Mary Landrieu

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. Reserving the right to object.

Ms. LANDRIEU. Reserving the right to object.

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I would like to be added to the unanimous consent request. I am very unclear as to whether there will be an objection to me offering an amendment. I would like it added to the list. The Senator from Mississippi said we don't need unanimous consent to file my amendment. I want my amendment to be filed and will take a vote up or down.

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

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

Ms. LANDRIEU. Reserving the right to object.

Ms. LANDRIEU. Reserving the right to object.

Ms. LANDRIEU. Reserving the right to object.

Ms. LANDRIEU. I thank Senator Byrd, because I am extremely concerned about this situation and hope we could find a remedy. I commend the Senator for his work over many years, to try to make sure our trade laws are fairly enforced and that agreements we have entered into, with countries such as China and others, are followed. But in this instance, as the Senator has so eloquently stated in this discussion this morning on the floor, this situation is not being handled correctly. Our industries, particularly in Louisiana, that he has mentioned, our crawfish producers have lost more money from the failure of U.S. importers to pay duties owed by China than any industry in our Nation. In Louisiana alone--I know it might be hard for people to believe this, but as spring rolls around, it will become quite evident--we have 3,300 crawfish farmers in our State and over 40 processors who employ a tremendous number of people and contribute hundreds of millions of dollars to our economy. The Senator from West Virginia understands our Government has failed to collect almost $70 million for this industry alone. This is antidumping duties on crawfish tail meat from China owed to the processors in my State and to our crawfish farmers. There are additional funds that are owed. It is my understanding--and the Senator from West Virginia is very aware--that our Customs officials are required to collect these duties, but they are not being collected. Many of these importers simply close up shop, they change their names, they move offshore, they reorganize, and evidently we are not able to collect the money that is owed to us. It is a great detriment to this particular industry and to others. I have expressed concern over the years. We are going to continue to press this issue. We will continue in Congress to work to solve this problem. I feel very strongly that our U.S. Secretary of Commerce, Secretary Gutierrez, and the U.S. Trade Ambassador, Susan Schwab, should take this up directly with the China Ministry of Foreign Trade and Economic Cooperation. China sought to become a WTO member. It is my firm belief, if China wants to receive the benefits that accrue to them through WTO, they should enforce them and help us, and we should do a better job of making sure the importers abide by the rules we have agreed to. I was very pleased to see in response to concerns raised by the Senate, GAO recently announced it has begun an indepth investigation as to why our Government cannot seem to collect duties owed to U.S. industries on goods imported from China. Since 2003, the total amount of uncollected duties on all antidumping countervailing duty orders for all countries totaled $630 million. Of this amount, $485 million, or 77 percent of the total, relates to 34 specific antidumping and countervailing duty orders that have been imposed by the United States on agriculture and aquacultural imports from all countries. Of that $485 million, 73 percent relate to six antidumping orders that have been imposed on U.S. agricultural and aquacultural imports from China alone. While the biggest duty noncollection problem in my State relates to the crawfish industry, as the Senator from West Virginia most certainly knows, Louisiana also is experiencing a problem with our catfish farmers. I see the senior Senator from Mississippi. This affects Mississippi, it affects Arkansas, it affects Alabama. We were unable to collect almost one-third of the fees that are owed to our catfish farmers. These are hard-working businesspeople who work long hours, who are trying to run these industries and abide by all environmental regulations, pay their taxes, abide by all the wage and hour laws in this country. When we enter into trade agreements, the least our Government can do is enforce them. That is what I come to the floor to express my concern about, through this colloquy with the distinguished Senator from West Virginia. I commend the Senator for his tireless work. We are going to press on this issue of noncollection. I hope, even if this Subsidy Offset Act expires, our Government will continue to collect the money that is owed to us during the time this act was in effect. It means a great deal to the small businesses in my State, to crawfishers and catfish producers equally. I am hoping we can make some progress and do not continue to have our trade laws undermined in this way. I thank the Senator for this time on the floor and I thank him for his continued work on this issue.

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for 2 more minutes on this subject, and then we can go to the vote.

