have stated really inaccurately before that we don't have a national energy policy. Unfortunately, we do have one. The policy, whether expressed or implied, though, is perfectly clear. That policy, unfortunately, is that this Nation is to try to import as much cheap oil as possible. It doesn't seem to us that the sources of this imported oil matter much. All other national policies, such as human rights, conservation, and geopolitics, have seemingly taken a back seat to this overriding policy. Let's look at the nations we are willing to deal with in order to secure cheap oil. The United States imports nearly 600,000 barrels of oil a day from Iraq. This is a country that we have been bombing an average of once a week. Can you imagine what the public would say if we were buying steel from Germany while undertaking the D-Day invasion? Yet that is the same kind of corrupting power that this shortsighted policy has on other interests. I believe it is time--and I know many of my colleagues join me in saying this--for our country to forge a new ``declaration of independence.'' About 226 years ago, we decided the people of our Nation needed to control their own destiny politically and economically. We need to do so again today. In order to have that control, we must have energy independence. While we will never achieve that 100 percent, we have to get much closer to that goal than we are today. Getting there is going to be tough, but that is what this debate is about. It is what it should be about; it is what the American people want this debate to be about. While we are achieving that end, it may require efforts equal to the Manhattan project, or the Apollo project, but I believe it is within our grasp. Again, with strong Presidential leadership, with a bipartisan group of leaders on this floor and in the House, and with the support of the American people, I believe we are up to the challenge. Our new declaration must center around three principles. I will start with the principle that I truly believe is the most important, and that is that this country must produce more energy. We must produce cleaner fossil fuels; more nuclear power generation; and, yes, more oil and gas by small and independent companies; and, as Senator Bingaman has advocated, significant new investments for alternative and renewable fuels. The occupant of the chair has advocated using biomass and other agriculturally-based projects. There are tremendous incentives in this bill for us to expand our supply of energy so that we are not held hostage or captive by only one fuel supply. We have an ample and a varied supply, but that supply has to be increased, not decreased and diminished. Secondly, we will conserve energy wherever possible, particularly in transportation and the industrial sector, and do it in a way that enhances our chances of creating jobs in America, not driving them away to other nations. We have to be more committed to a balance, of conserving our natural resources, conserving our clean environment, and making our environment even cleaner. But I strongly believe we have to focus as intently on conserving and expanding jobs here--in my State of Louisiana, in your State, Mr. President, and in all of our States-- because if we are not careful, changes that we make can drive good, high-paying jobs away from our Nation to other nations. It is not fair to our workers, and it is not fair to our communities when there are good alternatives. The principle of increased energy production really hearkens back to a principle deeply ingrained in our American culture; namely--and I remember studying this in my earliest grades--the dictum of Captain John Smith: ``He who works eats; he who doesn't work doesn't eat.'' The Jamestown colony would not have survived without following that simple, clear and, in some ways, profound statement. We cannot allow mindless energy consumption on one hand while allowing a ``not in my backyard,'' attitude toward energy production. We must restore balance to the equation. Louisiana makes more than its fair share of a contribution through oil and natural gas production. We also house the Nation's Strategic Petroleum Reserve. However, while every State should be free to determine how to make its contribution--solar energy perhaps from New Mexico, hydroelectric power from Washington, clean coal plants from West Virginia--every State should be free to make its choices, but every State must make a contribution. If we are consuming 26 percent of the world's oil supply but producing only a fraction, we clearly are eating without working. Sixty-five percent of this Nation's energy supply comes from oil and gas. Yet States continue to express a reluctance to contribute their natural resources to our common needs. These natural resources belong to all the people of our Nation. Yet we see a policy permitting repeal of laws that were strict about using natural resources for our common need, which is real and I would say urgent. It is important to contrast this with our allies in Europe who have a reputation for being more environmentally sensitive. While we have moratoria on drilling for oil and gas all over this Nation, from the west coast to the east coast, and in parts of the Gulf of Mexico, France has high-sulfur petroleum production in Paris--in Paris; not in the countryside but in Paris. The United Kingdom, the Netherlands, and Norway all permit offshore oil and gas drilling in their fishing grounds, some of the finest fishing grounds in the world. Yet there is a tremendous amount of environmentally sensitive, very strictly regulated production operating off those shores. Such actions would set our environmental community in this Nation in a frenzy. In Europe, however, they have managed to accept a fundamental reality: If you need oil and gas, you must produce it. What is more, every possibility needs to be on the table. If you need more power from nuclear, you have to build the nuclear powerplants to produce it. You cannot just wish it so and turn on the lights. Our allies have recognized this, but in this country we have not quite grasped this reality. We are seeing a trend toward creating something like Fritz Lang's Metropolis, but on a statewide scale, with some States getting to live in the clouds with an unspoiled environment, consuming to their heart's desire, while other States must live on Earth and bear the brunt of this carefree lifestyle. This growing dichotomy must stop. We must have more domestic production to balance out our consumption. It is just as simple as that. The second principle of our declaration, of course, is conservation. We must consume less. Everyone knows the American economy is the largest consumer of energy in the world. Everyone also understands that we have the largest gross domestic product in the world. While we produce more goods than any other people on Earth and in the history of the world, the ratio between how much we produce to how much energy we use to produce it is the worst in the world. In other words, we are hugely inefficient when it comes to the use of energy. This is not only an environmental dilemma, but it is an economic dilemma as well. We have squeezed efficiency out of our American workers through greater productivity gains, longer work hours, a more flexible and skilled workforce, and particularly new technologies. However, we have not squeezed enough efficiency out of our power distribution networks to make U.S. manufacturing cheaper and, as a result, more competitive. I congratulate Senator Bingaman, again, for making this a focus of this legislation. It is truly one of the best pieces of this legislation, and, if we can build on this piece, it will be a real step in the right direction. I look forward to working with him in this debate. Already we have accepted several amendments toward this end that have strengthened this position so that we can make it even stronger. We must, as I said in the first principle, we must be committed to robust domestic production. Then we also have to be committed to real efficiencies in our electric market, on which Senator Voinovich and others have worked so diligently. Finally, we must institute the third principle, and that is, if you are taking on the burden of production, whether it is in Louisiana, which produces oil and gas and other energies for this Nation, or other States, our Nation should compensate those regions fairly. Louisiana is the second-highest energy-producing State in the country. We have 16 percent of the total refining capacity, and we supply about 25 percent of all domestic petroleum, half of the imported liquefied natural gas, and about 13 percent of the crude oil shipped into the United States comes through Louisiana. Yet this contribution, while my State is proud of it, has not come without cost to our coast, to our environment, and our infrastructure. In the past 50 years, Louisiana has lost over 1,000 square miles of its coast. Let me be clear, this loss is not 100 percent directly related to this activity. This activity has been a portion of this loss. There have been many other factors. But still the facts remain that because of the drainage and the shipping we provide for the Nation through the Mississippi River and the Delta so that all the Great Plains States and our great interior can ship products out and receive products, as well as the production taking place in this fragile environment, it has had some environmental consequences. This loss represents 80 percent of all wetlands loss within the United States. While my State suffers these losses, we contribute to the Federal Treasury anywhere from $2 billion to $4 billion a year, just through oil and gas production. This figure does not take into account the taxes and wealth and prosperity generated for the whole Nation because of the shipping and the commerce allowed by our rivers. In fact, since the year I was born, 1955, our State and other coastal States have contributed $120 billion to the Federal Treasury, and Louisiana has received nothing of this $120 billion directly. We have received less than 1 percent of the money that has come into the Treasury from offshore oil and gas drilling and yet bear most of the cost of the infrastructure required. Louisiana's coastal wetlands contribute 28 percent to the total volume of U.S. fisheries. Our coastal wetlands are being lost at a rate of one football field every 15 minutes. Let me restate that: One football field every 15 minutes. In short, we should sometimes ask ourselves: Why are we doing this? Why don't others do it? We have developed a system of retrieving our natural resources. In the old days, we did not do a very good job of it, but in these days of new horizontal drilling, directional drilling, with new technologies, new rules and regulations, some local and some national, we have learned to pool our natural resources for the benefit of our State and our Nation and minimize that environmental footprint. We want to continue to do that, but we cannot continue under the present regime or set of circumstances unless we are more fairly compensated. Interior States that produce their natural resources, whether it is to contribute to the energy sector or other sectors, receive 50 percent of their royalties in revenues. Two years ago the State of Wyoming, through severance taxes that levied from their mining operations, kept $200 million and spent it as they would to reinvest in their State and the local communities that supported that mining operation. Yet Louisiana and the Gulf Coast States that bear a tremendous responsibility for the production now of oil and gas do not share a penny of those offshore revenues, and yet serve as a platform for that production. The helicopters cannot get into the central gulf unless they take off from somewhere. The pipes, the equipment, the computers, the people, the technology are launched from the coast of Texas or Louisiana or Mississippi or Alabama. I am going to be laying down amendments--there is already a provision in this bill, thanks to Senator Bingaman--that would authorize for the very first time a coastal impact assistance provision that will give Louisiana and the Gulf Coast States a share of these revenues. It is an authorization. I believe we need a direct appropriation, and I will be working to strengthen that provision. But for the first time, the Senate, I hope, will accept this responsibility and fashion part of our overriding energy principle or declaration of independence that if you are going to produce, you should be rewarded for that production. Again, produce what you will, produce what you can, produce what you choose, but whatever you do, you should be rewarded or compensated for that production. Frankly, for those States that refuse to produce and only want to consume, then I think we should think very strongly about that situation and what we might do to encourage those States to do more to meet their obligation. It did not work 226 years ago, and that kind of attitude is not going to work today. So for producing States, I believe this is a very strong policy. I look forward to this debate. It is a rare moment in our history. I hope there is enough pressure that can be brought to bear to move us to make the kind of compromises necessary. It is time for us to declare our independence. We will not get there 100 percent, but we need to get much closer to independence than we are today because not only is our economy at stake, our environment is as well. The security of our Nation rests on how successful we will be in getting more independent. If another tragedy strikes or, shall I say, when another tragedy strikes, with the new and emerging threats confronting our Nation, we can make wise decisions based on our principles, based on America's economic interests, based on what is right in terms of leading the Nation, and not be held hostage because we have simply not learned how to either live within our means so we can have the kind of independence necessary to make wise decisions for ourselves as we help to lead this world. This is a very important debate. I have really appreciated working again with Senator Domenici. He has almost singlehandedly reengaged us in understanding the importance of nuclear energy for our Nation--it is 20 percent of the source today--and rallied many different entities to realize we have safer nuclear reactors. The new technologies are quite promising, with the production of hydrogen as well as the traditional fuels and what that might mean to help us reach that independence. Senator Voinovich and I will continue to work on building an electric grid for this Nation much like our transportation grid, our interstate system. No one would argue that without the interstate system our economy could not grow. We could not move our products. We could not build our businesses. We could not have the international trade that is now the lifeblood of our Nation. That is the kind of electricity system that we need to create. It was not created that way initially. It was all State developed, regionally developed, and we have to now open that up so our electricity and power can get on onramps, off offramps, with limited speed bumps, and move throughout this Nation to create the kind of conservation and efficiency our businesses need to compete in the world. As I said, there are many goals and objectives. I have laid out some of these principles, and I look forward to advocating for the people of my State and for many States that are producing oil and gas to make sure we are justly compensated so we can take those just compensations and reinvest for our children and for our grandchildren. One day these oil and gas wells are going dry up. We wanted to make sure we were good stewards of the taxes that were levied on those oil and gas wells. Therefore, we have laid down new investments for cleaner technologies, for new opportunities for Louisiana and for our Nation.

