Mary Landrieu

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I rise today to commemorate the 140th anniversary on this upcoming Sunday of Major General Gordon Granger and his Union soldiers' arrival in Galveston, TX. On that day in 1865, these troops brought with them the news that the war had ended and that the enslaved peoples were henceforth free. Since its origin in 1865, the observance of June 19 as African American Emancipation Day, or Juneteenth, is the oldest known celebration of slavery's end. It took two and a half years from the time that President Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation went into effect for the news of freedom to arrive in Texas. That it took 2 years for African Americans to learn that the war was over, and that they were now free seems absurd in our information age. Yet, despite the transformation made in our society by computers, networks and the internet, there are still gaps in the information accessible to African Americans around this country. The bill that I introduce today attempts to address one of them. Mr. President, it is a very human instinct for people to want to understand who they are from the lense of who are their ancestors and where they are from. The very commercially successful, and critically acclaimed television series ``Roots'' was a seminal event in this nation's interest in genealogy. Yet while people across the nation were inspired by Alex Haley's tale to understand their own family history, African Americans trying to do the same confronted unique challenges. Unfortunately, African Americans who attempt to trace their genealogy encounter huge hurdles in reclaiming the usual documentary history that allows most Americans to piece together their heritage. For this reason, I am proposing the Servitude and Emancipation Archival Research Clearing House, SEARCH, Act of 2005. This bill establishes a national database within the National Archives and Records Administration, NARA, housing various documents that would assist those in search of a history that, because of slavery, is almost impossible to find in the most ordinary registers and census records. Traditionally, someone researching their genealogy would try looking up wills and land deeds; however, enslaved African Americans were prohibited from owning property. In fact, African Americans, must frequently rely on the records of slave owners--most of which are in private hands--in hope that they had kept records containing birth and death information. Even if records do exist, many African Americans in the past did not have formal last names, thus compounding the difficulty of tracing their lives. The omission of surnames also precludes use of the most popular and major source of genealogical research, the United States Census. Furthermore, letters, diaries, and other first-person records used by most genealogical researchers are scarcely available for slaves, owing to the fact that they could not legally learn to read or write. We may think that after 1865, African Americans could begin using traditional genealogical records like voter registrations and school records. However, African Americans did not immediately begin to participate in many of the privileges of citizenship, including voting and attending school. Discrimination meant that African Americans were barred from sitting on juries or owning businesses. Segregation meant segregated neighborhoods, schools, churches, clubs, and fraternal organizations, and thus segregated societies maintained segregated records. For example, some telephone directories in South Carolina did not include African Americans in the regular alphabetical listing, but rather at the end of the book. An African American must maneuver these distinctive nuances in order to conduct proper genealogical research. In my own State of Louisiana, descendants of the 9th Cavalry Regiment and 25th Infantry Regiment, known as the Buffalo Soldiers, would have to know to look in the index of United States Colored Troops since there is no mention of them in the index of State Military Regiments. Abraham Lincoln said, ``A man who cares nothing about his past can care little about his future.'' By providing $5 million for the National Historical Publications and Records Commission to establish and maintain a national database, the SEARCH Act has the potential to significantly reduce the time and painstaking efforts of those African Americans who truly care about their American past to contribute to the American future. This bill also seeks to authorize $5 million for States, colleges, and universities to preserve, catalogue, and index records locally. In a democracy, records matter. The mission of NARA is to ensure that anyone can have access to the records that matter to them. The SEARCH Act of 2005 seeks to fulfill that mission by helping African Americans navigate genealogical research sources and negotiate the unique challenges that confront them in this process. No longer should any American have to wait to learn information, which in itself can offer such freedom. I hope my colleagues will join me in celebrating the 140th anniversary of Juneteenth by passing this measure. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I rise today to commemorate the 140th anniversary on this upcoming Sunday of Major General Gordon Granger and his Union soldiers' arrival in Galveston, TX. On that day in 1865, these troops brought with them the news that the war had ended and that the enslaved peoples were henceforth free. Since its origin in 1865, the observance of June 19 as African American Emancipation Day, or Juneteenth, is the oldest known celebration of slavery's end. It took two and a half years from the time that President Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation went into effect for the news of freedom to arrive in Texas. That it took 2 years for African Americans to learn that the war was over, and that they were now free seems absurd in our information age. Yet, despite the transformation made in our society by computers, networks and the internet, there are still gaps in the information accessible to African Americans around this country. The bill that I introduce today attempts to address one of them. Mr. President, it is a very human instinct for people to want to understand who they are from the lense of who are their ancestors and where they are from. The very commercially successful, and critically acclaimed television series ``Roots'' was a seminal event in this nation's interest in genealogy. Yet while people across the nation were inspired by Alex Haley's tale to understand their own family history, African Americans trying to do the same confronted unique challenges. Unfortunately, African Americans who attempt to trace their genealogy encounter huge hurdles in reclaiming the usual documentary history that allows most Americans to piece together their heritage. For this reason, I am proposing the Servitude and Emancipation Archival Research Clearing House, SEARCH, Act of 2005. This bill establishes a national database within the National Archives and Records Administration, NARA, housing various documents that would assist those in search of a history that, because of slavery, is almost impossible to find in the most ordinary registers and census records. Traditionally, someone researching their genealogy would try looking up wills and land deeds; however, enslaved African Americans were prohibited from owning property. In fact, African Americans, must frequently rely on the records of slave owners--most of which are in private hands--in hope that they had kept records containing birth and death information. Even if records do exist, many African Americans in the past did not have formal last names, thus compounding the difficulty of tracing their lives. The omission of surnames also precludes use of the most popular and major source of genealogical research, the United States Census. Furthermore, letters, diaries, and other first-person records used by most genealogical researchers are scarcely available for slaves, owing to the fact that they could not legally learn to read or write. We may think that after 1865, African Americans could begin using traditional genealogical records like voter registrations and school records. However, African Americans did not immediately begin to participate in many of the privileges of citizenship, including voting and attending school. Discrimination meant that African Americans were barred from sitting on juries or owning businesses. Segregation meant segregated neighborhoods, schools, churches, clubs, and fraternal organizations, and thus segregated societies maintained segregated records. For example, some telephone directories in South Carolina did not include African Americans in the regular alphabetical listing, but rather at the end of the book. An African American must maneuver these distinctive nuances in order to conduct proper genealogical research. In my own State of Louisiana, descendants of the 9th Cavalry Regiment and 25th Infantry Regiment, known as the Buffalo Soldiers, would have to know to look in the index of United States Colored Troops since there is no mention of them in the index of State Military Regiments. Abraham Lincoln said, ``A man who cares nothing about his past can care little about his future.'' By providing $5 million for the National Historical Publications and Records Commission to establish and maintain a national database, the SEARCH Act has the potential to significantly reduce the time and painstaking efforts of those African Americans who truly care about their American past to contribute to the American future. This bill also seeks to authorize $5 million for States, colleges, and universities to preserve, catalogue, and index records locally. In a democracy, records matter. The mission of NARA is to ensure that anyone can have access to the records that matter to them. The SEARCH Act of 2005 seeks to fulfill that mission by helping African Americans navigate genealogical research sources and negotiate the unique challenges that confront them in this process. No longer should any American have to wait to learn information, which in itself can offer such freedom. I hope my colleagues will join me in celebrating the 140th anniversary of Juneteenth by passing this measure. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the clerk proceed with the reading of the resolution.

