Mary Landrieu

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. I thank the Presiding Officer.

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. I hope, Mr. President, as we lay out the rebuilding efforts for the Gulf Coast region and the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, we can do better than what the Senator has spoken about. On that subject, just for the record, I think maybe the Senator from Louisiana, Mr. Vitter, and I would like to submit for the Record a list of Louisiana-Mississippi-based contractors that can do great work in the rebuilding of the Culf Coast region. We understand that Halliburton is a Texas company. We are happy for our Texas counterparts. As I said, many people in Louisiana work for Halliburton. I think we have several thousand people who do. But I want this Senate to know--Senators on both sides of the aisle--we have a lot of Louisiana and Mississippi contractors who can build houses, et cetera.

Ms. LANDRIEU. Will the Senator yield?

Ms. LANDRIEU. I ask unanimous consent for 2 minutes for the Senator.

Ms. LANDRIEU. If the Senator will yield, I caught the tail end of the Senator's comments about Halliburton. Of course, we have people who work in Louisiana for Halliburton, but I most certainly understand the Senator's concern if there are these accusations against Halliburton in Iraq. We want to be very careful with our reconstruction dollars right here at home, that companies we ask to do work are doing good work, being accountable to the taxpayers. As the Senator knows, while it may be hard to track some of this across the ocean, it will be easier when it is in the United States. I don't know if the Senator would have any suggestions. Are there other companies that can do some work along the lines of reconstruction other than this one company? Does the Senator know?

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, today is day 15 of Hurricane Katrina, which has devastated the southeastern part of Louisiana and parts of Mississippi and some parts of Alabama and other States. I have come to the floor, just for a few minutes, to give a few brief remarks--some on a positive note as to some positive things that are taking place, and then some which are descriptive detail as Senators, both Republicans and Democrats, begin to build ideas for the rebuilding of this great region. First, let me say how pleased I am that a group of Senators will be coming down to the region on Friday. Details of that trip will be announced, but Senators from Mississippi and Louisiana have suggested that some of our colleagues come down and see firsthand the devastation. Not wanting to use assets that were being required for search and rescue, now that phase is almost completed, and it is appropriate for Senators to come down. I understand Senator Reid and Senator Frist are organizing that trip with some of the Senators here. Senator Vitter and I and others look forward to getting them down on the ground to show them the breadth of the devastation. One point on that: This is a picture of New Orleans that was done by the New York Times. I thought it was extremely helpful, and I would like to take a moment of my short time on the floor to show this picture in a larger view. We understand the city of New Orleans has been particularly hard hit, not only by the hurricane but the subsequent breaches of the levees that put most of the city under 10 feet of water for 5 days, 6 days. Even going into actually today, the 15th day of this disaster, there is still water in the city, which is being pumped out now that the levees have been fixed. But the water is still not completely gone. In addition, in the picture you can see Jefferson Parish. I am going to try to provide an update of that tomorrow. Over here is St. Bernard Parish. Again, I am going to try to provide an update. On this side of the lake is St. Tammany Parish, and I will try to get to that in another day or so. But as Senators come down to view this whole region--not just New Orleans but an area of 90,000 square miles, the size of Great Britain, stretching from the Gulf Coast halfway through Louisiana--one thing to note about New Orleans that is still not quite understood is this river ridge was the high part of the original city. As you know, before we had concrete highways, the highways we built this Nation on were our rivers. So this city, being one of the oldest in the Nation, was built on this river. Amazingly and thankfully, the areas close to the river are not underwater, which is this whole ridge. The French Quarter has stayed pretty much high and dry, even the Lower Garden District. Some of the poorer areas along Tchoupitoulas Street are, thank God, out of the water all along the river ridge. The west bank has been spared where we want to build our Federal city complex. We now know it is a good place because it is a highland area and a good place to build. But this entire city--eastern New Orleans, which is a middle-income neighborhood of White and Black citizens, as well as some poor, very poor; and the Lower Ninth Ward--this is where the Lower Ninth Ward is-- Gentilly, which is a middle-income neighborhood of Black and White citizens; the Bywater neighborhood; Mid-City; Lakeview, which is predominantly White but very integrated in some parts and very high income--is completely underwater. Then, of course, there is the midpart of the city, which is low. So as our Senators come in, they will literally see what looks like Noah's Ark, looks like something of Biblical proportions. Maybe the water will have gone down by Friday. They are pumping it out quite fast. But just to get some sense, the entire city--poor areas and wealthy areas--is underwater, as well as the east bank of Jefferson. St. Bernard was still completely underwater the last time I flew over as well. So our work is complicated by having banks and schools not functioning. Shown in this picture, in each one of these blocks--I know I only have 1 minute left--these are schools, these green dots. All of these schools have 10 feet of water in them, every single green dot, except for the ones along the ridge. These are our courts. Most of our courts are not able to function, city or Federal courts. Our police stations are underwater, which is why some of our police were not able to function as well as they would under normal circumstances. But I am pleased to report, after hearing from Chief Compass today, not one commander of the New Orleans police force left his post, even though 80 percent of them have lost their homes. Some of them have lost their families. As the President said himself, first responders have been victims themselves. So I thought I would present that today, to say thank you to the Senators for organizing the trip. I know the Finance Committee is going to announce in just a few minutes some tax relief opportunities that Senator Grassley and Senator Baucus have worked out. I have worked with them. Senator Vitter and others have worked to put that together. We are very pleased more help is on the way. Mr. President, I appreciate Senator Cochran giving me the opportunity to speak for a few minutes about those points. I will try to get to the floor sometime tomorrow for the same reason. Thank you, Mr. President.

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for approximately 30 minutes, perhaps more.