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, one hundred and thirty five years ago, before the term Homeland Security was even coined, a group of men devoted themselves to securing the frontiers of this Nation. They protected Americans in their homes; they deterred hostile invaders, and they secured the blessings of liberty to the people of this land. Even more remarkable, they secured these blessings for others, while they could not fully enjoy them themselves. I am referring to the Buffalo Soldiers. These brave men instituted a tradition of professional military service for African Americans that stretches one hundred and thirty five years to our triumphs occurring this very day. African Americans military service is as old as our Nation. There were black soldiers during the revolution, a unit of free black men played a pivotal rule in the Battle of New Orleans, and the exploits of African Americans during the Civil War have been captured in novels and on film. However, it was not until the Army Reorganization Act of 1866 that soldiering and service to country became a realistic option for African Americans seeking to improve their quality of life. In so doing, they raised the bar of freedom, and revealed the injustice of preventing the defenders of democracy from fully participating in it. The city of New Orleans, and the State of Louisiana have a rich history, and have, over the years given more than their fair share of sons in service to their Nation. Much of this history is commemorated around the city. Yet these great sons of New Orleans remain unacknowledged in their home. For in Louisiana's great military tradition, surely one of its greatest military contributions were the 9th Cavalry Regiment and the 25th Infantry Regiment. These two forces, recruited and organized in New Orleans, represent half of all the units of buffalo soldiers. The 9th Cavalry alone constituted 10 percent of all the American cavalry. Their list of adversaries reads like a who's who of the Old West, Geronimo, Sitting Bull, Poncho Villa. In movies, when settlers encounter Apaches, the cavalry always comes to the rescue. Yet how many times were the cavalry that rode over the horizon African Americans? Of course, the reality is that the Buffalo Soldiers comprised some of our Nations most capable and loyal troops. Despite suffering the worst deprivations known to any American soldiers of the period, their desertion rates were the lowest in the Army. The 9th Cavalry was awarded 15 Congressional Medals of Honor, including two to native Louisianians First Sergeant Moses Williams and Sergeant Emmanuel Stance. For these reasons, I am offering legislation that would authorize the creation of a suitable memorial in New Orleans for these gallant soldiers. There is an excellent statue to the Buffalo Soldiers at Fort Leavenworth Kansas. It commemorates the 10th Cavalry Regiment stationed there. However, I believe that these men deserve to be recognized in their home city. Furthermore, it should be in a location where thousands of visitors will have the opportunity to come to appreciate the legacy of the Buffalo Soldiers. I believe that the city of New Orleans is the perfect location. This Nation has sadly found the need to say thank you to its servicemen and women after the fact on more than one occasion. Unfortunately, this is another. We are fortunate to have living memories of the 9th and 10th Cavalry Regiments today. The regiments were not disbanded until the conclusion of World War Two, where they served with distinction. We should take this opportunity to honor these veterans, and in so doing, honor the principles of liberty, freedom, and democracy for which they fought and sacrificed. They have given so much to their Nation, we owe them this public expression of gratitude.