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I am here tonight on behalf of my colleague from Virginia, Senator Allen, and all of our colleagues who participated in the debate to close out this evening on this very important and historic resolution, S. Res. 39, which has apologized formally, officially, and with great sincerity to the thousands of victims of lynching and to their descendants. It was, as was stated most eloquently and passionately on this floor, a very dark chapter, indeed, in American history, but a real mark against this Senate that, despite the repeated pleas of the victims and their families, thousands of Americans, the House of Representatives, and seven Presidents, of both parties, the Senate failed to act. Tonight the Senate has admitted its mistake and has taken a very positive step in admitting failure so that we can have a brighter future. I know that many of these victims and their families-- ``survivors'' is really a better word--have triumphed against this evil. Many were African Americans, but they were people of all different races and religious backgrounds. Many of them were here tonight and have been with us all day today. I know their names are part of the record, but again they were James Cameron, 91 years old, a victim of lynching who miraculously survived to tell his story; Doria Johnson, the great-granddaughter of Anthony Crawford--Grandpa Crawford, as he has been called--from Abbeville, SC-- what a story that family has to tell. Dan Distel, the great-grandson of Ida Wells. What a brave and historic journalist she was. In the face of literally constant threats to her life, she continued to write. What a role model for journalists everywhere of the courage of what it really takes to tell a story. And she did it. We had many other family members and history professors with us today. There was a tremendous effort that enabled us to get to the floor tonight. As I wrap up, I want to again thank the staff. I thank my staff, including Jason Matthews, my deputy chief of staff; Kathleen Strottman, legislative director; Nash Molpus, who is with me on the floor. Our staff has been very helpful. Senator Allen's staff has also been remarkable and so many have contributed to this effort. I had many quotes to choose from, Mr. President, to end tonight. Really, there were hundreds of them that would be appropriate. But one was especially appropriate, for the close of this debate because, while it ends one chapter, it begins many new chapters in the history of our Nation. The woman I will quote from is one I have admired my whole life. I have read much about her and have been taught a lot about her. I will read this quote from this particular woman because it took guts to say what she did, at a time when people in America didn't want to hear it. This came at a time when people didn't want to hear what women had to say, generally, about any subject, let alone the subject of injustice and intolerance not only in our Nation but the world. The woman I will quote is Eleanor Roosevelt, who actually led a group of descendants into this Chamber in 1938 to urge the Senate, hopefully by their presence, to act--men and women who came with their own being, their own bodies to try to tell the Senate what you are reading about isn't true; these are innocent people. Eleanor Roosevelt escorted them to this Chamber and, of course, through all of their mighty efforts, actions were not taken, but not through any fault of hers. What I want to quote is what she wrote about universal human rights. I read this as a young legislator. Of course, we read lots of things, and some things stick and some don't. This particular quote is seared into my heart. I try to remember it every chance I get. I read it often, and I would like to read it tonight because it is very relevant to the debate that we have had. She wrote: Where, after all, do universal human rights begin? In small places, close to home--so close and so small they cannot be seen on any maps of the world. Yet they are the world of the individual person, the neighborhood he lives in, the school or college he attends, the factory, farm, or office where he works. Such are the places where every man, woman, and child seeks equal justice, equal opportunity, equal dignity without discrimination. Unless these rights have meaning there, they have little meaning anywhere. Without concerted citizen action to uphold them close at home, we shall look for them in vain in the larger world. We have heard stories today--hundreds of stories about these small places close to home--trees in a public square, river banks, levees, streets, alleys, open fields, behind school buildings, and in front of stores. This is where people want to experience dignity and justice. Some of these towns are so little they may still not be on any map of the United States. Maybe in some of these towns--because of what happened in the past--there are very few people who live there. And some of these places are quite large, where you can find them on the map. I think it is instructive for the Senate, as we make this sincere apology tonight, that we really take a breath and be very introspective to think about where these small places are in America, where these places of any size are in America, and recommit ourselves to be honest about our failings and our shortcomings, to be honest about the fact that we are not always as courageous as we should be. But when we come to a point where we know we made the wrong decision, we didn't act in the best interests of our country or the American citizens who look to us for their protection and their support, we should at least be able to sincerely say we are sorry. That is what we did tonight. I thank Eleanor Roosevelt. I am forever grateful for her great leadership for the country and for thousands of Americans, people of all races, who advocated for justice and freedom at great expense to their own life--which is not what most of us experience today, gratefully--with great expense to their reputation, their livelihood. She was really not understood or appreciated in the world in which she lived. There were many children in the Senate today, these children and great, great, great-grandchildren. Some of the victims and some of the journalists who have written about this in the past were here. Let's make sure they know the truth and they know that tonight we apologize. Thank you, Mr. President.

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, tonight this body will take an important and extraordinary step. The Senate will, belatedly but most sincerely, issue a formal apology to the victims of lynching and their families, some of whom are with us tonight in this Chamber, for its failure to pass antilynching legislation. Without question, there have been other grave injustices committed in the noble exercise of establishing this great democracy. Some have already been acknowledged and addressed by this and previous Congresses, and our work continues. However, there may be no other injustice in American history for which the Senate so uniquely bears responsibility. In refusing to take up legislation passed by the House of Representatives on three separate occasions and requested by seven Presidents from William Henry Harrison to Harry Truman, the Senate engaged in a different kind of culpability. Beginning in 1881, this tragic phenomenon of domestic terrorism was documented in large measure through the groundbreaking and heroic efforts of Ida B. Wells-Barnett and the independent newspapers and publications. From that year until 1964, 4,742 American citizens were lynched. These are the recorded numbers. Historians estimate the true number to be much higher. An apology alone can never suffice to heal the harm that was done, and for many victims justice is out of reach. Yet I believe, and this resolution lays forth the principle, that a sincere and heartfelt apology is a necessary first step toward real healing. It is important that the people of our country understand the true nature of this unprecedented rampage of terror. Many Americans have images from popular books and movies, like ``To Kill a Mockingbird,'' that cloud their understanding of lynching. A group of angry White men take an accused and presumed guilty Black man deep into the woods and hang him. Those are the images, although accurate and tragic, but they delude us from the true nature of lynching in this dark period of American history. The thought of a small, angry mob murdering Black prisoners in the dead of night ignores the reality of lynching in most respects. We are fortunate and grateful that a passionate and resolute independent scholar named James Allen saw something catalytic in the photographic evidence of lynching, and he began to collect these gruesome and horrific photographs. His work, ``Without Sanctuary,'' showed the real faces of lynching, and the images he unveiled began to change the way people viewed these tragic events and called to several of us in the Senate to issue this apology tonight. It is because of his work, this book, that the Committee for a Formal Apology and the families of the lynching victims--and some victims themselves who are here--are here today and that this important historic resolution is before the Senate. I would like to show some of these photographs now. This is one of the hundreds--thousands of photographs of men, women, and children who were lynched in this Nation, lynching that occurred--a citizen of our Nation, lynched. As your eyes look at this picture, they are immediately drawn to the victim. These hangings were sometimes--in most instances--very brutal events. Sometimes the hanging itself came after hours of torture and just excruciating fear and humiliation. After this book was published and these pictures came into more full view of the American public, what happens is your eyes leave the figure of the victim and move to the audience. This is part of the story that, in my mind, has not been completely told, and it needs to be told tonight and every day into the future. As you can see, there are children gathered here. These are children looking up at this man hanging from a tree. History will record that some of these children were let out of Sunday schools to attend the lynchings. History will record that some businesses closed down so that the whole town could attend these lynchings. History will record that these lynchings did not occur mostly at night or in the back woods or across the levees--lynchings were a community event. In many instances, it was a form of public entertainment. It was mass violence, an open act of terrorism directed primarily against African Americans and others who sympathized with their cause. If we are truly to understand the magnitude of this tragedy, we must study the stories behind this grim parade of death. In March of 1892, three personal friends of Ida B. Wells opened the ``People's Grocery Company,'' a store located across the street from a White-owned grocery store that had previously been the only grocer in the area. Angered by the loss of business, a mob gathered to run the new grocers out of town. Forewarned about the attack on their store, the three owners armed themselves for protection, and in the riot that ensued, one of the businessmen injured a White man. All three were arrested and jailed. Days later, the mob kidnapped the men from jail and lynched them. This was the case that led Ida B. Wells to begin to speak out against this injustice. Her great grandson is with us today. He has told this story through the halls of Congress to give testimony to her life and to her courage and to her historic efforts. Without the work of this extraordinarily brave journalist, this story never really could have been told in the way it is being told now, today, and talked about here on the Senate floor. To her, we owe a great deal of gratitude. She knew these men personally. She knew they were businessmen. They were not criminals. She knew they were successful salespeople, not common thugs. And she wrote and she spoke and she tried to gather pictures to tell a story to a nation that simply refused to believe. Forty-two years and thousands of lynchings later is the case of Claude Neal of Marianna, FL. After 10 hours of torture, Claude Neal ``confessed'' to the murder of a girl with whom he was allegedly having an affair. For his safety, he was transferred to an Alabama prison. A mob took him from there. They cut off his body parts. They sliced his side and stomach. People would randomly cut off a finger here, a toe there. From time to time, they would tie a noose around him, throw the rope over a tree limb. The mob would keep him there in that position until he almost died then lower him again to begin the torment all over. After several hours, and I guess the crowd exhausted themselves, they just decided to kill him. His body was then dragged by car back to Marianna, and 7,000 people from 11 States were there to see his body in the courthouse of the town square. Pictures were taken and sold for 50 cents a piece. One might ask, how do we know all the grizzly details of Claude Neal's death? It is very simple. The newspapers in Florida had given advance notice. They recorded it one horrible moment after another. One of the members of the lynch mob proudly relayed all the details that reporters had missed in person. Yet, even with the public notice, 7,000 people in attendance, and people bragging about the activity, Federal authorities were impotent to stop this murder. State authorities seemed to condone it, and the Senate of the United States refused to act. Time went on. In 1955, just 9 years before Congress passed the Civil Rights Act, the world witnessed the brutal lynching of Emmett Till. Fourteen years old, Emmett Till was excited about his trip from his home on Chicago's southside to the Mississippi Delta. Like many children during the summer, he was looking forward to visiting his relatives. Prior to his departure, his mother, Maimie Till Bradley, a teacher, had done her very best to advise him about how to behave while in Mississippi. With his mother's warning and wearing the ring that had belonged to his deceased father, on August 20, 1955, Till set off with his cousin, Curtis Jones, on a train to Mississippi. Once there, he and some friends went to buy some candy at the general store. According to his accusers, this young 14-year-old whistled at a store clerk as he left. She happened to be a white woman. Armed with pistols, the mob took Emmett from his uncle's home. His uncle is with us tonight. They took him in the middle of the night. Three days later his little body was discovered in the Tallahatchie River, weighed down by a 75-pound cotton gin fan tied around his neck with barbed wire. His face was so mutilated when Wright identified the body he could only do so based on the ring that he had been wearing. Coincidentally, through no asking of our own, but I guess it is appropriate, the trial of his accused murderer, Edgar Ray Killen, begins today in Mississippi. While the details that led to the lynching are not always clear from just these few that I have described, there is little doubt what took place at the lynchings themselves. In most instances, prelynching newspaper notices, school closings to allow children to view the spectacle, special order trains to carry people to the event, are all part of a gruesome but true part of America's history. Jazz legend Billy Holiday provided real texture in her story and song ``Strange Fruit.'' She defied her own record label and produced and published the song on her own, was threatened with her life because she continued to sing it. But like so many things, words can't always describe what is happening, even though speeches were given, words were written, newspapers were published. The words to the song are as follows: Southern trees bear a strange fruit Blood on the leaves and blood at the root, Black body swinging in the Southern breeze, Strange fruit hanging from the poplar trees. Pastoral scene of the gallant South, The bulging eyes and the twisted mouth, Scent of magnolias sweet and fresh, And the sudden smell of burning flesh. Here is a fruit for the crows to pluck, For the rain to gather, for the wind to suck, For the sun to rot, for a tree to drop, Here is a strange and a bitter crop. Something in the way she sang this song, something in the pictures that described the event, must have touched the heart of Americans because they began to mobilize, and men and women, White and Black, people from different backgrounds, came to stand up and begin to speak. They spoke with loud voices and with moving speeches and with great marches. But the Senate of the United States, one of the most noble experiments in democracy, continued to pretend, to act like this was not happening in America and continued to fail to act. It would be a mistake to look at this ugly chapter in our democracy's development with pity and hopelessness, however. The truth is, today's apology should be seen as a tribute to the endurance and the triumph of African-American families. There is a particular family here, the Crawford family. I think there are over 150 of them. Earlier today I talked with some of the leaders of the family. I said: What doesn't kill you makes you stronger. They nodded because that is exactly what happened to this family. The town tried to kill this family, to run them out, and, in fact, ran them out of the town, but this family just grew stronger, and with their love and lack of bitterness, but with a determination to find justice some way, they are here today. In fact, it was the progress of African Americans that spurred this terrible reaction to them in the first place. As I stated earlier, the early lynchings were not of criminals. The early lynchings were of successful farmers, of successful businessmen, leaders in their communities because these lynchings were an act of terrorism to make American citizens feel they had no voice and no place. W.E.B. Dubois summarized the motivation behind these slayings perfectly when he said: . . . [T]he South feared more than Negro dishonesty, ignorance and incompetency, Negro honesty, knowledge, and efficiency. With slavery abolished by the Civil War, a group of Americans had to mentally justify as inferior and subhuman those who suddenly were equals and competitors. Having lost the war throughout the South, watching the progress of former slaves was simply too much in that region and in other regions throughout the country, as well. As a senior Senator from the State of Louisiana, I feel compelled to spend just a few moments, before I acknowledge my friend and cosponsor in the Senate, Senator George Allen, who has brought this resolution to the attention of our Senate colleagues. Louisiana has a distinct history from much of the United States due to its long colonial ties with both France and Spain. One consequence of this history is that Louisiana had more free people of color than any other Southern State. Nearly 20,000 Louisianians who were largely concentrated in New Orleans formed a large and very prosperous African- American community in the 1860s. They enjoyed more rights than most free men of color. A large percentage spoke only French and educated their children in Europe. The community, the records show, owned more than $2 million worth of property, which was quite a large sum in those days, and dominated skilled labor areas such as masonry, carpentry, cigar making, and shoemaking. That is why Louisiana's prominent role in lynchings is so bitter. It mars a long history of tolerance and integration that to this day distinguishes Louisiana from other places in the South. Still the difficult fact remains that only three States have had a higher incidence than Louisiana of these occurrences. The NAACP, which was founded over the issue of lynchings, recorded 391 such murders in my State. I ask unanimous consent that a list of all the Louisiana victims compiled by Professor Michael Pfeifer, author of ``Rough Justice, Lynching and American Society,'' be printed in the Record.