Ms. LANDRIEU. I thank the Chair, and I can appreciate the situation we are in with the point of order being raised against the amendment, but as you know, Mr. President, I offered this amendment in good faith last night and spoke at some length on the amendment. I was under the impression that before we voted I would have the opportunity to speak on the amendment. Since that didn't happen, I appreciate the goodwill of my colleagues to at least allow me 5 minutes to speak, although the amendment has a point of order called against it. My amendment actually proposes $25 million on this appropriations bill. I don't know where else to appropriate money except on an appropriations bill, and that is basically what my amendment does. It is a two-page bill, and it appropriates $25 million to the CIA to give them some extra resources to try to track down the No. 1 terrorist and his network that is threatening our country. This amendment was prompted not out of politics or spite, it was prompted out of last week's National Intelligence Estimate that has been referred to now several times on both sides of the aisle. This did not come from a Democratic think tank or a Republican think tank, it came from the National Intelligence Estimate that says the al-Qaida network is as strong as it was before 9/11 and that Osama bin Laden is still the No. 1 target. I offered an amendment in good faith and reached out to my colleagues to say we are on homeland security, could we find $25 million to appropriate some additional funding to the CIA? I know there are other resources, some of them are classified and some of them are not--and to clearly restate the policy that Osama bin Laden remains the foremost objective of the United States in the global war on terror and protecting the U.S. homeland, the foremost is to capture and kill Osama bin Laden. I understand the point of order. I understand technically the Parliamentarian would probably rule against me. But for the purposes of the constituents I am representing I wish to say I am trying but am blocked to appropriate $25 million more on a Homeland Security bill to give it to the CIA to help protect us from the No. 1 terrorist, according to our intelligence reports. That is all I wished to say. I thank my colleagues for allowing me that moment of the record. I know the Senator wants to go back to regular order.

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, in the underlying bill, which makes a tremendous amount of progress, in my opinion, with protecting the homeland--increasing funding for port security, transportation, et cetera, and I have said publicly and privately my great thanks, on behalf of the people of Louisiana whom I represent, to the leaders managing this bill--in the underlying bill, there is a provision that some of us have worked very hard on to help expedite the rebuilding of schools in the gulf coast area. As you know, 2 years this August is the anniversary of Katrina and Rita. Literally hundreds of schools were destroyed. As I said a thousand times on this floor and will continue to say, the Federal Government was simply overwhelmed by the catastrophic nature of this event, the scope of which had never been seen. So I offer this amendment, and send one to the desk that I am speaking of now to help fix one very small problem with actually one school. The underlying bill sets up a process--and I am very grateful to the committee, Republicans and Democrats, who supported a new process--and actually FEMA was very helpful in supporting a new process--to help us rebuild the schools faster, better; not at greater expense to the taxpayer but a better way to deal with this catastrophic disaster. However, if this amendment I am offering right now does not pass, there will be one school that is left out of this fix, and that is why I offer it, on behalf of a very small parish in south Louisiana, a school I happened to visit, a school that thought they had one agreement with FEMA but, evidently, there was a great misunderstanding. This school has 500 children who go here, and they have had a very difficult time over the last 2 years, so I offer this amendment for them. It is extremely small, when compared to all the amendments my colleagues are offering, but it would help them to get their small school district back up and running. That is the essence of what the amendment does. As I say, it will affect basically one school in New Iberia Parish. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to dispense with the reading of the amendment.

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. Madam President, I send an amendment to the desk, and I ask for its immediate consideration.

Ms. LANDRIEU. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to dispense with the reading of the amendment.