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, one hundred and thirty five years ago, before the term Homeland Security was even coined, a group of men devoted themselves to securing the frontiers of this Nation. They protected Americans in their homes; they deterred hostile invaders, and they secured the blessings of liberty to the people of this land. Even more remarkable, they secured these blessings for others, while they could not fully enjoy them themselves. I am referring to the Buffalo Soldiers. These brave men instituted a tradition of professional military service for African Americans that stretches one hundred and thirty five years to our triumphs occurring this very day. African Americans military service is as old as our Nation. There were black soldiers during the revolution, a unit of free black men played a pivotal rule in the Battle of New Orleans, and the exploits of African Americans during the Civil War have been captured in novels and on film. However, it was not until the Army Reorganization Act of 1866 that soldiering and service to country became a realistic option for African Americans seeking to improve their quality of life. In so doing, they raised the bar of freedom, and revealed the injustice of preventing the defenders of democracy from fully participating in it. The city of New Orleans, and the State of Louisiana have a rich history, and have, over the years given more than their fair share of sons in service to their Nation. Much of this history is commemorated around the city. Yet these great sons of New Orleans remain unacknowledged in their home. For in Louisiana's great military tradition, surely one of its greatest military contributions were the 9th Cavalry Regiment and the 25th Infantry Regiment. These two forces, recruited and organized in New Orleans, represent half of all the units of buffalo soldiers. The 9th Cavalry alone constituted 10 percent of all the American cavalry. Their list of adversaries reads like a who's who of the Old West, Geronimo, Sitting Bull, Poncho Villa. In movies, when settlers encounter Apaches, the cavalry always comes to the rescue. Yet how many times were the cavalry that rode over the horizon African Americans? Of course, the reality is that the Buffalo Soldiers comprised some of our Nations most capable and loyal troops. Despite suffering the worst deprivations known to any American soldiers of the period, their desertion rates were the lowest in the Army. The 9th Cavalry was awarded 15 Congressional Medals of Honor, including two to native Louisianians First Sergeant Moses Williams and Sergeant Emmanuel Stance. For these reasons, I am offering legislation that would authorize the creation of a suitable memorial in New Orleans for these gallant soldiers. There is an excellent statue to the Buffalo Soldiers at Fort Leavenworth Kansas. It commemorates the 10th Cavalry Regiment stationed there. However, I believe that these men deserve to be recognized in their home city. Furthermore, it should be in a location where thousands of visitors will have the opportunity to come to appreciate the legacy of the Buffalo Soldiers. I believe that the city of New Orleans is the perfect location. This Nation has sadly found the need to say thank you to its servicemen and women after the fact on more than one occasion. Unfortunately, this is another. We are fortunate to have living memories of the 9th and 10th Cavalry Regiments today. The regiments were not disbanded until the conclusion of World War Two, where they served with distinction. We should take this opportunity to honor these veterans, and in so doing, honor the principles of liberty, freedom, and democracy for which they fought and sacrificed. They have given so much to their Nation, we owe them this public expression of gratitude.