Ms. LANDRIEU. It is also true that members of the Senate delegation from Louisiana participated in the actions that led us to not act. However, I am very proud to stand here with my colleague from Virginia and to note that the other Senator from Louisiana, a Republican, stands with me. We are united in our support of this resolution to offer the sincere apology to try to bring to light the facts about lynching, to encourage people to seek the truth. I said earlier today people are entitled to their own opinions. But they are not entitled to their own facts. And the facts about this terrible domestic terrorism and rash of terrorism stand today and will not be pushed aside. It is with humility but with pride that I support and put forth before the Senate today, with the Senator from Virginia, this resolution. The junior Senator from Louisiana is an original cosponsor of this resolution, as are a number of sons of the South. Furthermore, in Louisiana's legislature in Baton Rouge, a very similar resolution passed today. Thus, the people of Louisiana can truly say we are trying to open a dialogue, and bring closure to a bitter history. This is a particularly important step for the South. For while lynchings occurred in 46 of the 50 States, and people of all races were affected, it would be a mischaracterization to suggest that this was not a weapon of terror most often employed in the South, and most often against African Americans. That is why I am so glad to be joined in this endeavor by the junior Senator from Virginia, Mr. Allen. He has been instrumental in getting us to this point of consideration, and I truly appreciate his hard work and dedication to our joint effort. It is also important to acknowledge the bravery of those who took personal risks long before this day in opposition to lynching. First and foremost, we must acknowledge the pioneering journalism of Ida B. Wells. Though personally threatened with death, Ms. Wells continued to document these outrages before justice, so that future generations might know the history of this era. It should be noted that it was her example that led other women, such as Jane Adams, to join in her fight against lynching. In fact, women, generally, are viewed as having played a major role in the antilynching campaign. There was tremendous political courage shown in Georgia. Georgia was the first State to adopt antilynching legislation in 1893. Yet, the State continued to experience a disproportionate share of lynching attacks. However, starting with Governor Northen in 1890, several of Georgia's Governors fought lynch violence in their State resolutely. In many cases it came at personal cost. Gov. William Atkinson, having left the Governor's mansion, personally challenged a lynch mob of 2,000 people in his home town. It is a record of political leadership upon which Georgia can now proudly reflect. Another great voice in the antilynching crusade was Congressman George White of Tarboro, NC. He was the last former slave to serve in Congress--ending his congressional career in 1901. He introduced an anti-lynching bill to stem the rising tide of violence, with 107 attacks having occurred in 1899. While his bill was defeated in the House of Representatives, he initiated one of its first political considerations. Finally, we cannot ignore the Senate's own passionate voices to end the practice of lynching. Senator Champ Clark of Missouri famously posted photos of a recent Mississippi lynching in the Democratic cloakroom with the caption: There have been no arrests, no indictments, and no convictions of any one of the lynchers. This is not a rape case. Regrettably, those photos and his convictions could not bring these terrible events to a close. We also salute the efforts of Senators Robert Wagner of New York and Edward Costigan of Colorado. The Wagner- Costigan bill was yet another noble effort to inject Federal resources into combating lynching. While it was again filibustered, it was another noble effort that demonstrated that people of good will remained the majority. Because of the courage of these and other individuals, by the 1930s public opinion had turned against lynching. In 1938, a national survey showed that 70 percent of Americans supported the enactment of an antilynching statute. Even in the South, at least 65 percent of these surveyed favored its passage. In short, even if southern Senators had the political latitude to endorse Federal antilynching legislation, most seemed to be too mired in personal prejudice to accept that fact. Where these southern Senators were concerned, justice was mostly deaf, but never color blind. In closing, I would like to acknowledge several members of my staff: Jason Matthews, Kathleen Strottman, Nash Molphus, Sally Richardson, and many others, who have helped, along with others, put this resolution before the Senate today. I want to end with one of the most moving comments that I read in the book ``Without Sanctuary,'' as I have read excerpts from publications and magazines and newspapers about this situation, and have been reading them now for months on this issue. It is taken from McClure's Magazine, in 1905, by Ray Stannard Baker, who wrote about one of the lynchings--I think it was of a Mr. Curtis. I will submit that for the Record. He says: So the mob came finally, and cracked the door of the jail with a railroad rail. The jail is said to be the strongest in Ohio, and having seen it, I can well believe the report is true. But steel bars have never yet kept out a mob; it takes something much stronger: human courage backed up by the consciousness of being right. Mr. President, the Senate was wrong not to act. It was wrong to not stand in the way of the mob. We lacked courage then. We perhaps do not have all the courage we need today to do everything we should do, but I know we can apologize today. We can be sincere in our apology to the families, to their loved ones, and perhaps now we can set some of these victims and their families free and, most of all, set our country free to be better than it is today. However great it is, we can most certainly improve. I yield the floor for my colleague, Senator Allen, from Virginia.

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I will be happy to yield to the Senator from Massachusetts in just a moment. He has been very patient. As a cosponsor of the resolution that just passed, it is a privilege and it is appropriate for Senator Kerry to be one of the first Senators to speak upon its passage. I wish to just mention very briefly, because I am not sure he is going to be able to stay with us much longer, Mr. James Cameron has been with us all day. Mr. Cameron is 91 years old. He lives in Marion, IN. In 1930, when he was 16 years old, a mob dragged him from a cell at Grant County Jail and put a rope around his neck. He was accused of a murder and a rape. He was nowhere around when it occurred. His associates, Abe Smith and Thomas Schipp, were both lynched that night. A man in the crowd spared him by proclaiming that he, in fact, was innocent and should be let go. He then went on to live an extraordinary life without bitterness, with a lot of love. He has been married for 67 years, has 4 children and multiple grandchildren. Senator Evan Bayh, who serves in this body--when he was Governor of Indiana, he pardoned Mr. Cameron. But he is really the one who has forgiven us for what was done against him. I yield the floor to Senator Kerry.

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

Ms. LANDRIEU

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

Ms. LANDRIEU. I ask unanimous consent that the debate time on the Griffith nomination be yielded back and the Senate proceed to legislative session in order to consider S. Res. 39.