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I rise today as the senior from Louisiana. But I was not born a Senator. I was born a Louisianian. I am a daughter of the Crescent City, raised by a family of places whose names may seem strange and exotic to people in Washington, DC, and around the Nation places like Plaquemines, Cocodrie, Kenner, Slidell, St. Tammany, St. Bernard and Bogalusa. Most people refer to this region of the country--Mississippi, Louisiana and Alabama--as the energy coast the maritime coast, the gulf coast. The largest city in this area is the city of New Orleans, almost 500,000 people, my hometown. At one time or another every Member of this body has told me their own story about what they love about New Orleans and south Louisiana. For some, it is our music. For others it is Mardi Gras. And yet others, it is that special magic. Each one of you has come away from our State with a special memory, a singular moment that reflects the vibrant culture and personality of our State. And what all of my colleagues have mentioned to me over many years is the special, special spirit of the people. Today, I stand before my colleagues, Democrats and Republicans, to report to the Senate that our people are hurting. Some are despairing and many are still crying. But our spirit is strong and it will be this spirit, along with the best work the Senate has ever done, that we will lift this region and rebuild it. Thousands are dead, and only God knows how many. Hundreds and thousands are homeless, jobless, and without their businesses, large and small. But amidst water, death, destruction, anguish and anger, our spirit is strong. And today, there are thousands of heroes. Those heroes may not be anybody in this Chamber, but I will tell you who the heroes are. They are the leaders of Plaquemines Parish and St. Bernard and Orleans and Jefferson and counties in Mississippi that kept their government functioning even as much of their parish laid under water. In St. Bernard and Plaquemines Parish, that water was 8 to 20 feet high in places. And in New Orleans, the water still stands 6 to 10 feet in some places on the east bank. The only thing out of the water the last time I left was Jackson Square, the Cathedral and the French Quarter. Because the people who settled the city were smart enough to put it on the highest ground they could find, and that high ground has been serving this Nation so well and so magnificently for over 300 years. And it is still there. The heroes are the New Orleans sheriffs who secured and evacuated the city jail, not because they were trying to coddle the prisoners, but because there was a threatened jail break when the system failed and the electricity went off. So the deputies who had lost their own homes and had lost maybe members of their own family, swam through water to get the prisoners out of the prison, not to give them a warm meal but to secure them, so hardened rapists and murderers would not plague the city at its time of greatest distress. Our local leaders never once flinched from their duty to protect their residents and save every man, woman or child, regardless of race or income. It was so desperate that the law enforcement didn't have to triage. The people were triaging themselves. In other words, when the boat drove up, they would put the old people first in the boat. Then they would put the babies in the boat. And all the young, ``healthy'' people would just stay on the roof until the boat could come back. Sometimes it did and in some cases it was too late. I flew back here after one plane that I got on had no fuel. I had to come back with the Commandant of the Coast Guard, and he told me himself yesterday the Coast Guard rescued 32,000 people either by boat or by helicopter. And that is not counting what Wildlife and Fisheries agents did in Louisiana, Mississippi, or Alabama. That is not counting what regular boat owners, once they could wade through water and turn their boats on went down and did themselves, of which the news media did not cover. Because the only thing the news media could focus on was the Convention Center and the Superdome because it made the best picture. We understand that as politicians. They need visuals. I am sorry I couldn't provide any more visuals for them, but there was a lot more going on than just at the Superdome and the Convention Center. Across the State, perhaps the greatest heroes are those we don't know about the concerned and courageous friends who took care of elderly neighbors and ensured their safe evacuation. One brief story: An elderly African-American woman in a shelter came up to me. She was a retired teacher. Her feet were wrapped because she had cut up her feet in this episode. She said, ``Ms. Landrieu, please go back and tell those people in Washington we were fine after the hurricane hit. It wasn't the hurricane that put us under. It was that water that came up from the levee. Don't they know anything up there about the 17th Street Canal? Don't they know anything about the Florida Street Canal?'' I said, ``No, Ma'am, but we're going to tell them more about that.'' She said, ``I stood on my ladder for 2 days. I've never seen water like that. That water kept going up 6 inches and going down 6 inches.'' Do you know what she was experiencing with the water rising and receding? She was feeling the tide of Lake Ponchartrain. She said, ``It kept going up to my nose and going down to my chest.'' The Louisiana State flag depicts a pelican. The pelican takes from herself, her own breast to feed her young. Thousands of Louisianians this week brought that state symbol to life. As brave and bold as my fellow Louisianians have been--and our heart goes out to the people in Mississippi and Alabama--we have been moved beyond measure by the generosity and selflessness of our fellow Americans. New York City itself sent 600 of its finest and bravest police officers and firefighters who were willing to run into a collapsing tower on September 11 knowing what we didn't know, knowing that the radios on their hips were not going to work. But they ran in the building anyway. Those police officers are on their way right now to help the city of New Orleans. And I want to thank the Senators from New York, the delegation from New York, for sending them. Cities, suburbs, and States across the Nation have welcomed our citizens as their own. Senator Lincoln told me yesterday on the phone, ``Mary, send them north. As soon as they cross the borders, I've got them in my arms.'' I thank Senator Lincoln and thank all the Senators that have called. And so, if it is possible that my heart is a little heavy today, I've seen more in the last 2 weeks than in my entire life, and I hope never to witness it again. But while my heart is heavy, my heart today is also lifted with gratitude for my fellow Americans. Of course, already some in Washington are pointing fingers at State and local officials--officials who had little more than just the good sense that God gave them while trying to save everyone that they could, all amidst criticism that they have had to bear from other government officials. In this Chamber alone, every one of you voted the other night to send billions of dollars of aid and assistance. As Harry Reid said earlier today, it will probably cost us a lot more. I am sorry I could not even report to you an accurate estimate of what that might be, but I predict it will be over $200 billion. As I stand here today, Senator Vitter, my partner, remains in the State to continue assessing damage. He has been a steady voice through this, and I want to acknowledge him. This unprecedented catastrophe will require unprecedented support. I am concerned today because our Nation, our national government failed in its greatest responsibility, and that is protecting the lives of Americans. I am not saying the military failed, or the Coast Guard failed and most certainly not the National Guard that was there before the storm hit and is still there. Let me talk a minute about my National Guard. Eight thousand of them have already been to Iraq and back, not once but twice. Three thousand of them are scheduled to come home in September. The Governor and I and Senator Vitter were planning a homecoming for them. They are going to get quite a homecoming because many of them are from south Louisiana, and they don't have houses to come home to. I am here to tell you, that while they may not have houses, they do have a home. We will do the best we can, and General Landreneau is well aware of the situation with his men and women on their way back from Iraq to hold their families tight. We must learn from this experience. If we do not, we will fail again. I have learned more in 2 weeks than I could ever have hoped to learn. I am going to continue to learn, and I ask the Senators to open their hearts and minds and learn. We don't ever want this to happen to any other city or any other place in this country for as long as we are on this Earth. It is not true that Louisiana was not prepared. Surely we could have done a better job in every case, but our evacuation plan--and I want to