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I want to take a few minutes to express my strong support for the amendment offered by Senators Schumer and Wyden. History has shown that requiring photo identification or certain other documents most significantly impacts minority voters. It will be difficult for some citizens to meet such requirements. For instance, a rural voter may have difficulty even finding a copy machine to make a copy of his or her driver's license. Individuals living below the poverty level may not have drivers licenses or utility bills. Students who live at home with their parents also may not have a utility bill with their name on it. Ironically, the current language in the bill puts an added burden on some of the very people that we should be working to make it easier to vote. This is contrary to the purpose behind this legislation. We are not trying to lower voter participation with this Election Reform bill; we are trying to raise it, and make the voting process better for the American people. The photo ID requirement would without a doubt have a chilling effect on voter participation. And while the provisional voting system would address this problem to some extent, it will not be in place in time for the 2002 elections. The language in this amendment is a much fairer way of dealing with this problem, and that is why I want to express my full support for the efforts of Senators Schumer and Wyden. I want to take one more minute just to go over briefly a couple of initiatives that I proposed for this bill; amendments that I will no longer be offering, but I want to mention nonetheless. My first amendment would establish election day as a Federal holiday. Currently, this bill contains provisions for the new Election Administration Commission to study the possibility of designating Election Day as a Federal holiday. And just yesterday Senator Hollings added language to the bill calling for a six-month turnaround on this study. I commend Senator Hollings for his amendment, as well as Senators Dodd and McConnell for specifying the EAC study in the original bill. I look forward to seeing the results of the study later this year, and I hope Congress will act quickly on the recommendations of the report. The second measure I proposed would change the Federal match in this bill to be fair to all states regardless of economic circumstances. This is an issue in which I have had a long-standing interest. While Congress often passes bills that provide a Federal match for States in various programs, it is rare that any effort is made to level the playing field for states that have fewer resources. States like Louisiana, with high poverty a generally lower standard of living, receive the same matching rate as other States. My concern is that in this bill, as well as others, the matching rates for these States are the same. Despite the huge difference in resources in these States, the Federal matching rate remains the same. To me, this is unfair and counterproductive. In closing, let me state again that I fully support the efforts of Senators Dodd and McConnell, as well as my other colleagues who have worked so hard on this bill, to bring about election reform. In fact, because this bill is so important I have decided not to offer this amendment today on this legislation, but will continue to press this important issue in the future.