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, Socrates said, ``Four things belong to a judge: to hear courteously, to answer wisely, to consider soberly, and to decide impartially.'' To date, the Senate has confirmed 209 of President Bush's judicial nominees. The vast majority of them received overwhelming support from this body. We looked at their records and decided that they had the qualities that Socrates described. Janice Rogers Brown, however, lacks these qualities and falls far short of this ideal. I sincerely regret that the President has asked this body to confirm her to a lifetime appointment to the District of Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals. This is no reflection on her individual accomplishments. She comes from a very humble background, a sharecropper's daughter, and has taken full advantage of all that this country has to offer to become a Supreme Court judge. She has gained some wisdom from this experience, I am sure, and I have no doubt that she will take her job as a judge seriously, soberly. My greatest concern lies with her impartiality. Some of her statements and her decisions on the California Supreme Court lead me to believe that she will let her personal bias dictate her consideration of issues of law. I cannot trust the impartiality of someone who may be considering issues involving Medicare or Social Security who says that senior citizens ``blithely cannibalize their grandchildren because they have the right to get as much `free' stuff from the political system.'' Nor can I accept that she will be impartial when she says that age discrimination ``does not mark its victim with a stigma of inferiority.'' Tell that to the 50 year old waitress who loses a job because she doesn't look ``pretty'' anymore, and ends up getting replaced by a younger, less experienced person. Janice Rogers Brown has been nominated to the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, the court that closely oversees the actions of Federal agencies--more than any other Circuit Court. It is widely recognized in the legal community as the second most important court in the country. Citizens come to the D.C. Circuit to enforce fair labor practice decisions made by the National Labor Relations Board, worker safety protection regulations of the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, regulatory decisions made by the Federal Communications Commission and the Environmental Protection Agency, and much, much more. But Janice Rogers Brown has said that ``where government moves in community retreats, civil society disintegrates. . . . The result is: families under siege; war in the streets; unapologetic expropriation of property; the . . . decline of the rule of law . . . a debased, debauched culture which finds moral depravity entertaining. . . . '' She also called the New Deal, which gave us Social Security and the Tennessee Valley Authority, programs that exist today, ``the triumph of our own socialist revolution.'' With sentiments such as these I can only wonder what she thinks of Medicare, Medicaid, child nutrition programs, agricultural subsidies, No Child Left Behind, and a whole host of other programs that give opportunity to our citizens and help people live up to their given potential. To me, these programs are not socialism; they are what a compassionate society does for its people. So I will vote against the confirmation of Janice Rogers Brown. I do so knowing that she will likely be confirmed. Her nomination is moving forward because she was one of the nominees that 13 of my colleagues and I agreed to no longer filibuster. I want to talk about this agreement just for a moment. First, I must say that the compromise was essential to avoid a serious breakdown in the Senate rules and its functions. It represents the Senate at its best and upholds the traditional constitutional role of the Senate as the protector of the rights of minority interests when they were seriously threatened and perhaps irrevocably ended. But more than this, my colleagues and I helped steer a better course with this compromise. A course for jobs, opportunity, better education, and future peace. I hope the President will reflect upon the resolve of these 14 Senators to protect and respect the minority and do so by sending us nominees who will respect the law and not come exclusively from the far fringes of the political spectrum. I am open to discussing nominees with the President. I make this offer in good faith and in the same spirit as one of his original campaign promises from 2000: to change the culture in Washington. Here is what then-Governor Bush said in a speech at that time: ``There is too much argument in Washington and not enough shared accomplishment. . . . As President, I will set a new tone in Washington. I will do everything I can to restore civility to our national politics.'' My colleagues on this compromise have already helped set that new tone for the Senate. I urge him to work with the entire Senate on judicial nominees. I am ready to forge this new civility in Washington. I know future nominees will be conservative just as all of the 208 previously confirmed Bush nominees have been. I fully accept that fact. But I also expect future nominees to be fair and to have shown their fairness and impartiality by their words and their deeds. Janice Rogers Brown has not.

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, over 50 years ago, Sir Winston Churchill uttered the immortal words, ``never in the field of human conflict has so much been owed by so many to so few.'' Although Prime Minister Churchill was referring to the selfless and courageous effort of the Royal Air Force in their defeat of the Germans in World War II, I would like to argue that these words apply equally to the men and women fighting to preserve democracy in Iraq and Afghanistan. These men and women are not only making it possible for each and every one of us to go about our daily lives under the blanket of safety and freedom to which Americans have become accustomed, but they are also striving to bring these benefits to people who have never had them before. If you have had the opportunity to spend time with these men and women, as I have, you quickly observe that they embody everything good about America. Their patriotism, their unyielding commitment to serve their country, their selflessness and their sacrifice should serve as examples to us all. Perhaps what amazes me most, is that although these men and women are prepared to make the ultimate sacrifice for their country, they ask for little in return from it. It is therefore incumbent on us to recognize the debt we owe to them, and honor it. Today there are 80,000 members of the National Guard and our Reserve armed forces serving bravely in the war on terror. In addition, close to 89,000 members of the Guard and Reserve have been activated in anticipation of being sent to Iraq, Afghanistan, or any other place their country calls on them to serve. While deployed, these citizen soldiers are asked, in a moment's notice, to leave their families, their jobs, and their communities behind, causing tremendous stress on the home front and in the workplace. While having a loved one in harm's way is reason for stress alone, many of the families of these men and women have the added stress of trying to fill the void left. Many families have lost the main bread winner when a Guardsmen or Reservist gets deployed. As a result, they have trouble paying bills, the rent, the mortgage, or medicine for their children. The primary reason these families cannot make ends meet is because for Guardsmen and Reservists military pay is often less than civilian pay. We call that the ``pay gap.'' According to the most recent Status of Forces Survey of Reserve Components, 51 percent of our citizen soldiers take a pay cut when they get deployed and 11 percent of them lose more than $2,500 per month. We ask these men and women to make so many sacrifices on our behalf. I think that it is time that we be willing to make one in return. The least we can do is to help these families find relief from the financial woes caused by this gap. To help do this, my colleagues Senator Graham, Senator Allen, Senator Durbin, and myself are pleased to introduce the Helping Our Patriotic Employers at Helping our Military Employees Act of 2005. We call the bill by its nickname: HOPE at HOME. Our guard and reserve families have enough to worry about when a loved one gets called away, the least we can do is relieve some of the financial worry by encouraging employers to make up the pay gap. Let me describe for my colleagues how this legislation works. HOPE at HOME will give a 50 percent tax credit to the thousands of employers around the country who have taken the patriotic step of continuing to pay the salary of their guard and reservists employees who have been called to active duty. There are literally thousands of employers out there who already take this noble step--they do it voluntarily, selflessly and at great sacrifice. The HOPE at HOME Act honors that sacrifice. HOPE at HOME will also encourage companies that cannot afford to make up the pay-gap an incentive to do it. One survey found that only 173 of the Fortune 500 companies make up the pay gap. If the wealthiest companies cannot afford to help their active duty employees, imagine how difficult this is for smaller companies. HOPE at HOME will allow companies large and small to do the patriotic thing and reward those employees who are serving to keep us all free. HOPE at HOME will also give small patriotic employers additional tax relief if they need to hire a worker to temporarily replace the active duty Guardsmen or Reservist. In addition, the bill clarifies the tax treatment of any pay-gap payments to make income tax filing easier for our Guard and Reservists. A moment ago, I mentioned that thousands of employers make up the pay-gap for their employees. There is one employer, however, and it happens to be the Nation's largest, that does not make up the pay gap: Uncle Sam. The Federal Government, which should set the bar for patriotism in our country, does not do its part to help citizen soldiers. Senator Durbin has been a leader in this area, so our bill includes language that he has been fighting to require the Federal Government to make up the pay gap. We cannot ask the private sector to do more than they are doing if the Federal Government is not willing to step up and do its part for our military men and women. This is not only the right thing to do, it is the smart thing to do. Today our Nation relies on the Guard and Reserve to meet our armed forces needs more than at any other time in our history. At times in the war on terror, forty-percent of our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan were citizen soldiers. Many of them performed multiple tours of duty or found their duties extended. All of the experts tell us that our need for our Guard and Reserve troops will only get greater. In the post-Cold War world, we have drastically reduced our standing Army from 800,000 in 1989 to approximately 482,000 today, a 40 percent decrease. The number of deployments has increased by over 300 percent. The Guard and Reserve have made it possible to meet these challenges. We still find ourselves stretched thin, but without the Guard and Reserve we would never be able to meet our obligation as guardians of freedom in the World. But this over-reliance on the Guard and Reserve is starting to have a toll on our ability to recruit and retain these men and women. The percentage of Army Reserve personnel who plan to remain in the military after their tour of duty ends fell from 73 percent to 66 percent over 2004. The top reasons for leaving the Guard and Reserve, according to the Status of Forces Survey of Reserve Components, are family stress, the number and lengths of deployments, income loss, and conflict with civilian employment. We are beginning to have recruitment problems as well for our standing military. Back in February, the Army and the National Guard and Reserve recruited 3,824 soldiers, but this was only 69 percent of their monthly goal. The numbers went up in March, but still fell short by 12 percent of the goal. HOPE at HOME recognizes that a soldier who is worrying about how his or her family is paying the bills is not focusing on the mission at hand. A soldier who is worrying about whether the family is paying the rent, is not going to reenlist. And every time one of our soldiers leaves, our Nation loses the experience and service of a highly trained, capable professional. We need to make every effort to keep our citizen soldiers in service to their country. HOPE at HOME is a first step to addressing our military's larger recruitment and retention issues. During the Cold War we built our strength on having the biggest, best equipped standing army in the World. Now our military gathers its strength from a large reserve of qualified men and women in the Guard and Reserve who are ready to fight at a moment's call. We will lose that strength if we do not give our Guardsmen and Reservists and their families HOPE at HOME. I hope my colleagues will join Senators Allen, Graham, Durbin and myself in supporting the HOPE at HOME Act. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, today I rise to bring your attention to National Foster Care Month. As we celebrate this National Foster Care Month, we must remember how far we have come, we must also remember how far we still have to go. In my 27 years as a public servant, I have had the opportunity to meet thousands of children in foster care. I have personally witnessed the sheer joy they find in having a ``forever family,'' and the utter pain when they do not. I firmly believe that there is no such thing as an unwanted child, merely unfound families. Let me tell you a story about one of these extraordinary children. A few years ago, a young woman named Sarah, who spent 14 of her 19 years of life in foster care, was asked by a Member of Congress what the word ``permanency'' meant to her. She said, ``many people in the system wrongly think that permanency means staying in one place for a long time, but to me, permanency means having someone to call when I am not sure if I should wash my new white skirt with a blue shirt, or to take me to Karate lessons, or to cry with me when I break up with my boyfriend.'' For those of us who have had that kind of permanency in our lives, living without it seems unfathomable. But the fact remains that each year, over 100,000 children in the United States are dreaming of that kind of permanency, 25,000 children leave the foster care system without ever having found it, and almost 600,000 go to bed every night wondering if they ever will find it. Every child deserves the opportunity to be in a loving family where they are nurtured, comforted, and protected. Adoption gives children who have been abandoned, orphaned, or abused a second chance to find happiness in a secure and supportive family. Over the past decade, the number of children being adopted has risen dramatically, and according to the 2000 Census Special Report, over 2 million children today live in adoptive homes. In the last year alone, over 6,500 children have been listed on the web page of Adopt US Kids and 1,500 of these children have found families through this process. In closing, I would like to share with you something said in the award winning book, There Are No Children Here, about foster care children. ``By the time they enter adolescence, they have contended with more terror than most of us confront in a lifetime. They have had to make choices that most experienced and educated adults would find difficult. They have lived with fear and witnessed death. Some of them have lashed out. They have joined gangs, sold drugs, and, in some cases, inflicted pain on others. But they have played baseball and gone on dates and shot marbles and kept diaries. For, despite all they have seen and done, they are--and we must constantly remind ourselves of this--still children.'' During National Foster Care Month, I encourage you to log on to www.adoptuskids.org to learn more about the children who are waiting in our country and across the Nation for the safe, loving home they deserve. As Mistral said, ``Many things we need can wait, the child cannot. To him we cannot say tomorrow. His name is today.''