give credit to the Governor of Mississippi and the Governor of Louisiana--Haley Barbour and Kathleen Blanco, who have been planning since Hurricane Ivan struck a year ago where everyone got stuck on the interstates and the back roads, those two Governors worked out a plan because we share a highway. We don't have a Louisiana highway that goes north and a Mississippi highway. We share our highways, and those Governors made a plan to get everybody out, and it worked as well as something like that can work. We had 2 million people approximately to evacuate in about 2 days. We got a lot of people out. But when the storm hit and the levees broke, our calls went unanswered. In years past, our bills have languished here on the calendar. Money we requested before has been postponed year after year, year after year. I don't even want to talk to my colleagues about coastal erosion. They have heard it from me so many times and from everybody in the Louisiana delegation. They can give that speech better than I can. But I will tell you one thing about our Federal Government. Our Federal Government, whether it was FEMA or this administrator or former administration or us, gambled that the predictions that countless experts voiced time and time again were mere rhetoric. They gambled that no one would notice if Louisiana's critical and vital role in our national economy was threatened. And Washington rolled the dice and Louisiana lost. I cannot stand here today and tell you that if all the money we had asked for, if it would have kept the levees up, but I can tell you that it would have given us more protection than we had. Nor can I say with certainty that full funding for restoring our coasts would have protected those who perished in St. Bernard or in Jefferson or Washington parish or the counties in Mississippi and Alabama. But I can assure you that we would have had at least had a fighting chance. And I intend to find out just how much of a fighting chance we would have had. And I intend to find out why the Federal response, particularly the response of FEMA, was so incompetent and insulting to the people of our States. Already some in Washington are pointing fingers that something is wrong with my state and local officials, and if they would have been a little smarter, a little tougher, a little braver maybe this could have been avoided. This hurricane was a category four. It was one of the worst storms we have seen in this century. The eye of the storm went right over Slidell, LA. Waveland, MS, I understand from Senators Cochran and Lott, is gone. Biloxi is quite damaged, and that is where the storm came. I am sorry we couldn't do anything about that, but I want you to know the people of our States have survived storms before. That was not what put us under. It was the levee systems that broke in New Orleans, a city that invented the gravity pump, a city that helped the Dutch secure the Netherlands and sent our engineering to Venice to keep that city floating. We invented those pumps in south Louisiana. We know about pumps. Harry Reid's seen them himself. We know that the head of the National Hurricane Center said that he briefed the President of the United States on the threat of Katrina in a video conference call the day before she hit land. We know the President said, quote, I don't think anybody anticipated the breach of the levees. Everybody anticipated the breach of the levee, including computer simulations in which this administration participated. Even the clay figurine, Mr. Bill, from ``Saturday Night Live'' anticipated the breach. His creator, a friend of mine, has used him in public service announcements for over 2 years, saying this will be the effect if this happens. How can it be that Mr. Bill was better informed than Mr. Bush? We know the Secretary of Homeland Security pronounced himself, quote, extremely pleased with the response of every element of the Federal Government, even as the cable news networks were broadcasting images telling how he was so tragically wrong. We know that FEMA was unaware that 20,000 Americans were stranded at the Convention Center without food, without water, without security, without clothes, without buses, without toilets and with no way out, and I had to stand there and listen to the news media say these people were lawless. These were mothers and fathers trying to find water for their kids. I might have been a little upset under the circumstances myself. We know that someone has to be accountable. Let me be the first to take any blame that is to be assigned. I will not allow my local officials to be made into scapegoats for others. I will not allow carping from those who were not there to diminish my Governor, my Lieutenant Governor, who happens to be my brother, who spent 3 days in a rescue boat, despite the pleas of his own wife, his sister, his mother and father not to go. He went anyway, and he lifted both the living and the dead out with his own hands. Within 24 hours of the storm hitting the Gulf Coast, Senator Frist called and Senator Reid called. I appreciate so much that they were right there. I tried to reach Thad Cochran; he tried to reach me. I tried to reach Trent Lott. And David Vitter and I were together the whole time, but we couldn't get through on our cell phones. I know they called, and I thank them very much. The record for rebuilding costs will be staggering, but it will pale in comparison to the staggering incompetence of this national government which is responsible. Black people suffered, White people suffered, poor people suffered, and rich people suffered. The whole city is under water on the east bank. The wealthy neighborhoods have 10 feet of water, and the poor neighborhoods have 10 feet of water. Water does not know boundaries. It doesn't know demographics. It doesn't know Democrat or Republican. It doesn't know to stop at rich neighborhoods. It doesn't know just to go to poor neighborhoods. It goes everywhere. And there are wealthy people who are desperate. They don't know how to restart their businesses and keep their employees paid. They have no idea where to put their businesses. Do they leave the state? Do they go to Atlanta? Do they come back? What do they do with their wife and children? Do they take them and put them to school in Atlanta, or do they set their businesses up on the highest ground they can find? The poor people are very disoriented. They have a hard time normally and they are having a real hard time now. I want to say a special word of thanks personally to Ted Koppel for the beautiful piece he did last night, because I haven't been able to watch much television myself, but I got to see his piece. And we need journalists like that. I kept thinking, where's Walter Cronkite, and all I had was Geraldo Rivera. I want to personally thank my family, my parents, my children, who evacuated with me that morning. And the final word is this to the President: Mr. President, we need you. We need your help. The last time I shook the President's hand he looked at me and he said, ``Senator, I appreciate your passion.'' And I said, ``Thank you, Mr. President, because passion is what we need.'' He said, ``I'm sorry you lost your childhood home. I know that's upsetting to you.'' I want to be clear for the record in that piece that you all saw with me with George Stephanopoulos. I was not crying in anguish because the home that I walked out of with my children was gone. I knew it would be gone when I left. It was an anguished cry, a plea to the only one that I thought could hear, and that was God himself, and I know he has heard, because the people of my state have cried out to him for now over a week and a half. But as he gives us the grace and the wisdom to do our job, I hope we can do it well because there are hundreds of thousands of families who are depending on us to do our best work. Today we are going to rebuild New Orleans and the coasts of Mississippi and Alabama because America needs New Orleans right where it is, as well as the parishes of St. Bernard, St. Tammany, Orleans, Jefferson, and Plaquemines, and Hancock, Harrison and Jackson counties in Mississippi; and Baldwin and Mobile counties in Alabama. The gulf coast region of our Nation is simply too important to be left for dead. One of the founding geniuses of our freedom, Thomas Jefferson, understood that. Two hundred years ago he purchased Louisiana--then it stretched from the Mississippi to the Rocky Mountains. And that purchase put us on the road to greatness, from sea to shining sea. It is an energy coast. It was put there for a reason. We did not go there to sunbathe. We went there to set up the Mississippi River, to tame that river, to create channels for this country to grow and prosper. The Higgins boats that saved us from World War II were built in New Orleans. Forty-three thousand people built those boats and headed them out to Normandy. We are going to rebuild our shipping industry, we are going to rebuild our maritime industry, and we are going to rebuild this great gulf coast of the United States. I ask unanimous consent have printed in the Record a letter dated September 7, 2005.