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, for more than two centuries, the U.S. Marine Corps has exemplified the highest virtues of loyalty, service, and sacrifice. From the walls of Tunn Tavern during the Revolution to the far reaches of the Pacific, from the jungles of Vietnam to the vast expanse of the Arabian desert, and from the walls of Camp Rhino and the sand of the Kandahar Airport to Guantanamo Bay, America's Marines have shown the world the meaning of ``Semper Fi.'' Through the long march of our history, few military organizations have been held in such high esteem as the U.S. Marine Corps. Our Marine Corps is composed of men and women of great character. They are smart, tough, dedicated, and faithful, truly the best America has to offer. For 226 years, they have stood for all that is great about this Nation: honor, courage, and commitment. Their values, sense of courage, and quiet, steadfast character remain timeless and valuable commodities for a time in which our Nation faces the greatest challenge of a generation. I have seen our Marines in action, and I am confident that no obstacle can block their determined path to victory. Through their great history, Marines have protected America's interests, struggled against our country's foes, and remained at the forefront of our nation's efforts to maintain global peace and stability. In hundreds of distant lands, from Nicaragua to Lebanon, from Saudi Arabia to Somalia, and from Afghanistan to Cuba, Marines restored and maintained order, aided people in distress, provided protection for the weak, and upheld the values that have come to define our country on the world stage. Many made the ultimate sacrifice in the service of their country, and we honor their memory. I am proud to represent the State of Louisiana, a land which is steeped in Corps history. When the British attacked American forces on the fields of Chalmette outside of New Orleans, a contingent of Marines contributed to an ultimate American victory. This engagement came to be known as the Battle of New Orleans, and served as a powerful statement of American boldness on the battlefield. It gives me great pride to have the city of New Orleans host the headquarters of the Fourth Marine Division which commands more than 104,000 Reserve Marines nationwide. I am truly grateful for the services that our reserves perform every month. A Marine Corps reservist serves his country an average of 36 days a year. These men and women are of a truly superior caliber, as they dedicate over a month of the year to national service while working hard in the private sector, getting an education, and raising their families. I would like to extend my personal commendation to the Marines of Bravo Company, First Battalion, Twenty-third Marines as they conclude their deployment to Guantanamo Bay. I want to assure you that the members of the U.S. Senate and the Senate Committee on Armed Services are personally grateful for your service. Our Nation's freedom was won through the toil and sweat of thousands of volunteers who dropped their plows and left their families during the revolution. After they had proved themselves in the realm of battle, they went back to their fields and their families and created our civic institutions. You Marines are the rightful heirs to their tradition, and I trust that our Nation can rely on you to defend our freedom. As we set out in this new century, the importance of our Marine Corps has never been more clear. Tomorrow, as today and for generations past, the razor sharp readiness of the United States Marine Corps serves as a beacon to America's friends and a warning to our enemies, promising swift action, great victories and richer traditions yet to come. On this day, I offer my warmest gratitude to Bravo Company, First Battalion, Twenty-third Marines and all who wear the eagle, globe and anchor, and to the families who also serve by supporting them.

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I rise today to join my colleague from Michigan in thanking Kasi Brannen for her strong patriotism and undying support for our men and women deployed to the theater of conflict. Kasi Brannen's son, AT3 Eric Lepkowski, serves aboard the aircraft carrier USS Roosevelt in the Arabian Sea. When she began assembling a Christmas card for him, she asked friends and family in her hometown of Covington, Louisiana, to contribute well wishes and greetings. Soon, word got out in Convington that she was going to send a card to the Roosevelt and messages poured in from all over town. Then word spread through the entire Northshore, and then to New Orleans, and to Baton Rouge, and then all over the country. Kasi's Christmas greetings to Eric became the opportunity for the entire country to send its thanks and their holiday blessings to all the men and women serving overseas to protect America. These messages came not just from Navy families, but from scores of Americans who wanted to express their support for our troops. A simple Christmas card turned into a 75 foot banner with over 1,000 messages on it. Getting this banner to the men and women of the Roosevelt was no small feat. December had rolled around and people, known and unknown to Kasi, still desired to add their message to the banner. Kasi was wondering if she could get the package to the Roosevelt in time for Christmas. When the Navy found out about Ms. Brannan's project, the Vice Chief of Naval Operations, Admiral William J. Fallon, and the Commander of the Fifth Fleet, Vice Admiral Charles W. More, offered to transport the banner personally. The 5,000 men and women serving aboard the Roosevelt received the banner in time for Christmas and delighted in reading the messages from home. We can only imagine the effect that these messages had on the sailors of the Roosevelt. When our sailors go on deployment, they live in cramped quarters and go without the usual creature comforts. This, combined with the isolation and loneliness of combat can take its toll and easily diminish morale. When one of our sailors receives a letter from home, it reconnects them with their families and friends and reminds them just what they are fighting for. When our nation goes to war, it is fought on many fronts in many different ways. First and foremost, it is fought by the Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen, and Marines who are constantly in harm's way. But these men and women are fully supported by their families and friends at home. I think the spouses and children of all of our fighting men and women know their duty in keeping up morale, and they will follow through. I am extremely proud of all fighting men and women from Louisiana. Our State is home to thousands of service-members, and they are part of the overall force which protects this great nation. I am also extremely proud of our citizens who support these men and women in uniform. The efforts of Kasi Brannen are truly superb and are deserving of great recognition. I want to join my good friend from Michigan in praising Kasi Brannen and the hundreds of other Americans who contributed to her project. I also want to commend the Vice Chief of Naval Operations, Admiral William J. Fallon, and the Commander of the Fifth Fleet, Vice Admiral Charles W. More for their extraordinary efforts in keeping up the morale of our fighting men and women. I know that my colleagues in the Senate join me in commending the husbands, wives and family back home, our service men and women deployed abroad, and the commanders who lead them.