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, over 50 years ago, Sir Winston Churchill uttered the immortal words, ``never in the field of human conflict has so much been owed by so many to so few.'' Although Prime Minister Churchill was referring to the selfless and courageous effort of the Royal Air Force in their defeat of the Germans in World War II, I would like to argue that these words apply equally to the men and women fighting to preserve democracy in Iraq and Afghanistan. These men and women are not only making it possible for each and every one of us to go about our daily lives under the blanket of safety and freedom to which Americans have become accustomed, but they are also striving to bring these benefits to people who have never had them before. If you have had the opportunity to spend time with these men and women, as I have, you quickly observe that they embody everything good about America. Their patriotism, their unyielding commitment to serve their country, their selflessness and their sacrifice should serve as examples to us all. Perhaps what amazes me most, is that although these men and women are prepared to make the ultimate sacrifice for their country, they ask for little in return from it. It is therefore incumbent on us to recognize the debt we owe to them, and honor it. Today there are 80,000 members of the National Guard and our Reserve armed forces serving bravely in the war on terror. In addition, close to 89,000 members of the Guard and Reserve have been activated in anticipation of being sent to Iraq, Afghanistan, or any other place their country calls on them to serve. While deployed, these citizen soldiers are asked, in a moment's notice, to leave their families, their jobs, and their communities behind, causing tremendous stress on the home front and in the workplace. While having a loved one in harm's way is reason for stress alone, many of the families of these men and women have the added stress of trying to fill the void left. Many families have lost the main bread winner when a Guardsmen or Reservist gets deployed. As a result, they have trouble paying bills, the rent, the mortgage, or medicine for their children. The primary reason these families cannot make ends meet is because for Guardsmen and Reservists military pay is often less than civilian pay. We call that the ``pay gap.'' According to the most recent Status of Forces Survey of Reserve Components, 51 percent of our citizen soldiers take a pay cut when they get deployed and 11 percent of them lose more than $2,500 per month. We ask these men and women to make so many sacrifices on our behalf. I think that it is time that we be willing to make one in return. The least we can do is to help these families find relief from the financial woes caused by this gap. To help do this, my colleagues Senator Graham, Senator Allen, Senator Durbin, and myself are pleased to introduce the Helping Our Patriotic Employers at Helping our Military Employees Act of 2005. We call the bill by its nickname: HOPE at HOME. Our guard and reserve families have enough to worry about when a loved one gets called away, the least we can do is relieve some of the financial worry by encouraging employers to make up the pay gap. Let me describe for my colleagues how this legislation works. HOPE at HOME will give a 50 percent tax credit to the thousands of employers around the country who have taken the patriotic step of continuing to pay the salary of their guard and reservists employees who have been called to active duty. There are literally thousands of employers out there who already take this noble step--they do it voluntarily, selflessly and at great sacrifice. The HOPE at HOME Act honors that sacrifice. HOPE at HOME will also encourage companies that cannot afford to make up the pay-gap an incentive to do it. One survey found that only 173 of the Fortune 500 companies make up the pay gap. If the wealthiest companies cannot afford to help their active duty employees, imagine how difficult this is for smaller companies. HOPE at HOME will allow companies large and small to do the patriotic thing and reward those employees who are serving to keep us all free. HOPE at HOME will also give small patriotic employers additional tax relief if they need to hire a worker to temporarily replace the active duty Guardsmen or Reservist. In addition, the bill clarifies the tax treatment of any pay-gap payments to make income tax filing easier for our Guard and Reservists. A moment ago, I mentioned that thousands of employers make up the pay-gap for their employees. There is one employer, however, and it happens to be the Nation's largest, that does not make up the pay gap: Uncle Sam. The Federal Government, which should set the bar for patriotism in our country, does not do its part to help citizen soldiers. Senator Durbin has been a leader in this area, so our bill includes language that he has been fighting to require the Federal Government to make up the pay gap. We cannot ask the private sector to do more than they are doing if the Federal Government is not willing to step up and do its part for our military men and women. This is not only the right thing to do, it is the smart thing to do. Today our Nation relies on the Guard and Reserve to meet our armed forces needs more than at any other time in our history. At times in the war on terror, forty-percent of our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan were citizen soldiers. Many of them performed multiple tours of duty or found their duties extended. All of the experts tell us that our need for our Guard and Reserve troops will only get greater. In the post-Cold War world, we have drastically reduced our standing Army from 800,000 in 1989 to approximately 482,000 today, a 40 percent decrease. The number of deployments has increased by over 300 percent. The Guard and Reserve have made it possible to meet these challenges. We still find ourselves stretched thin, but without the Guard and Reserve we would never be able to meet our obligation as guardians of freedom in the World. But this over-reliance on the Guard and Reserve is starting to have a toll on our ability to recruit and retain these men and women. The percentage of Army Reserve personnel who plan to remain in the military after their tour of duty ends fell from 73 percent to 66 percent over 2004. The top reasons for leaving the Guard and Reserve, according to the Status of Forces Survey of Reserve Components, are family stress, the number and lengths of deployments, income loss, and conflict with civilian employment. We are beginning to have recruitment problems as well for our standing military. Back in February, the Army and the National Guard and Reserve recruited 3,824 soldiers, but this was only 69 percent of their monthly goal. The numbers went up in March, but still fell short by 12 percent of the goal. HOPE at HOME recognizes that a soldier who is worrying about how his or her family is paying the bills is not focusing on the mission at hand. A soldier who is worrying about whether the family is paying the rent, is not going to reenlist. And every time one of our soldiers leaves, our Nation loses the experience and service of a highly trained, capable professional. We need to make every effort to keep our citizen soldiers in service to their country. HOPE at HOME is a first step to addressing our military's larger recruitment and retention issues. During the Cold War we built our strength on having the biggest, best equipped standing army in the World. Now our military gathers its strength from a large reserve of qualified men and women in the Guard and Reserve who are ready to fight at a moment's call. We will lose that strength if we do not give our Guardsmen and Reservists and their families HOPE at HOME. I hope my colleagues will join Senators Allen, Graham, Durbin and myself in supporting the HOPE at HOME Act. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, today I rise to honor a city from my home State of Louisiana and am delighted to recognize its achievement before this body. The City of New Iberia, LA, was recently selected by The National Trust for Historic Preservation to receive a 2005 Great American Main Street Award. New Iberia won this prestigious award because of its successful downtown revitalization. In addition to being recognized as one of only five winning communities nationwide, New Iberia is the only community in Louisiana to ever receive this distinction. As a champion of sustainable and quality community development, I can personally attest to this well-deserved honor. New Iberia's Main Street creates a unique sense of place through the beauty of its architecture, landscaping, and natural integration with Bayou Teche. The residents of New Iberia identify with this special place, and it contributes to the quality of life and sense of community pride shared by them. Founded in 1779, New Iberia was a prosperous antebellum community that matured into a modern city. By the mid 1960s, New Iberia's Main Street began experiencing decline typical of many communities in the United States at that time. Recognizing the role of Main Street in the life of a community, New Iberia's business leaders, elected officials, and citizens started a progressive downtown revitalization effort known as Operation Impact in the early 1970s. This focus on Main Street continued, and in the 1990s, New Iberia further enhanced its efforts by initiating an officially designated Main Street Program. The unified commitment, hard work, and enthusiasm of the people of New Iberia over nearly 40 years has reestablished their downtown as a vibrant nucleus of culture, commerce, and tourism. It has also fittingly earned them national acclaim. In the few years since the Main Street Program began in New Iberia, the city has seen over 115 new businesses established, over 420 new jobs created, and more than $19 million in private investment with total investment exceeding $24 million. Downtown development and Main Street revitalization efforts have contributed significantly to building safer communities, stronger economies, and better quality of life across America. New Iberia, LA, is a superb example of how these cooperative efforts can improve communities. Today, I give the people of New Iberia my thanks and praise.