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. I seek 5 minutes under the majority time.

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I rise today to support this Energy bill. I heard my colleague from Washington State speak beautifully and passionately about many of the important aspects of this bill. There are Members who can come to this floor and pick out one or two things they had hoped to get in that did not make it. We had a lot of arguments about this bill, a lot of debate, but overall it is very balanced legislation. It does look to the future, as well as holding on to some of the things in the past that have served us well. It seeks to increase independence of the United States of America so we can produce more energy on our shore, under our control, to not only help boost our economy, make our industries more competitive, but most importantly make this Nation more secure when it comes to international involvements. Americans want lower prices at the pump, but they want to know that this Congress is taking action to make them more secure nationally. By being more self-reliant, we can. Now, yes, we have to open up our shores to liquefied natural gas because our price is going through the roof, and unless we increase supply substantially and rather quickly, that price will remain high. It will put almost every industry in this country at a very serious disadvantage for international competition. As Senator Cantwell stated, it does give new protections for consumers from market manipulation. Senator Dorgan has led the fight with regard to hydrogen, with Senator Bingaman's help. It has opened up new frontiers for that. We have opened up new frontiers for renewable energy sources. As a Senator from an oil-and-gas-producing State, we do need to get beyond petroleum and this bill is helping us to do that. Under Senator Domenici's leadership, we are expanding in an extraordinary way the nuclear industry, which is going to help Japan, France, and others who have been leading the way. It is time for America to get with the program. In my last 1 minute, let me compliment these leaders. We have not had an energy bill for 13 years. For 5 years, we have literally been laboring mightily to get a bill. Senator Domenici, Senator Bingaman, Chairman Barton, and Mr. Dingell, ``the big four'' as they have been called, have worked tirelessly, their staffs have worked tirelessly, and I might say with the patience of Job. This bill is balanced because these two leaders said they were going to build a bill together for the future of our country. As a Senator on that committee, I am so proud of the honesty in which they built this bill, the openness in which they built this bill, and the fact that no deals, to my knowledge, were cut behind closed doors. It was all open and actually on television so people could see the results of this work. I commend that process to the Senate and the whole Congress and thank them for their extraordinary leadership and thank them, too, on behalf of the people of Louisiana and the Gulf Coast States for recognizing the contribution we have made of offshore oil and gas drilling and to get a very robust coastal impact assistance program that is going to mean a great deal to us and to the wetlands of America. I yield back.

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, today I wish to say a few words about one of Louisiana's finest public servants, Mayor Harry Mims of East Hodge. Mayor Mims recently celebrated his 91st birthday and has dedicated the past 37 years to the people of East Hodge as their mayor. First elected in 1968, he has the distinction of being the first and so far only mayor of this community, population of 366. In fact, some say that if it I were not for Harry Mims, there would not be an East Hodge as he was instrumental in the city's founding. Mayor Mims' motto that has made East Hodge thrive is one many small town politicians understand, when there is work to be done, ``You have to do it yourself.'' One of the best examples of his drive to bring to East Hodge some of the amenities and services enjoyed by their neighbors is his unyielding efforts to pave the streets of East Hodge. At one point in recent history, the streets were too narrow for cars to pass. The mayor wrote grant after grant to find the money he needed to manage this small community and as a result of his tenacity, they now have a new town hall, a large water system, two apartment buildings, a fire station, two trucks and a community center. Last Saturday, the Louisiana Chapter of the National Conference of Black Mayors honored Mayor Mims for his years of service to the people of East Hodge and the State of Louisiana. Mayor Mims told them he plans to run for 8 more years, if the Lord will allow him to. It is my fervent prayer that the good Lord allows Mayor Mims to continue to serve the people of East Hodge as he has so diligently for the past 37 years and that he does so in the best of health. As the daughter of a Mayor, I know that the people of East Hodge join me in this prayer. Thank you Mayor Mims, for all that you have done and continue to do for the people you serve.

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry.

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry: Would the Thune amendment that was pending on a review of the BRAC closings that are going on around the country would have been germane after cloture on the Defense bill?

Ms. LANDRIEU. I will ask specifically by number if the clerk will give me the Thune amendment on the postponement of BRAC. We had several, but there was one on postponement. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I rise today to say a few words on the impact of Special Olympics. As many of you know, individuals with intellectual disability face an array of challenges in their efforts to secure opportunities to lead quality lives. These challenges affect every aspect of their lives, including their ability to participate in a meaningful way in their communities and society at large. The Special Olympics were created to address the use of sports as a vehicle for demonstrating the dignity and capability individuals with intellectual disability can achieve. Over the 37 years of Special Olympics history, there is extensive documentation of competition waged, medals won, and barriers overcome around the world. Athletes, families, coaches, volunteers, and spectators have witnessed many small and large miracles through Special Olympics. One such miracle is Rose Marie Garrett of Baton Rouge, a three-time participant in Special Olympics World games who in 2001 was named Louisiana's Special Olympian of the Year. At age 49, Rose Marie was diagnosed with Dandy-Walker syndrome, a congenital brain malformation that impairs motor development due to a blockage of spinal fluid to the brain. Despite her lifetime of struggle with the physical problems caused by Dandy-Walker syndrome, Rose Marie was able to rise above this barrier and take charge of her life. Not only did she successfully participate in the Special Olympics, but did so while holding a job at the YMCA. However, Rose Marie did not stop her lifetime of hard work with her achievements in the Special Olympics. She has become a strong advocate for this valuable program, and teaches bowling to children, disabled and non-disabled alike. Her message to those working to overcome difficult hurdles is ``Work hard and go for your goal. If at first you don't succeed, try, try again. Never give up. I didn't. Rose Marie is just one of the many success stories in the Special Olympics. In 2004, they commissioned a study of the impact of Special Olympics programs on the lives of its athletes in the United States. This study included survey research of current and former athletes, coaches, and family members from a representative sample of U.S. athletes and coaches. It is the most comprehensive assessment to date of the impact of the Special Olympics experience on the lives of people with intellectual disabilities. In the Special Olympics Impact Study and the Special Olympics Athlete Participation Survey, we see that Special Olympics has enabled athletes to not only train for sporting events, but also train for life. Through their voices, U.S. Special Olympics athletes have provided Special Olympics with a very positive report card on the impact that Special Olympics has on their lives. It is my hope that every person faced with intellectual disabilities will have the opportunity some time in their life to participate in the Special Olympics. As exemplified by Rose Marie's experience, overcoming athletic challenges can lead to a successful life. Special Olympics is a program that supports an inclusive and productive society and I look forward to watching what all these individuals will accomplish in the future.