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I have joined my colleague, Senator Boxer, in introducing the California Coastal Protection and Louisiana Energy Enhancement Act. This legislation will add to the production of oil and gas off the Louisiana gulf coast while solving a difficult problem associated with production off the coast of California. The Federal Government, through the Department of the Interior's Minerals Management Service, MMS, manages oil and gas exploration in all Federal waters from 3 miles beyond the coastline. For years, leases have been issued to companies, giving them the right to explore and produce on these lands. Companies bid on proffered leases at the MMS, then pay rental payments to the Federal Government to maintain their leases. Once oil or gas is flowing from Federal lands, companies pay a royalty on the production to the Federal treasury. Between 1968 and 1984, the MMS awarded 40 leases off the coast of California to a number of different companies so that they could explore for oil and gas and bring these energy resources to market. The proven oil reserves under these leases are vast. Over the past 34 years, owners of the leases have been working through the processes of Federal and State government to bring production from these lands online, as was the original purpose of the lease sales. During this time, the owners have been paying annual rental payments to the Federal Government. To date, none of them are producing. The people of California have become increasingly opposed to new oil and gas production off their coast. This opposition has created a dilemma for the Federal Government and the leaseholders because while the opposition of the people of California has made it more difficult to proceed with oil production, the ability to produce oil from these lands is exactly what the companies have been paying the Federal Government for all these years. Senator Boxer and I have been working to solve this longstanding problem. The legislation we are introducing today will essentially move the investment these companies have made with the Federal Government from the California waters to the Federal waters in the central and western areas of the Gulf of Mexico. This investment will finally be put to the use for which it was originally intended, to provide a domestic source of energy for the United States. This will mean a more vibrant oil and gas industry in my state and more jobs for Louisianians. It will maintain the integrity of the MMS leasing process and the Federal contracts that have been in place these many years. Finally, it will assist the people of California in reaching their goal of no new oil production off their coastline. The California Coastal Protection and Louisiana Energy Enhancement Act gives the California leaseholders the option to move their investments to the central and western Gulf of Mexico. If the leaseholders choose, they may receive credits for the money that has been paid to the Federal Government for the California leases, and any other money invested in developing the leases. These credits may be redeemable at the MMS for lease bonus and royalty payments for production in the Gulf of Mexico. participating companies would then surrender the California leases and agree not to bring any future legal actions against the government for their inability to go forward with production over the past 34 years. Finally, our bill takes the lands that were in the leases and creates an ecological preserve to protect traditional fishing areas and provide conservational scientific and recreational benefits. About 65 percent of our Nation's energy needs are supplied by oil and natural gas. The waters of the Gulf of Mexico have proven to be a significant source of oil and natural gas and are predicted to remain so for the foreseeable future. While states such as Louisiana continue to welcome the development of Federal crude oil and natural gas resources in the Gulf of Mexico, this development is accompanied by adverse impacts on the infrastructure and public service needs of States, counties and local communities that ``host'' the development of these Federal sources. With the rest of the country consistently turning to the waters of the central and western Gulf of Mexico for oil and gas production, it is long past time to share a meaningful portion of the revenues generated annually from Federal offshore crude oil and natural gas resources with the coastal states that serve as the platform for this development: Louisiana, Texas, Mississippi and Alabama. I believe this bill is a creative solution to a difficult problem that has been left unattended for too many years. I commend my colleague, Senator Boxer, for taking a leading role with me in crafting this legislation. I hope my colleagues will join us in supporting this bill.

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, it is my distinct honor to endorse my good friend Jay Zainey for Federal District Court Judge for the Eastern District of Louisiana. I must commend President Bush for this nomination. He has chosen a man who will bring professionalism, dignity, and respect to the Federal bench. I cannot say enough about Jay. He has had a stellar legal career, practicing law in Louisiana for more than 25 years--the bulk of that time in solo practice in Metarie, LA, helping people draft wills, start businesses, and giving them sound, sage, and accurate legal advice for virtually any situation. In addition to his own practice, Jay has served as a judge and hearing officer in some of our local courts. His close connection to the community informed the work he did as Louisiana State Bar Association President. Jay established a community involvement committee of the Bar Association to get Louisiana's 18,000 lawyers working on direct service projects like helping out at homeless shelters and soup kitchens. He saw a need in not only his community, but others around the state and used human resources of the bar association to help bring some relief. What is even more special about Jay is the humanity he has brought to the Bar and the practice of law in our state. Let me tell you about a very special initiative Jay started as State Bar Association president. He established a special committee dedicated to providing legal services for the disabled--the first State bar association in the country to do this. If a family has a disabled child or adult living with them and they need help understanding the Americans with Disabilities Act or they are having trouble sorting through the requirements for SSI eligibility, they can call the State Bar Association for a referral to a lawyer trained in disability issues. This effort came from Jay's heart. He and his wife Joy are the parents of a disabled child. And while their son Andrew is a source of happiness and pride for their family, Jay also understands the legal challenges families such as his face. His heart moved him to use his professional talents and skills to help disabled Louisianians, improving the quality of life in our State. I must also acknowledge his wonderful family. He and his wife Joy have a daughter Margaret and two sons, Christopher and Andrew. His family means the world to him and they will inspire his service on the Federal bench. Mr. President, we need more people such as Jay Zainey on the Federal bench, someone who recognizes that our judicial system is there to help people. It is a powerful tool for the powerless. I heartily endorse his nomination and urge my colleagues to vote to confirm him.