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. Thank you, Mr. President. I understand we are in morning business. I ask unanimous consent that I may extend my remarks to consume about 20 minutes.

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, this is shaping up to be an auspicious time for an Energy Bill, as we begin a year long celebration of Benjamin Franklin's 300th birthday. Benjamin Franklin was the embodiment of a ``renaissance man.'' He was a small business owner, a diplomat, an accomplished author, a scientist, and one of our Nation's greatest Founding Fathers. It is his role as a scientist that I want to focus on today and suggest that the best birthday present we could give him would be to honor his work and pass a balanced, forward-looking and scientifically-based Energy bill this year. Americans learn from childhood the story of Franklin and his breakthrough experiment with a kite and lightening. In today's world, it is hard to imagine that a politician as accomplished as Benjamin Franklin would also make such a profound contribution to science. But, he did. Franklin's contribution to science was profound because his experiment with a kite and lightning proved that electricity was a naturally occurring phenomenon. Before that, superstition governed man's interaction with electricity. It used to be that people believed the devil hurled electric bolts from the sky. So when a lightening storm was brewing, churches sent people to ring the bells to ward them off. Tragically, this same superstition seems to often guide our policies today. Franklin's pioneering work with electricity is so instructive because it reminds us that we need to put reason and science before superstition and myth. Electricity was once a dangerous force in the world that, thanks to Franklin and Edison, we have now harnessed to provide power and light, life and hope, and the greatest prosperity the world has ever known. This remains our challenge today. If we want to continue to generate power for future generations, we must harness powerful forces--solar rays, geothermal steam, nuclear fusion, wave energy and new generations of fossil fuel technology. To do so, we must abandon superstition, misinformation and fear. The area of sharpest interest to the People of Louisiana in this bill, is also surely one of the areas most in need of reason over superstition--oil and gas production, both on shore and on the Outer Continental Shelf. As we are all aware, the United States has an abundant demand for fossil fuels, but also a great need to use them wisely. We comprise about 5 percent of the world's population, but we consume more than 25 percent of the world's oil production--roughly 20 million barrels per day. Some projections have the country's oil consumption hitting 29 million barrels a day by 2025--nearly a 30 percent increase. With the price of oil hovering around $50 a barrel, this is a chilling proposition. And for our own purposes today, it should also be a motivating proposition. The global picture is even more difficult. China, with its rapidly growing economy, 1.3 billion people, and millions of new cars, has just passed Japan to become the second largest consumer of oil after the U.S. In 2003, China consumed more than 5 million barrels per day, of which more than 35 percent was imported. By 2030 it is estimated that China will need 12 million barrels per day. India, with its 1 billion people and surging economy, also has a growing need for a reliable energy supply. Despite this impending crisis, is the United States trying to secure its future by maximizing its own domestic production of natural sources of renewable energy? Absolutely not. Instead, like medieval villagers, we are running up to the bell towers when lightening is striking. We have young American soldiers securing Iraq. I support democracy for Iraq; I support democracy for all people of the world. But what separates Iraq from brutal dictatorships in other places? The answer is obvious--the second largest oil reserve in the world. So young American men and women are sacrificing their lives every day to cover for our superstitions and political gridlock in Washington. We have lost 1,622 Americans in Iraq--that's more than 2 American soldiers per day of occupation. We have to play the cards that we are dealt, but just because we got a tough hand doesn't mean that we should, in good conscience, pass an energy bill that does not diminish our dependence on Middle Eastern oil. That is why it is so important that we write an energy bill that provides smart, efficient incentives for the United States to maximize its own domestic energy production, using all the avenues that are available to us to diversify our supply and to encourage competition that would drive down and stabilize prices. Vitally for my State, this must include a recognition of the contribution that coastal states, particularly states along the Gulf Coast, make to energy production now. The coast of Louisiana is not a regular coast. In supporting the production and transportation of 80 percent of our Nation's offshore oil supply, it is truly America's Wetland--and with its loss, America faces a national emergency. In the past 50 years alone, Louisiana's size has been reduced by an area larger than that of Rhode Island, and continues to wear away at the rate of one football field every half hour. If the Rocky Mountains were to shrink by 10 feet every year, we would act. If a foreign army were to advance a hundred yards up our shore every 38 minutes, we would act. Because of the vast array of energy resources Louisiana and other coastal States supply and protect, coastal erosion in our States presents a direct threat to our national security and the global economy. We must act--and while the waves eat away our shores, the solution may lie just beneath their surface. In the early days of this Nation, Benjamin Franklin and his colleagues looked to the western frontier for its rich resources and the promise of new economic and military security, just as their ancestors had looked to the seas with the same thoughts in mind. Today, our oceans have reemerged as a great frontier capable of helping build a stronger, more secure and more economically stable Nation. We have learned that through new technologies, when managed well and wisely, the ocean frontier holds tremendous resources that may be put to work for America. Harnessed beneath the surface of this great frontier lies the energy to light our homes, power our public infrastructure and give birth to even greater achievements. Little more than a century ago, what we'd call ``Ocean Energy Industry'' was simply one of whaling ships and harpoons. But today, the Outer Continental Shelf, or OCS, provides American consumers with 25 percent of the natural gas, and 30 percent of the oil, produced in the country each year. It also rewards the U.S. Treasury with more than $5 billion annually--$145 billion since production began in 1953. That is the second biggest contributor of revenue to our Federal Treasury after taxes. But it has costs, and it is perfectly reasonable for States to want assistance with those costs. The Mineral Lands Leasing Act shares with interior States 50 percent of the revenues generated on Federal land within their borders. In serving as the platforms that support a vital component of our national energy supply, coastal States deserve the same treatment. And so, last week, I introduced the Stewardship for our Coasts and Opportunities for Reliable Energy Act--or SCORE--which does just that . . . It gives coastal States the same 50 percent share of the oil and gas revenues for their work that interior States receive for their efforts to support production. This is more than just sound economic and energy policy--it is a simple demonstration of fairness. The OCS supplies more oil to our Nation than any foreign power-- including Saudi Arabia--and it is estimated that 60 percent of our Nation's undiscovered oil and gas will be found on the shelf. And so, as we take to the seas again, we are not hunting the elusive Moby Dick of lore. . . We know where the bulk of this oil may be found. But just as the Western frontier once represented a great unknown to our Nation's policymakers, the impact and reality of the OCS seems lost in a time warp. We exist on outdated policies, and while our production has increased somewhat, we haven't even built a new refinery in a decade. We also have yet to adequately answer the question, ``Why should a State contribute to our energy independence?'' and have failed to take the necessary steps to encourage them to do so. Last year, we commemorated the 200th Anniversary of Lewis and Clark's adventure into the frontier. It is a prominent historical event for Louisiana, because it marks the culmination of the promise of the Louisiana purchase. Thirty-eight soldiers and scouts set out with Lewis and Clark, and they called themselves the Corps of Discovery. Hopefully, our body can take up their mantle and emulate their exploring spirit in the passing of this bill. Today, we are exploring only 43 million of the 1.67 billion acres of the Outer Continental Shelf--less than 2.6 percent! If Lewis and Clark had taken this same timid tactic, they would have stopped just short of Cincinnati, and the history of our country would have been vastly different. Instead, Lewis and Clark ventured on for another 8,000 miles and helped to open our western frontier. Let us do the same! Thomas Jefferson, who commissioned the adventure, was eager to have a full understanding of the economic potential of his great bargain. This was an act of political will--for no sooner did the trip commence, than Congress began complaining about its expense. Thus, even Lewis and Clark's voyages were seemingly subject to the mindless penny pinching of ``302(b)'' allocations. What they were trying to discover was the economic potential and natural resources of this great country. It was a fundamental exercise of reason over myth. Jefferson sought new trading relationships with the native tribes, sought an overland route to the Pacific for nascent trade with China, and wanted to know of the quality of land for agriculture. What he did not do was let ignorance and fear govern policy. Yet when it comes to the Outer Continental Shelf, we are doing just that. Not only do we not know the full riches that lie off our coasts, policymakers around here don't want to go, don't want to see, and don't want to know. While the OCS contains more than 60 percent of the Nation's remaining undiscovered oil and natural gas resources, 85 percent of the OCS in the lower 48 States remains untouchable . . . blocked by Congressional moratoria and administrative withdrawal. While 98 percent of our current OCS production comes from a very concentrated area--the western half of the Gulf of Mexico, offshore Louisiana and Texas--most of the Pacific Coast remains off limits. Most of the Eastern Gulf of Mexico . . . off limits. And the entire Atlantic seaboard . . . off limits. At the same time, our demand for, and supply of, oil and gas are moving in opposite directions. Over the next 20 years, our consumption is expected to increase by 50 percent, but production is only expected to increase by less than half that amount. Imagine explaining that circumstance to someone like Jefferson or Franklin, Lewis or Clark. They understood the essential fact of progress--you can't discover if you don't look. It is time for a full accounting of the resources of the OCS. Technology has provided us with a modern Corps of Discovery that will be no more intrusive than the 40 men in the wilderness 200 years ago. With scientific data in hand, then we can have a meaningful argument about the efficacy of what to do with our natural resources. For example, through the effective use of technology, we have produced three times as many resources as we thought existed 30 years ago--and have produced them in an environmentally friendly way . . . The Minerals Management Service estimates that from 1985 to 2001, OCS offshore facilities and pipelines accounted for only 2 percent of the oil released into U.S. waters. In fact, 97 percent of OCS spills are one barrel or less in volume. Obviously, just a little technology can go a long way. What is disappointing to me is that the mythology around oil and gas production--its potential hazards and challenges--stems from stories nearly 50 years old. We live in an information driven economy, but many in the environmental community have a very industrial age approach to these challenges. We ban; we prohibit; we restrict. Instead we should research, innovate and improve. Several nights ago, I was up late watching an odd documentary. It was about the history of bringing hot water to our homes at the turn of the century. It's something we all take for granted now, but if you contemplate it, it was a difficult engineering problem years ago. Like all new technologies, water heaters were