Ms. LANDRIEU. Madam President, the underlying bill that Chairman Byrd and Ranking Member Cochran have put together is really good work. As a member of the Appropriations Committee, I am pleased to have worked on this bill. Senator Murray has provided some extraordinary leadership to add to this appropriations bill some resources to match the words that come out of this Capitol about securing our ports, securing our rail, and stepping up additional resources for our airports. This underlying bill, the Homeland Security appropriations bill, reflects this goal and objective. For the most part, it meets it in a substantial way. But I would like to remind all of us here, my colleagues, though it is hard to remember or to put in perspective, but a few years ago, just over 5, we didn't have a Homeland Security appropriations bill. Until Osama bin Laden and al-Qaida established a network and put 19-plus men on planes that took out buildings in New York, a section of the Pentagon here in Washington, and crashed into a field in Pennsylvania, this department didn't even exist. This department has been put together to try to help this country stand up against a great and growing threat--a great and growing threat. Unfortunately, according to the latest intelligence report--and I have the unclassified summary--this is not a diminishing threat. One would think that, after the money we have spent prosecuting the war, the diplomacy, and all the other things we are doing, this report would say that al-Qaida is weakened. But it doesn't say that. It says al- Qaida is strengthening. Of course, we know that Osama bin Laden is still on the loose. So I come to the floor to offer an amendment to the Homeland Security bill to try to refocus our attention on how this whole thing got started. It all got started by a guy named Osama bin Laden and the al- Qaida network. My amendment says it should be the policy of the United States to refocus our efforts to find him, to destroy him, and to focus on the al-Qaida network wherever it is found. There are pieces of it in Iraq, I am not going to debate that here. But there are pieces of al-Qaida that are still focused, according to this National Intelligence Estimate, right here in our homeland. So my amendment is substantive in the sense that it simply restates, or states for the first time but clearly, that it is the policy of the United States that the foremost objective of the global war on terror and protecting the homeland of the United States is to capture or kill Osama bin Laden and to destroy his network and other members of his network. I understand this is not just the work of one person. It adds $25 million to the Central Intelligence Agency for that purpose. I know there are other amounts of money that are being spent, and resources, some readily obtainable and some that are classified. But there are additional resources that need to be brought to bear on this and, most importantly, a focus to help us remember how we got here in the first place and what this Homeland Security bill should be doing, by protecting our Nation and keeping focus on al-Qaida. That is the essence of my amendment. I thank the leader for allowing me to offer it tonight. Anytime the Senate feels we can vote on this in accordance with the schedule will be fine by me.

Ms. LANDRIEU. Yes, I will.

Ms. LANDRIEU. I thank the Senator from North Dakota. He has been a leader in helping us to stay focused by increasing the reward. We have to remember--I wish I had my poster but I don't, but this is what a small version of it looked like. I know the Chair may have a hard time seeing it, but this is what Osama bin Laden looks like. It is important for us to continue to see his picture. He is on the FBI's ``Most Wanted'' list. This was before he organized the attack against our country that has killed over 3,000 innocent civilians and, as we know, now 4,000 of our soldiers, approximately, have lost their lives and 38,000 to 40,000 wounded, trying to retaliate against this attack. I thank the Senator from North Dakota. I intend to be a cosponsor of his amendment. It is complementary to this one. Again, I offer it as I think appropriate on this bill which lays out the resources to protect our homeland. Let's make sure those resources are used so there is a big target on the back of this man Osama bin Laden and his very dangerous network that is still alive, unfortunately well, and according to our own estimates growing as a threat. I yield the floor.

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, on rollcall vote 273, I voted ``yea.'' It was my intention to vote ``nay.'' I ask unanimous consent that I be permitted to change my vote since it will not affect the outcome of the vote.

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I would like to offer a second-degree amendment.

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I offer this second-degree. I appreciate the Senator's compliments about the work we have done to put this tax credit on the books. It is a very important tax credit, but if we are going to have it, we need to pay for it. The problem with the first-degree amendment is it is not paid for and it is going to jeopardize the underlying bill. So, yes, we do need to extend this tax permanently but not on this bill and not tonight, and we need to find a way to pay for it. That is why I am offering this amendment as a second-degree. I ask all of us who are supporting it to vote for the second-degree amendment.