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I rise today to say just a few words on the resolution I have submitted concerning dyspraxia, a developmental disorder that affects 1 in 20 American children each year. My intent is to increase the public's awareness of this disability and to encourage each of my colleagues to do the same. Let me share a few facts with you. Dyspraxia is caused by the malformation of the neurons of the brain, resulting in the inability of one's senses to respond efficiently to outside stimuli. It may manifest itself in various areas, such as movement, language, perception, and thought, causing difficulty in both work and play. One in twenty children suffers from this disorder. Seventy percent of those affected are male, and in children suffering from extreme emotional and behavioral difficulties, the incidence is likely to be more than 50 percent. Dyspraxic children fail to achieve the expected levels of development. Due to difficulties, these kids are often shunned from their peer groups because they do not fit in. There is no cure for dyspraxia, but the earlier a child is diagnosed the greater the chance of developmental maturation. However, many times these children are dismissed as ``clumsy'' and ``slow'' and are never given a chance to improve, finding it hard to succeed under such harsh speculations. The public's unawareness of dyspraxia is the chief reason that children and young adults go undiagnosed, unable to recognize a cause for their struggles. More than 50 percent of our educators are unaware that this disability even exists. With such alarming statistics, the number of children recognized cannot be expected to increase. One of my former interns has a younger brother that suffers from this disorder. Borden Wilson is actually a success story. At age 4, Borden's parents noted that he was not able to perform tasks appropriate for his age. His speaking ability was limited, even with encouragement. After going through a battery of tests performed by various specialists, the problem was identified as dyspraxia. While working with speech and occupational therapists, Borden's parents became familiar with techniques geared to improve his motor capabilities. Though advancements were seen, Borden still lagged behind his peers and low self-esteem soon set in. Borden is 17 years old now and through the hard work of teachers, therapists, and family, he has overcome many of his problems and is successful in both school and extracurricular activities. I am pleased to announce that Borden now maintains a 4.5 grade point average, has received his school's Scholar Athlete Award for the last 2 years, and placed in the 97th percentile on his California Achievement Test. Additionally, he has received All-District honors in both football and track. Borden's superior achievements should serve as our inspiration to promote awareness of dyspraxia. With proper diagnosis and treatment, all of these children can experience the same level of success that Borden has been able to achieve. I hope that my colleagues will come together in support of this important legislation to raise consciousness of this disability.

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I rise today to commemorate the 15th anniversary of the Americans with Disabilities Act. On this day in 1990, President George H.W. Bush signed this monumental piece of legislation into law guaranteeing equal opportunity for people with disabilities in public accommodations, commercial facilities, employment, transportation, State and local government services, and telecommunications. One out of every five Americans today suffers from a disability. In the national workforce, there are currently 4 million men and 3\1/2\ million women with disabilities employed. We have made noteworthy strides in granting equal rights to those with disabilities. However, we still have tremendous work to do to decrease the 70 percent unemployment rate for people with significant disabilities. In my own State of Louisiana, 710,000 people over the age of 5 were reported to have a disability. This means that 14.8 percent of the population in Louisiana suffers from some form of disability. There are thousands of stories that capture the significance of this measure to people around this country, but I want to highlight just one. Shirley Adams is a constituent of mine, and she typifies the impact that the ADA can have on a person's life. Shirley's road to inclusion into her community was long and filled with obstacles. She is a woman with many labels--profound mental retardation, visual impairment, a history of seizures, a rare bone ailment, and nonverbal. However, with great determination and courage, Shirley has established a life full of meaning surrounded by people who love and care for her. She would have it no other way. At age 3, Shirley moved to Pinecrest Developmental Center in central Louisiana. She received care while living at Pinecrest, but she never learned to take care of herself. In 1997, at age 31, Shirley received an MR/DD waiver which enabled her to move from Pinecrest into her own apartment in the New Orleans area where she continues to receive 24- hour support. Shirley is now able to attend church where she has made lifelong friends. In addition, she volunteers at another church where she assists staff in passing out lunches to children enrolled in vacation Bible study, sending mail out to parishioners, and welcoming people to the services each Sunday. She helps her neighborhood association by watering the flowers to the entrance to her apartment complex on a regular basis. Living on her own has enabled Shirley to travel, which is something that she was unable to do while living in an institution. She loves to vacation in Biloxi and on the beaches of Florida. She is constantly looking for new places to go and for new adventures. If Shirley has it her way, she will continue to soak up the Sun on the gulf coast and explore new frontiers for years to come. In sum, Shirley is known and loved by hundreds in her community now. She has a sense of belonging and security that she has never experienced before. Her life is full of people who care for her, and she continues to make wonderful progress in living in her own home to this day. Shirley Adams is clearly an inspiration to anyone who wants to explore their surroundings and lead a very happy life surrounded by loved ones in their community. Shirley and thousands of others in Louisiana now live a full and complete life. The ADA gives people with disabilities such as Shirley a vehicle to request and secure the accommodations they need for both physical and programmatic access to life in Louisiana. In 1990, when the ADA was passed, Louisiana spent nothing on home and community-based services for people with disabilities such as Shirley. In 2003 alone, Louisiana spent $157,447,900. These services, inspired by the spirit of equality established by the ADA, allow thousands of Louisiana's citizens with disabilities the opportunity to live their lives as contributing, participating members of our society. In addition, there are now 3,170 aging or elderly individuals receiving home and community-based services that allow them to remain in their own homes. The ADA impacts the daily lives of my constituents living with disabilities and for that reason I want to applaud the honorable work being done due to the enactment of this legislation while not losing sight of the fact that we must work harder to help all disabled persons have equal civil rights and the job opportunities they deserve.

Ms. LANDRIEU

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

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 1245. I understand there will be a request to set the vote at 2 o'clock on the amendment.