once a lot less reliable than they are now. In fact, when they first started to be installed in people's homes, they frequently blew sky high. That was tragic, and we are all relieved that we've moved beyond that stage in technology. But, the lesson is that even though tragic injuries occurred, when there was great societal benefit to be had, technology kept on leading the way. That is what has already occurred in oil and gas. There is clearly more that can be done. I invite any Member of the Senate to join me on an offshore platform. You will see something that looks a lot less like an industrial plant and more like a spaceship . . . A spaceship for which our coastal producing States provide the launch pads. More can be done, but you will be amazed at what has already been accomplished. The SCORE Act helps motivate States to consider the potential that lies on the frontier off their coasts, and hopes to inspire a new era of technological advancement and energy invention. As we begin to comprehend the Ocean Frontier, we need to partner with industry to develop the necessary science. Safety and environmental sensitivity should be the watchwords of our stewardship. It is a lesson that we take with us from our collective experience. To ensure this remains a priority for industry, we need to reinvest some of the resources that we are collecting. That is the way forward--not ignorance and fear, but reason and stewardship. No one understood the importance of stewardship more than Theodore Roosevelt, whose memorial I visited yesterday with the Senator from Tennessee, Mr. Alexander. Two of Roosevelt's greatest legacies--the Pelican Island National Wildlife Refuge and Breton Island National Wildlife Refuge--lie just off Louisiana's coast. They were the first refuges he created, but as we know, they were not the last . . . and the lives of generations of Americans continue to be enriched by these gifts to us. In his only trip to one of the refuges he created, Roosevelt visited Louisiana's barrier islands in 1915 . . . but much of the landscape he visited no longer exists, having been washed away by coastal erosion. Reflecting on the visit, he wrote in his autobiography, A Book Lover's Holidays in the Open: To lose the chance to see frigate-birds soaring in circles above the storm, or a file of pelicans winging their way homeward across the crimson afterglow of the sunset, or myriad terns flashing in the bright light of midday as they hover in a shifting maze above the beach--why, the loss is like the loss of a gallery of the masterpieces of the artists of old time. Unfortunately, even with the efforts of conservation visionaries like Roosevelt, the story of the past 100 years has been one of continued coastal and wildlife losses. Consider that Battledore Island, the `gallery of masterpiece' of which he wrote, is no more. Today, fishermen know it as Battledore Reef. It is too late for Battledore Island, but it is not too late to save countless other natural treasures around our Nation. While President Roosevelt's vision is still alive, there is much work left to be done . . . and today we have an opportunity to carry on his legacy of conservation and write a different ending to the story he began so long ago. The Americans Outdoors Act, which I have introduced with Senator Alexander, is a significant start. In our Government today, you will be hard pressed to find a closer embodiment of Roosevelt's legacy than in Senator Alexander, and I am so very proud to be working with him in this effort. AOA would mark our Government's greatest commitment of resources to conservation ever, and would directly benefit all 50 States and hundreds of local communities through its landmark, multiyear commitment to coastal restoration and other conservation programs like the state side of the Land and Water Conservation Fund. It, like SCORE, would also set forward a crucial first step to restoring America's vital wetlands and the billions of dollars in energy investments they protect. When Hurricane Ivan struck back in September, it should have been a wake-up call to us all. Although the storm did not hit Louisiana directly, its impact on the price and supply of oil and gas in this country could still be felt 4 months later. One can only imagine what the impact would have been had Ivan cut a more western path in the gulf. How many more hurricane seasons are we going to spend playing Russian roulette with our oil and gas supply? But the diversity of our energy supply is just as important as the increased production of it. And our atmosphere protects us much in the same way as our coasts. We have an obligation to serve as responsible stewards of both. Mr. President, it will come as no surprise to you that fear, rather than science, also seems to dominate our policy with respect to nuclear energy. There are some startling facts that most Americans probably do not know today. Nuclear energy--today--despite not having licensed a new plant in 27 years--provides 20 percent of America's electricity. Most importantly, it does so without any emissions. This is a resource that is produced 100 percent domestically. No one has to bring in a new LNG plant for nuclear energy, no one has to defend critical supply lines for nuclear energy, no one has to cap and trade emissions for nuclear energy. Yet a policy driven by fear and superstition keep the United States in a technological backwater. Between our fear of oil and gas production, our near hysteria toward nuclear power, and our rejection of clean coal options, the United States is living in a kind of energy technology dark ages. Rather than harnessing powerful forces that could bring light and energy to this Nation. We are being ruled by superstition and fear, and we have to bring these attitudes to an end. The alternative is even more bleak. While the U.S. ignores nuclear power, our economic rivals in Japan and France are pulling away from us. More menacing still, the Chinese are threatening to leap-frog U.S. technology in this arena. Spencer Reiss wrote in a recent article entitled Let a Thousand Reactors Bloom: The Future of Nuclear Power, a 2003 study by a blue-ribbon commission headed by former CIA director John Deutch, concludes that by 2050 the PRC could require the equivalent of 200 full-scale nuke plants. A team of Chinese scientists advising the Beijing leadership puts the figure even higher: 300 gigawatts of nuclear output, not much less than the 350 gigawatts produced worldwide today. To meet that growing demand, China's leaders are pursuing two strategies. They're turning to established nuke plant makers like AECL, Framatome, Mitsubishi, and Westinghouse, which supplied key technology for China's nine existing atomic power facilities. But they're also pursuing a second, more audacious course. Physicists and engineers at Beijing's Tsinghua University have made the first great leap forward in a quarter century, building a new nuclear power facility that promises to be a better way to harness the atom: a pebble-bed reactor. A reactor small enough to be assembled from mass- produced parts and cheap enough for customers without billion-dollar bank accounts. A reactor whose safety is a matter of physics, not operator skill or reinforced concrete. And, for a bona fide fairy-tale ending, the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow is labeled hydrogen. With this sort of news, one begins to wonder if there is any set of circumstances that will dissuade the Congress from its wrong-headed policies. We cannot afford to keep waiting. I call on my colleagues to resolve once and for all the issues of where to store the byproducts of our nuclear generation. Technology also harbors other exciting new promises for clean energy. Coal provides 50 percent of our Nation's electrical supply, and now we can use it in a better way. Coal gasification plants--or ``clean coal'' strip out the pollutants that would otherwise be released into the air, allowing us to continue to draw on this abundant natural resource while also respecting our roles as stewards of the environment. Liquified natural gas also has a significant role in satisfying our clean energy goals while helping to solve our Nation's supply and demand imbalance. But we cannot allow the Gulf of Mexico to simply become a ``thruway'' for LNG without recognizing the role of coastal States that host the terminals and sustain its importation. To this end, terminal siting is not only a Federal concern but a local one as well. And finally, we simply cannot ignore the promise of hydrogen technology. Senator Dorgan has been one of the Senate's foremost leaders in this regard. I was proud to support his efforts throughout all of the iterations of the Senate Energy bill, and am very pleased to understand that many of them have been incorporated into the Energy chairman's mark. Beyond these, there are countless alternative resources we have yet to fully explore--resources such as wind, solar and even wave energy-- all of which can also be produced on the OCS with the encouragement SCORE provides. Let me make clear: Increased domestic production and supply diversity are of paramount importance to our energy needs and national security, but no serious energy policy can ignore the equally important need for energy conservation. Benjamin Franklin was eminently quotable, but one of his more relevant quips is ``When a well's dry, we know the worth of water.'' So it is with America's environment. The cost of global warming will be truly staggering when compared to conservation measures today. There are a number of points to be raised in that regard. First, I believe that the U.S. Government should use its power of economies of scale, and large purchasing power to set the best example. Energy efficiency should be a consideration in the design and retrofitting of U.S. Government buildings. Energy savings should be a factor in the enormous fleet of government vehicles. I have also supported a provision, now included in the Energy chairman's mark, which would call for a reduction in our Nation's oil consumption by 1 million barrels per day over the next 10 years. We currently consume 20 million barrels. With research and technology, these are very attainable goals. Similarly, the Senate will be best off with a smart Renewable Portfolio Standard--RPS--that it can pass. RPS is a lynchpin that will make alternative technologies commercially viable. It is a vital and logical step in our efforts toward energy independence. And even as we address the production side of the equation, we need to make sure the energy we produce reaches consumers affordably and reliably. In our handling of OCS revenues, we ask our coastal producing States to give and give with little in return. Equally unfair are our Nation's electrical transmission policies, which expect Louisiana consumers to foot the bill for electricity consumed in other States. For these reasons, Senator Burr and I earlier this year introduced the Interstate Transmission Act, which seeks to protect local rate payers and make electric reliability standards mandatory. Today we make new history. It may not be as exciting as Franklin's discoveries about electricity, or require the endurance of the Corps of Discovery. But it may hold the key to America's economic future. My Ocean Energy Initiative, which includes the Americans Outdoors and SCORE Acts, as well as a series of technology proposals still to come, creates a strong four-step framework for protecting our national economic, military and energy security by increasing, diversifying, and cleaning up our energy production and supply. We must look for new ideas and new frontiers to support increased, diverse, and clean energy. The Ocean Frontier today presents the most immediate opportunities, but who knows what lies on the next horizon? Space, perhaps? We must explore these new frontiers and develop the innovative new technologies to do so more effectively and responsibly. We must share the shelf and other frontiers, so our states aren't left shouldering the burden. And we must invest in our environment and return to our coasts, forests and green-spaces the respect and recognition befitting what they have given us by way of natural resources. We give back some of what we take. Through a responsible balance of conservation and innovation, this Ocean Energy Initiative recognizes that the goals of energy security and environmental stewardship need not be mutually exclusive. Mr. President, we follow in the footsteps of great pioneers: Benjamin Franklin, who put science before superstition; Thomas Jefferson, who opened the American frontier; Lewis and Clark, who journeyed into this frontier and found its rich promise; and Theodore Roosevelt, who saw that a great nation bears a responsibility of stewardship to the ground it is built upon. If we follow their example, and continue down the path these pioneers blazed to the new frontier, we will have a bill that we can all look back on with pride.