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

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Massachusetts. I begin by saying that his leadership has been on point and so focused for the last 2 years in trying to help lead his committee, with the support and cooperation of his ranking member, the Senator from Maine, Ms. Snowe, to move Congress to adopt this important legislation. The Senator is absolutely correct that the SBA was one of several important Federal agencies that was caught flatfooted when Katrina and Rita hit the gulf coast and subsequently when the Federal levee system failed in multiple places, as the Senator from Massachusetts knows because he has walked through neighborhood after neighborhood, mile after mile, having visited with business owners and homeowners who lost everything they had, that took them generations to build. The Senator knows very well that this particular administration was anemic and very slow in its response. In fact, the gentleman leading it at the time was not the appropriate leader. To the President's credit, they have nominated and we have confirmed a new leader for the SBA. I think the Senator from Massachusetts will agree with me that the Director, Steve Preston, is making some very good and fundamental changes. But there is just so much this administrator can do without Congress doing its job to give him the tools he needs to get the job done. Why this legislation is being held up by the Republican side I am not sure. It is very disappointing, not just to me but to the millions of people who are affected and are still struggling, having lost everything or having at risk everything they own because we cannot seem to get legislation passed because of obstructionist tactics. I repeat, this bill is supported not only by the Chair but by the ranking member. In addition, both Senators from Louisiana are cosponsoring this bill, Senator Bill Nelson from Florida, who has experienced the disasters of hurricanes in Florida, and Senator Johnny Isakson from Georgia, who also has experienced disasters. This is not a Democratic bill being rammed down the Republican side of the aisle. This is a good Government efficiency, effective measure to try to reform the SBA. But because of bureaucratic delays, because of the inadequacy of the current law, we were not able to help the 18,000 businesses that were destroyed, many of them--I would say 97 percent of them--small businesses. The Senator from Massachusetts and I together visited a cleaning business for hospital bedding and other items that was--I cannot think of the name of the business, but the Senator from Massachusetts and I walked throughout New Orleans East. This is one of hundreds of businesses that not only found themselves flooded, but when the waters receded, the hospitals they had serviced had closed. So basically through no fault of their own, they were struggling as well. This legislation will help them. This is not only important to the gulf coast and to the 18,000 businesses, many of them small businesses, that need help and assistance, but it is for the future. The Senator from Massachusetts is saying let this Federal Government do better. If we believe business is important, and we do, and if we believe small business is important, and it is, then let's at least have our response honed and tuned to the point where if, God forbid, another huge disaster happens, we will be much more prepared than we were last time. Our constituents depend on us to be responsive. I say to the Senator from Massachusetts, that is exactly what this bill does. I again thank him for his leadership and express truly my outrage that this is being held up for no apparent good reason at the expense of thousands of business owners who are looking to us for help and support.

Ms. LANDRIEU. May I add something, if the Senator will yield?

Ms. LANDRIEU. We have all learned many things since this disaster happened, and one of the things we have learned, I guess rather painfully, is that it is not only the geographic area that is struck by the high wind, the high waters or the flood waters that is impacted by a catastrophic disaster, but it is also the perimeter of the area, the towns that absorb people fleeing to higher ground and trying to settle where they can find work and schools for their children, and businesses that might not have been directly impacted but have lost half or 75 percent of their customer base. Right now, without Senator Kerry's bill, there is virtually no authorization on the Federal books to allow loans to be made to these kinds of businesses. So because we don't have that authorization, we are, right now, basically making the disaster worse. I hope people can understand this. We, by our inaction, by our hardheadedness--and it is not me, although I can be hardheaded but not on this issue--because of some leadership decision on the Republican side, we are literally, right now, making this matter worse. Businesses are continuing to go out of business; businesses that didn't have a drop of water, businesses that didn't have one shingle let loose from the high wind continue to file bankruptcy and put up out-of-business signs because there is no provision to allow low-interest loans to them if they weren't directly impacted. Unfortunately, they are directly impacted in terms of loss of customers, et cetera. In addition, it is going to bring in the private sector. We heard a lot from the other side about Government can't do everything; let the private sector be engaged. Well, your bill allows for more private- sector involvement; does it not? It allows the banks that know these small businesses to be a part of helping them. This is what the business community wants, this is what the banks want, and this is what we recognized was a problem initially. Yet we are being blocked, I understand, by the Senator from Oklahoma, who has not made his specific objections clear to us. So I hope they can be made clear, and if we can fix it, fine. If not, then the leadership on the Republican side, I would say to the Senator from Massachusetts, has a decision: Do they want to be part of the nonsensical opposition by a Senator who is in Oklahoma, who is never going to have a hurricane or do they want to stand with the people in America from New York to Texas who are threatened every 9 months with a hurricane season. That is the decision the Republican leader from Kentucky is going to have to answer. Is he going to support a bipartisan piece of legislation that aids businesses that are literally threatened from New York to Texas or is he going to stand with some nonsensical opposition coming from the middle of the country that will never be hit by a hurricane. I hate to be so pointed about it, but that is basically where it is. This is 2 years after the storm. This isn't 2 months or 6 months after. This is a bill that Senator Snowe herself started and Senator Kerry is finishing, and the people of the gulf coast are still waiting. So this is a real leadership question, and I hope that as the day goes by and the week goes by, we can make some progress, and I thank the Senator for his leadership.