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. Madam President, I speak in opposition to the Dorgan- Grassley amendment. I have the greatest respect for my colleagues from Iowa and North Dakota. I know they have put forward this amendment in good faith. I oppose this amendment because there is a great balance in this bill which was very difficult to put together. It represents all of our farming interests from different geographic areas of this Nation. With this amendment, our farmers in the South--particularly Louisiana farmers who have cotton, and soybeans, but particularly our cotton farmers--would be hard hit by this amendment because cotton is an expensive crop to grow. These price caps will be very detrimental to family farmers in Louisiana. In addition, this amendment, while it attempts to put on price caps, would not necessarily help farmers in other parts of the country. It would simply hurt the farmers in the South and in Louisiana. Cotton and rice are very expensive crops to grow. We need to have these crops covered when the price turns down. Finally, while price supports drift over to the larger farmers, it is also the larger farmers who produce most of the crops under the program. I realize some of these numbers are very large, but so is the underlying acreage under production, and so are the ownership interests of these farms. I support Senator Lincoln and oppose the amendment on the floor. I thank the Chair.

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. I remove my objection.

Ms. LANDRIEU. There is another matter we want to try to take care of at this point. I don't know if this is the proper time.

Ms. LANDRIEU. I reserve the right to object.

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. Madam President, I rise to support the Durbin amendment, and I will follow up on what the Senator from Minnesota said in two other ways. No. 1, this amendment is truly a stimulative amendment. Every dollar that will be paid out at no expense to our States will help thousands of people who are unemployed and underemployed by giving them a chance to collect some income while they look for other work and get back into the workforce. Every single dollar is basically going to be circulated back into our economy. This amendment, as much as it is for unemployed workers, is for grocery stores, for restaurants, and for drugstores. It is for businesses, small businesses in Louisiana, in Illinois, in Minnesota, and in Iowa where the businesspeople are struggling. Why? Because no one is walking into their restaurants to buy the meal or to buy the item. When we give, through unemployment benefits, dollars for our constituents, what will they do with them? They are not going to put it in their savings account. They most certainly are not going to buy stock. They are going to spend the money at the local restaurant, at the local drugstore, and at the local cleaners. That is why this effort helps us get our economy back. When consumers spend more money, then those business owners will hire another person or two and more people will get back to work. No. 2, extending these benefits only helps our States. We are picking up the tab for it. Does it cost something? Yes. Is it somewhat expensive? Yes. But we can most certainly afford to help our States at this time since the loss is not due to anything they have done but due to the terrorist attacks and other factors that have affected our economy. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. I yield back the remainder of my time.

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. I thank the Chair.

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I realize there is time remaining and I thank the Senators for yielding. I have spoken many times on this issue, but I want to take another minute to speak about the underlying appropriations bill, particularly the educational aspects and components of this legislation. There were a few things I didn't get to say that I would like to add for the Record. I thank the chair of the subcommittee, the Senator from Iowa, Mr. Harkin, for his extraordinary work in this area for helping bring forward an appropriations bill that reflects the positive changes of the authorization bill, to have the appropriations reflect those new strategies for improving our schools and strengthening our move for reform, for strengthening the notion that every child can learn, that we can really have excellence in every school, that we are not happy with the status quo, that we recognize some schools are terrific, some teachers are wonderful, but the system itself is not as invigorated and as strong as it should be, and it can be improved. That is what this legislation says: No to the status quo and yes to change; no to process and yes to progress; no to ``incomes'' and yes to outcomes; and yes to results. In this holiday season it is a wonderful gift to ourselves, to our Nation, to change the way we are appropriating funding for public schools and for all schools in this Nation. Today marks a historic moment. For the first time in 35 years since the Federal Government says we will work in partnership with States to help educate our children, it needs to be a local responsibility, but it must be a national priority. Our Nation cannot be strong, it cannot be great, it cannot be economically as vital if we don't have good schools. In Florida and Louisiana, that does not begin in kindergarten or end with a college degree; that is prekindergarten, early childhood education, and lifelong learning. It is clearly in our Nation's interest to help States and local communities educate and bring schools to our citizens. The best place to begin doing that is in the home. The second best place to shore that up is in schools, starting at the lower grades and working up. As a mother with young children, I know directly and very personally that those first few years, the foundation, are important. This bill is historic because in that whole partnership, for the first time, we have actually funded something we talk about. We targeted the grants for title I. We have funded the effort to help get the money to the districts that need a helping hand, that have difficulty raising either sales tax or property tax or industrial tax and corporate tax because the tax base is not there, but the children are. The tax base might not be there, but there are smart children who live in that county. The tax base is not there, but their parents are working hard. This bill, for the first time, sends the new money through the targeting formulas to bring that help to poor and disadvantaged children so they can take the new tests, pass them, and meet the new standards of accountability. It is an extraordinary accomplishment. I thank the Senator from Vermont. I know he cast his vote--it was a difficult vote to cast-- against the authorization bill because we failed to fully fund special education. I am disappointed in that. I will work with him and pledge to work with Democrats and Republicans to pick up more of our fair share of those special education dollars. I will work to reform special education, to make sure it works for our students, our families, our children who are greatly challenged, mentally and physically, as well as our teachers. Without Senator Jeffords, the Senator from Vermont, his untiring commitment and focus to education, we never would have had $3 billion added to the Education bill. It would have been left on the table and there would not be the energy to get it. I know he is disappointed, but I hope he hears my words this morning and is encouraged. There are those in the Chamber who recognize without his complete commitment and dedication to the schoolchildren of this Nation, this bill would be short a lot of money. But because he put his political muscle behind it and did what he needed to do, we have seen a tremendous increase in these investments. He should be happy and grateful. I know he is disappointed in special education, but I commit to him I will work diligently to see if we cannot shore up that part of the bill. I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the list of the moneys the States will receive, additional funds. Every State and county will be helped, but we will get resources to those families and communities that need a helping hand. It is a historic moment.