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, amendment 1245 is offered on behalf of myself, Senator Craig, and others to focus some time and discussion on the issue of family, of stability, of permanency for children around the world. I couldn't agree more with the Senator from Tennessee when he says this underlying bill, the bill that funds all of our foreign operations, assistance to many countries throughout the world, countries that are developing, countries that are well established, that share our values, that one of the most critical components of this underlying bill is to advance American values around the world. We know not every action we take is perfect. We know not every thought we have is exactly right. But Americans believe we work hard at establishing good values. We know we are not perfect, but we try to get better and better each decade and each century. I could not agree more with the Senator from Tennessee when he says this bill in particular is a bill that helps us to advance our values around the world. One of the values all Americans believe in is the value of family, the importance of family, the importance of the principle that children should in fact be raised in families. Children don't raise themselves. Governments don't raise children; parents raise children. And sometimes one responsible parent raises a child. That is the way it has been. That is the way we like to see it. It is the way we want to promote it here at home and abroad. Senator Craig and I offer this amendment with others to express the sense of Congress regarding the use of the funds in this bill, which are substantial in section 3, for orphans and displaced and abandoned children. This amendment simply says our money in this bill should be laid down by USAID. We are not earmarking any money. We are not adding any money. We are not spending any additional money, just the money that is in this bill, that Members have said we want to send out to countries, should recognize the principles of The Hague Convention on Protection of Children and Co-Operation in Respect of Intercountry Adoption, should recognize the principle that children should stay with the families to which they are born. Our aid, whether it is for economic development or for education or health, should recognize the dignity and respect of each individual family unit. Try to keep children who are born to a family connected to that family. Sometimes we know that doesn't happen or, unfortunately, it can't happen. War, disease, famine, violence separate children from their natural parents. When that happens, it is the principles of the United States, the values of the United States that we proudly share with the world to say that child who is orphaned should not be left alone to raise themselves. That child should be placed with a loving, caring, responsible relative as quickly as possible, someone in the extended family. It could be the grandmother, grandfather, responsible aunt or uncle, perhaps an older sibling, not 12 years old, not 13 years old, but a 20- year-old or a 30-year-old, to raise that child and then that family unit continues. When there is no a responsible adult in that family, then our principles say we should then look for some other family, perhaps a neighbor, another family in the community, a friend of the family to take that child or those children in and raise them and try to instill good values and security and happiness for that child's harmonious development. If there is no family to be found within the neighborhood, the village, the community, then we should, as a human family, find some family in the world to take in that child. It is the miracle of adoption that is occurring all over this country and all over the world. My husband and I have adopted children. We are very proud of our wonderful children. Many Members of Congress have added to their families or created their families through adoption. It is becoming something that Americans understand and believe to be important. There should not be any orphaned children, any waiting children. They are just unfound families, and we need to do a better job of connecting children who need homes with loving parents who will give them that support. I come to this issue not just from a personal perspective but even before we went through this miracle of adoption ourselves, I understood this to be the truth. Children can't raise themselves. I was raised in a home, the eldest of nine children, with two loving parents. Many of us had wonderful experiences as we were growing up. We understand the value of keeping children protected and nurtured in the family setting. We come to this floor all the time trying to stop child trafficking, stop child abuse, mental illness, promote special education. The best way to stop some of that is to connect children with responsible adults who will raise them. It saves the taxpayers a lot of money, saves a lot of pain, saves a lot of anguish. That is what Americans, whether they are Republican, Independent, or Democrat, believe in. That is one thing I am confident of and need no poll to tell me. I am a little surprised that when we laid down this amendment, we thought it would be accepted without any discussion, but there evidently is some hesitation. There is some sense that USAID doesn't agree with that. I am interested. If some Senator would like to explain USAID's position that they don't think families are important, I think the Congress would love to hear that. It would be quite a surprise to those of us who are appropriators who fund USAID and actually believe in so much of what they are doing, that they have a problem with an amendment that simply says children belong in families. That is all this amendment says. Last year Americans adopted 120,000 children. Twenty thousand children came from many countries around the world to find a happy home here in America. One hundred thousand children were adopted, half of them out of our own foster care system which we recognize has some strengths but some weaknesses. We are working on that. We admit our long-term foster care has kept children in limbo for far too long. It has been a barrier, sometimes, to appropriate reunification. It most certainly has been a barrier to adoption. Senators such as Senators Rockefeller, DeWine, Clinton, and others have spent many years working to reform that system. We are making a lot of headway. We are proud of it. But we had over 50,000 children adopted out of foster care. Two children visited my office yesterday. They were 12 and 10, precious little boys from Louisiana. They said: Senator, we want you to meet our new mom. We were just adopted. I asked the mom: Could I please speak to the children privately for a few moments? She said: Fine. So I had the little children in my office. I said: You don't have to tell me any of the details. I know it has been difficult. I just want to know, are you OK, are you happy? They said: Senator, we are very happy with our new mom. She was our foster mom for a number of years. She is doing her best. Our parents just haven't been around. I didn't want to go into too much detail with the children. But their little eyes were so hopeful. I walked out and I said: Congratulations. These two children now have a loving adult mother who is going to raise them and give them a future that they didn't have in the first years of their life. I thank the Senators for all of their work and what they have done in that regard. We are making a lot of progress in our Nation. So this amendment basically recognizes that and says that we believe we should do everything we can to keep children in the family to which they are born. But when that separation happens, through all the things that I said about what can cause it, we need then to establish a permanent plan for children that tries to place them in another family as quickly as possible. Domestic adoption first. But if there are no families willing to adopt in that community or country, then intercountry adoption into the human family becomes very important before orphanages, institutions, et cetera. So that is what this amendment does. It lifts our values that the Senator from Tennessee spoke about, lifts language from laws we have already passed in overwhelming numbers on this Senate floor, and it says in this amendment that all of the money in section 3 should recognize these principles. There are over 54 countries in the world that have basically signed and ratified and are in the process of implementing these principles that are in the Landrieu-Craig amendment. This amendment says that sometimes temporary refugee camps are necessary, where children are temporarily separated because of war. But when the permanency plans begin to be made, let's make sure we put domestic adoption and intercountry adoption before long-term institutional care or, for that matter, letting children out on the streets to raise themselves. It is very clear. So I say, again, that I hope we can get a strong, bipartisan vote on this amendment. I am sorry that there has been any difficulty. It was not meant to be that way. But I felt this issue had to be clarified in the bill because I was hearing too much at hearings, seeing too many things in letters that were passed on some of these issues that it gave me pause to think, I wonder if the USAID position is truly reflecting the position of the Congress, of the current Bush administration, of the State Department, which is the stated policy in support of the idea that children belong in families. So I am hoping that with the cosponsors we have on this amendment we will get a strong vote affirming that intercountry adoption may offer advantages of a permanent family to a child or children for whom a family cannot be found in the child's home country. Let me state again: Affirms that intercountry adoption may offer advantages of a permanent family to a child for whom a family cannot be found in the child's state of origin. That seems to be controversial language. I cannot see it. No. 4: Affirms that long-term foster care or institutionalization are not permanent options and should, therefore, only be used when no other permanent option is available. That is clear. We want to try to find a child a home, a real family. And there are 40 million orphans in the world, so this is not an easy task. But it is doable if we all work at it. If we cannot find children a home, if we have worked hard to look for a home for somebody that would take them in their own country, and we look internationally and try to find a family that would take them in, and we cannot find that, then, of course, we can have long-term institutions and foster care as the last and final option. Please, let's give children a chance. In New Orleans right now--I had pictures sent to me--14 little orphans from Russia, between the ages of 5 and 12, through a program that many of us support, came over to the United States and spent 6 weeks in New Orleans. You know what the great news is? Yesterday, 12 of those 14 children are going to find permanent homes here. These children are older, but they are not damaged goods. Just because they are not little 3-month-old infants or 6- month-old infants, they have a bright future. God gave them a lot of talent. They are stuck in an orphanage, where they have very little hope and opportunity. At the age of 15, they will be turned out on the street to fend for themselves. If you want to talk about child prostitution or trafficking or what happens to children when they leave an orphanage at age 15, with no parents, no means of support, and no education--this amendment cuts down on child trafficking. This amendment cuts down on child exploitation. This amendment cuts down on child prostitution. If you can connect a child to an adult that will protect a child, that is the parents' primary job, protecting our children, and most parents do that very well. For me to stand on the Senate floor and have to argue this to the agency that is sending out money around the world because they think this is not what other cultures are about--I am not an expert. I am a sociology major, but I never read where a family is not the primary building block of the community. If anybody knows of any other culture that doesn't recognize the family, let me know because in all of my reading, I have never read that anywhere. In every culture, family is important. We might describe it a little differently, and we may have different views about what a family looks like, which is not the subject of this amendment, but I don't know any culture anywhere in the world that doesn't think family is important. So when USAID stands there and tells me something such as, it is not really in other cultures that this is important, I say, hogwash. Families are important. We define them differently. We respect the different views of how families come together. But in every culture adults raise children, and that is all this amendment says. It says, as a last resort, when you cannot find a family for a child--when you have tried and cannot find a family--then go ahead and build your orphanages, your institutions, and I hope that they will build them in a way and staff them in a way that these children know that, despite the fact they don't have a mother, father or someone to love them, they can be raised with a skill so that they can find their way. It is difficult when you are on your own. Children have done it before, and they will do it again. But for heaven's sake, can we try to find them a family? Senator Craig and I offered this amendment. We cochair the commission on adoption. We have 180 Members of Congress who feel very strongly about this issue. I don't think we should be debating it, but for some reason we are. Our Members are Republicans and Democrats. None of our Members can understand why we are having this discussion, but here we are. So this amendment simply, again, reaffirms its commitment to the founding principles of the Hague convention on the protection of children, recognizing that each country should take, as a matter of priority, every appropriate measure to enable a child to remain in the care of the child's family of origin. But when that is not possible, they should strive to place the child in a permanent and loving home through adoption. It affirms that intercountry adoption may offer the advantage of a permanent family to a child for whom a family cannot be found in the child's country. It affirms that long-term foster care or institutionalization are not permanent options and should, therefore, only be used when no other permanent option is available. It recognizes that programs that protect and support families can reduce the abandonment and exploitation of children. I congratulate President Bush and his administration for agreeing to a breakthrough amendment with the country of Vietnam recently to open up again international adoption. There were some corruption issues. There was some lack of transparency in the process. There was some concern that this was not operating as smoothly as it should. So it was temporarily suspended. But because of the good work of the President and the President's administration, that was basically recreated. I have a copy of the agreement. When an agency such as USAID tells me; ``We like what you are saying, but it is not our policy,'' I am confused because the President of the United States signed an agreement with Vietnam that has the same language of The Hague, in the first paragraph of this document: Agreement between the United States and the Socialist Republic of Vietnam. Clause 1, clause 2, and clause 3 are exactly this amendment. Forty-one Members of the Senate and the Congress signed a letter to the President of Romania outlining this exact principle. So the 41 Members who signed this letter, and myself, are very confused as to why this amendment is a problem. Again, I offered it to clarify. This will be a great clarification to USAID that, unequivocally, the Members of this body and the House of Representatives, when this is passed, say that we value families; we think children should be in families; we want to do everything we can to connect children to families; we think they should stay in the families to which they are were born but, if not, find one close to home and, if not, someplace in the human family for them. End of story. If that all fails, go ahead and build your orphanages and institutions. I don't know of anybody who grew up in an orphanage that liked it--not one person. I don't know anybody alive that ever told me that they had a happy time growing up in an orphanage. That is not a value that Americans believe in. I have had lots of people tell me they were so happy to grow up in a loving family. I have had people cry to me and say: I spent time in an orphanage my whole life. Nobody ever came for me, Senator. I have had people tell me that. I have never had anybody say to me how happy they were to grow up in a refugee camp or an orphanage. I am not spending a penny in this bill to promote the idea that children could be happy being raised in an orphanage when one caregiver comes in for 300 children. I have been in a lot of these orphanages. Some of our other members have been also. I have traveled all over the world to some of these orphanage. I cannot describe the horrors of what I have seen. I cannot sit here on the floor of the Senate and let this go through being a little unclear. This is very clear to me, and it should be very clear to the Members of this body. I know we are going to vote at 2 o'clock. I appreciate my colleagues giving me this time to express myself. I obviously feel strongly about it. Many Senators and House Members feel strongly about this. We are doing this here in the United States. This is our policy. So we need to promote, as Senator Frist said, our values--not force them, but promote them. Nothing is being forced here. We are promoting and saying, these are our values. We believe family is important. We are giving plenty of room in this amendment. We understand that there might be some contingency plans that have to be made, but let's try to connect children to families. I think it is the least we can do. I wanted to clarify that this is a value of the people of the United States of America. I yield the floor and reserve the remainder of my time. I suggest the absence of a quorum