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. I do object, Mr. President.

Ms. LANDRIEU. Reserving the right to object, I inquire of the Senator from Virginia and the Senator from Montana about the timeframe they are speaking of because I wanted to address the Senate on a matter different from the subject about which they want to speak.

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, there are many important issues on the agenda and the one that was being discussed is one of the most important, but not the only. There is other business that needs to get done before we leave, which is an issue that is of great concern and an issue I wanted to bring to the attention of the Senators. Before I get into that subject area, which relates to families and children and adoption, I want to thank the leadership. I thank Senator Kennedy and Senator Frist, the main sponsors of the bioterrorism legislation, for agreeing in a colloquy submitted on behalf of myself and Senator McConnell from Kentucky to add a provision that will help all hospitals to call on FEMA funds that may be available in the event of another terrorist attack when hospital resources are called on to assist victims of those attacks or if the hospitals are harmed themselves. I very much appreciate it because it seemed to be an oversight in the legislation. As that bill moves to conference, I particularly thank them for their sensitivities to provide funding for all hospitals in the event that that situation were to occur. Of course, we are all hopeful it does not and are working very hard to see it does not, but I thank them for agreeing.

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I know the Senator from Ohio and others are waiting to speak on other matters before we leave, but last night there was a troubling expose done on a very unfortunate circumstance, and that circumstance involves 12 American families who are stuck in Cambodia because they are unable to obtain visas for their newly adopted children. They are unable to get those visas to come back to the United States safely with these children to celebrate what would have been a joyous homecoming on these holidays. We are all getting ready to join our families and loved ones in our home States for Christmas and for the holidays. It is not just parents being reunited with children and children with parents, but grandchildren, aunts, uncles, and cousins. This holiday season, as we have all said, is going to be even that much more special because of the challenges before our Nation and the events of September 11 and subsequent events that make us realize how important our families are to us and our loved ones. We are mindful as we leave today, happy with some of the successes we have had, of the pain and suffering that will be felt during this holiday season by 3,000 families and many more who were directly affected, who will not have a loved one present for the holidays. For the record, there is not anything I can offer at this moment--no piece of legislation, no fix that I can offer at this moment--but it is my intention to work with all the Senators and to work with the INS, to work with the State Department over the course of the next several days and weeks and months, if necessary, to make sure these American families can get the visas, take their children safely and come to the United States. According to the INS and according to the story and the details I know, there is concern that there is fraud and abuse in Cambodia and therefore that is why the visas were not issued. I acknowledge that, unfortunately, in the whole area of adoption, both domestic and international, there is some fraud and abuse. We need to do everything we can to make sure that fraud and abuse is stamped out. This Senate, this House, and this Congress, with the help of President Clinton as well as President Bush and both State Departments in the last administration and this administration, are working diligently on that. We have passed a Hague treaty, an international treaty aimed specifically at making the system of adoption more transparent, eliminating the middleman, reducing time, and encouraging people to adopt children from all over the world because there are so many children who need a home and so many families who want to add children to their families, to build and strengthen their families through adoption. Denying visas to 12 American families who pay their taxes, good community citizens, people who are doing everything they think is right, and then denying the visas is, I suggest, not the right approach. I am hoping our INS, with our new Commissioner, Mr. Ziglar, who we all know very well and who I have spoken to directly about this issue, as well as the State Department and Secretary Powell and others, will look into this matter and come to an understanding and agreement to allow these children to come with their families. These children are 6 months to 31 months old. I have learned if children are not adopted in Cambodia by the age of 8, under the Cambodian rules and regulations, children are not able to be adopted. So there is an urgency. There are time issues here. It is very important to try to work through this situation to help these families who are from Illinois, Pennsylvania, New York, Maine, Virginia, Oklahoma, Washington, and Arizona; none from Louisiana. As the chair of the adoption caucus, I bring this to the attention of the Senate. I will be working as much as I can over the next weeks and months to make sure this issue is resolved. There are procedures that can be used to focus on eliminating abuse and corruption but holding up families who have gone through the process, sometimes excruciating detail, without specific allegations of fraud in these individual cases, is beyond where I think we need to go. In conclusion, we need to promote adoption, helping the system to be transparent and encouraging people by saying, it is not too long, it is not too tough, it is not too difficult, and it is worth it to bring some of these children to our country and to provide permanency and love to so many who have so little to hope for. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have these details printed in the Record.

Ms. LANDRIEU. I thank the Senator from Oklahoma. One or two or more of these families are from his home State. He has been such an advocate of adoption and such a tremendous leader in this area. I know he would understand. We will keep the Senate posted and work with the officials from the executive department to see if it is resolved. My wish to the families is that we could give them Christmas in the United States and get it resolved in the next few days. Perhaps that is possible. If not, we will revisit the issue when we come back in January.

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. I am very concerned about help for for-profit hospitals if they must deal with bioterrorist attack. Their services are critical, and they face the same challenges as other hospitals. They should be eligible for Stafford Act assistance under certain circumstances.