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

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I would like to take this opportunity to add just a few more items for the record on the subject about which I was just speaking, which is the Landrieu-Craig amendment on international adoption, domestic adoption, and family preservation. One of the items that got my attention which prompted the offering of this amendment was a National Public Radio commentary, which I want to submit for the Record, after the tsunami disaster. I had the opportunity to visit the region affected with the Senator from Tennessee. I spent 3 days on the ground reviewing the damage in Sri Lanka and all over the devastated area. This is what prompted this amendment, when we were focused on the issue of these children having been displaced. Of course, we remember the devastation that occurred. Children were tragically separated from their families. There was great interest in the children who might have been orphaned in that disaster and whether they could find a home elsewhere. There was a great coalition of people in the United States and around the world who felt strongly about that. We began working on it and encouraging that children who had been orphaned, whose parents had been swept out to sea, the children who survived, of trying to place them with relatives, along the lines of what I have been speaking. Then there was this NPR commentary, and I would like to read a paragraph of it into the Record: Jaco spends his days-- This is a UNICEF worker funded in part by USAID-- walking through refugee camps, trying to find orphans. He's not from Aceh; he's a social worker from nearby Medan who came here as part of-- The Government's efforts at a child welfare program that is working with UNICEF to care for children who have lost their parents. This worker is walking through this refugee camp, and he finds an orphan, according to NPR, and he finds the orphan's aunt. He says to the aunt: We would like to take this child to one of the Islamic boarding schools. The aunt says: No, I would like to help raise this child. The worker then is in a discussion trying to convince the aunt to let the orphan be raised in a boarding school. This is what started this whole amendment. I know one cannot believe everything one reads in the newspapers, and one cannot believe everything one hears on the radio, but when we investigated this and looked into it, we found that this, in fact, was a pattern that was occurring; that our money was being used to fund workers who, instead of being so happy that they found an aunt for this child and saying, ``We have a program that can help; we know it is difficult; you are probably raising three or four other children; we are appreciative that you are taking in this orphan,'' our money was being used to promote something completely contrary to our views and policies, which is: Oh, don't worry, let the government take this child and raise it in a boarding school. Whether it was a Christian boarding school, Islamic boarding school, Muslim boarding school, the Christian, Muslim, or Islamic boarding schools are not the same as being raised in a Christian, Muslim, Islamic family. That is the point. What happens is, if we don't make this clear, it will end up that money is going to support orphanages and discouraging the reunification of orphans with their families. I ask unanimous consent to print in the Record this commentary by National Public Radio which has prompted this whole initiative, if anyone has questions about it.

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, yesterday, there were several amendments voted on and, unfortunately, I was not here yesterday. I was attending a funeral of one of our State officials who unexpectedly passed away. Had I been here, I would have voted with my colleagues in rejecting the Coburn-Boxer amendment to the fiscal year 2006 State and Foreign Operations appropriations bill, which is the bill about which I am speaking. Mr. President, while the vote on this amendment was taking place, as I said, I was returning from the funeral of my dear friend and Louisiana Secretary of State, the Honorable Fox McKeithen. Had I been here, I would have voted with my colleagues in rejecting the Coburn- Boxer amendment to the fiscal year 2006 State and Foreign Operations appropriations bill. In preparation for this vote, I cosigned a letter, along with my colleagues Senators Feinstein, Santorum, and Specter requesting that Senators vote against the amendment. I have concluded this amendment would derail something that would benefit both China and the United States at a critical time in our two nations' history. In this, the most important bilateral relationship of the 21st century, it is crucial that both countries continue to work in cooperation with one another. The Shaw Group-Westinghouse consortium is the only American team bidding on a contract to construct four advanced-designed nuclear powerplants in China. This deal has the full support of the U.S. Department of Energy which has authorized that the Shaw Group and Westinghouse Consortium work in the People's Republic of China, PRC. The National Nuclear Security Administration, NNSA, has thoroughly reviewed the proposal and determined that concerns over national security are negligible. Nuclear safety and technology transfer are key national security issues that nobody takes lightly. After much deliberation and consideration of these sensitive issues, it is clear that this deal is good for both the United States and China. The AP1000 advanced design nuclear reactor is one of the safest nuclear reactors in the world and is on the cutting edge of nuclear technological innovation. This innovation will yield significant economic and environmental benefits. This proposal would support a significant number of high value U.S. export oriented jobs in the manufacturing and engineering services areas. At a time when Americans are concerned about their jobs, we should demonstrate through initiatives such as this that we have their economic best interests at heart. The Shaw-Westinghouse Consortium benefits small businesses by virtue of the many U.S. subcontractors that will be used during the implementation phase of this contract. The Consortium's bid would create or sustain more than 5,000 high- tech U.S. jobs, and provide ongoing jobs for many years to come, not just for the China project, but for sales in the United States and other global markets This proposal seeks to address not only jobs, but the tremendous trade imbalance between the United States and China. The U.S. Export-Import Bank exists to provide financing of last resort to assist exporters in order to create jobs and export growth for the U.S. economy. This deal would be consistent with the 1985 Agreement for Cooperation Between the Government of the United States of America and the Government of the People's Republic of China Concerning Peaceful Uses of Nuclear Energy. To limit the purchasing of U.S. civilian nuclear energy technology to the Chinese would be disastrous to our bilateral relations at a time when we must engage the Chinese and to cloak this proposal in anti- Chinese rhetoric is doing a disservice to the American people. These exports to China will most assuredly yield significant benefits to companies and workers in the United States and assist in the promotion of the safe, reliable, and efficient growth of nuclear power in China, something which will be essential to both countries. The chief competitor is AREVA, a French company. AREVA will have the full support of the French equivalent of the Export-Import Bank, COFACE. If this amendment is passed it will not punish China, but reward the French and other European economies and exporters who will clearly prevail should the Shaw/Westinghouse consortium be denied competitive financing. This is precisely the sort of investment our country should make to ensure that we continue to create and sustain high-tech industrial jobs in the United States and the continued growth of the nuclear power industry, which will assist as we seek more self-reliance in the energy sector of the economy. In no way will the taxpayers be fleeced by this project. The loans associated with the Chinese nuclear power project are made to Chinese customers and are guaranteed by the Government of China. The taxpayers are not subsidizing these loans and are not at risk according to major credit agencies who evaluate sovereign risk. In addition, the Export-Import Bank of the United States charges an exposure fee commensurate to the credit risk being taken. For over a half century the Ex-Im Bank has supported equipment and services for nuclear power projects in China. If we do not proceed with caution, the threats of anti-Chinese sentiment will tarnish a productive bilateral dialog for every issue that emerges with China. The Shaw Group-Westinghouse Consortium has a sterling reputation and a distinct advantage with its cutting edge technology. If this deal would have been thwarted in the Senate, it is the United States that would have been punished, not the Chinese. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, under the previous order, we are now about ready to have the vote on the Landrieu amendment. I ask unanimous consent for 2 minutes to close.

Ms. LANDRIEU. Madam President, I have a modification to my amendment. It is at the desk. It is a technical modification.