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, today I rise to introduce legislation, The Stewardship for our Coasts and Opportunities for Reliable Energy Act--SCORE Act--which will ensure that offshore energy development on the Outer Continental Shelf--OCS--continues to serve our nation's needs, create opportunities for new development on the OCS as well as the use of alternative resources such as renewable energy. Since the energy frontier of the OCS was officially opened to significant oil and gas exploration in 1953, no single region has contributed nearly as much to our Nation's energy production. Today, the OCS represents more than 25 percent of our Nation's natural gas production and more than 30 percent of our domestic oil production and it is estimated that 60 percent of the oil and natural gas still to be discovered in U.S. will come from the OCS. An average of more than $5 billion in revenues from oil and gas production are returned to the federal treasury each year from the OCS--$145 billion since production began. That is the second biggest contributor of revenue to the Federal Treasury after income taxes. But just as the Western frontier once represented a great unknown to our Nation's policymakers, the impact and reality of the OCS seems lost in a time warp. While much of the OCS has been off limits for decades, technological advancements have developed in that time to better target the resources and dramatically reduce the environmental footprint. These innovations will continue to allow crucial exploration and production to take place but in an environmentally responsible way. For example, we have produced three times as many resources on the OCS as we thought existed 30 years ago. In fact, the Minerals Management Service--MMS--estimates that from 1985 to 2001, OCS offshore facilities and pipelines accounted for only 2 percent of the oil released into U.S. waters. In fact, 97 percent of OCS spills are one barrel or less in volume. Serving America's energy needs and being good stewards of the environment need not be mutually exclusive goals. However, despite our technological prowess and responsible exploration, we have yet to fully realize the potential the OCS has to offer. Today only 2.5 percent of the 1.76 billion acres that make up the OCS are leased. Most of the Pacific Coast and the eastern Gulf of Mexico are off limits as is the entire Atlantic seaboard. Almost all of the area on the OCS that is currently leased is in the Central and Western Gulf of Mexico, off the coasts of Louisiana and Texas, where 98 percent of total OCS production occurs. However, we cannot continue to take without giving something back in return. A significant portion of OCS revenues must be returned to the coastal producing states off whose coasts they are generated. The Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 shares automatically with states 50 percent of revenues from mineral production on Federal lands within that State's boundaries. These funds are distributed to States automatically, outside the budget process and not subject to appropriations. In fiscal year 2004, the State of Wyoming received $564 million as a result of this law and the State of New Mexico received $365 million. However, there is no similar provision in law for coastal producing states to share federal oil and gas revenues generated on the OCS. For both onshore and offshore production, the justification for sharing with the state is the same: the state serves as the platform which enables the Federal Government to support a basic element of our daily lives--turning on our lights, heating our homes and running our commuter trains. In light of the OCS' vital contribution to our Nation's energy needs, economy and national security, it seems only fair and logical that we should return a portion of these revenues to the few states that are providing this crucial supply of energy. The SCORE Act would automatically distribute a significant portion of OCS revenues to the five coastal producing States without moratoria off their coasts Alaska, Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi and Alabama based on each state's production, with 35 percent of each State's allocation directed to coastal counties and parishes. When Hurricane Ivan struck back in September of last year, it should have been a wake up call to us all. Although the storm did not hit Louisiana directly, its impact on the price and supply of oil and gas in this country could still be felt four months later. One can only imagine what the impact would have been had Ivan cut a more Western path in the Gulf. How many more hurricane seasons are we going to spend playing Russian roulette with our oil and gas supply? Returning a portion of OCS revenues to coastal producing states is crucial to restoring and preserving the vital wetlands and the billions in energy investments they protect. It will also help further strengthen our national economic security by maintaining our current energy supply and continuing to provide the platform for us to go further in our quest to develop domestic resources while attempting to reduce our reliance on foreign energy supplies. In addition to ensuring that the vital offshore energy development that has served our Nation's needs for 50 years can continue, the SCORE Act also seeks to establish opportunities for new development on the OCS. The legislation would direct the Secretary of Interior to establish seaward lateral boundaries for all coastal States by regulation. Coastal States with a moratoria currently in place off their coasts would have the option, through their Governor with the consent of the State legislature, to explore the possibility of offshore energy development off their coasts. These coastal States could petition the Secretary of Interior for a resource assessment of energy sources located within their seaward lateral boundaries. With these assessments in hand, the State legislature of the State could request that any or all of the area within their boundaries, but only beyond 20 miles from their coastline, be made available for leasing. If the Secretary permits leasing within the requesting State's boundary, the State qualifies to receive a portion of revenues generated from any production that takes place within their seaward lateral boundary. Finally, SCORE would provide the opportunity for innovative, alternative uses of the OCS, including renewable energy projects such as wind, wave and solar. A portion of revenues from this production would be shared with the State off whose coastline the production took place. Next week the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, under the leadership of Chairman Domenici and Senator Bingaman, will begin marking up comprehensive energy legislation. I am hopeful that some aspects of the proposal I have laid out today will be included as part of the bill reported out of committee. I look forward to working with my colleagues on the Committee over the next few weeks to further discuss these concepts and make them a reality. Quite simply, SCORE allows our country to continue to utilize the tremendous and vital natural resources of the OCS while also providing us the opportunity to further explore the unlimited potential of this vast frontier. It is time to base our decisions on modern successes rather than out-dated worries.

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, today I rise to introduce legislation, The Stewardship for our Coasts and Opportunities for Reliable Energy Act--SCORE Act--which will ensure that offshore energy development on the Outer Continental Shelf--OCS--continues to serve our nation's needs, create opportunities for new development on the OCS as well as the use of alternative resources such as renewable energy. Since the energy frontier of the OCS was officially opened to significant oil and gas exploration in 1953, no single region has contributed nearly as much to our Nation's energy production. Today, the OCS represents more than 25 percent of our Nation's natural gas production and more than 30 percent of our domestic oil production and it is estimated that 60 percent of the oil and natural gas still to be discovered in U.S. will come from the OCS. An average of more than $5 billion in revenues from oil and gas production are returned to the federal treasury each year from the OCS--$145 billion since production began. That is the second biggest contributor of revenue to the Federal Treasury after income taxes. But just as the Western frontier once represented a great unknown to our Nation's policymakers, the impact and reality of the OCS seems lost in a time warp. While much of the OCS has been off limits for decades, technological advancements have developed in that time to better target the resources and dramatically reduce the environmental footprint. These innovations will continue to allow crucial exploration and production to take place but in an environmentally responsible way. For example, we have produced three times as many resources on the OCS as we thought existed 30 years ago. In fact, the Minerals Management Service--MMS--estimates that from 1985 to 2001, OCS offshore facilities and pipelines accounted for only 2 percent of the oil released into U.S. waters. In fact, 97 percent of OCS spills are one barrel or less in volume. Serving America's energy needs and being good stewards of the environment need not be mutually exclusive goals. However, despite our technological prowess and responsible exploration, we have yet to fully realize the potential the OCS has to offer. Today only 2.5 percent of the 1.76 billion acres that make up the OCS are leased. Most of the Pacific Coast and the eastern Gulf of Mexico are off limits as is the entire Atlantic seaboard. Almost all of the area on the OCS that is currently leased is in the Central and Western Gulf of Mexico, off the coasts of Louisiana and Texas, where 98 percent of total OCS production occurs. However, we cannot continue to take without giving something back in return. A significant portion of OCS revenues must be returned to the coastal producing states off whose coasts they are generated. The Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 shares automatically with states 50 percent of revenues from mineral production on Federal lands within that State's boundaries. These funds are distributed to States automatically, outside the budget process and not subject to appropriations. In fiscal year 2004, the State of Wyoming received $564 million as a result of this law and the State of New Mexico received $365 million. However, there is no similar provision in law for coastal producing states to share federal oil and gas revenues generated on the OCS. For both onshore and offshore production, the justification for sharing with the state is the same: the state serves as the platform which enables the Federal Government to support a basic element of our daily lives--turning on our lights, heating our homes and running our commuter trains. In light of the OCS' vital contribution to our Nation's energy needs, economy and national security, it seems only fair and logical that we should return a portion of these revenues to the few states that are providing this crucial supply of energy. The SCORE Act would automatically distribute a significant portion of OCS revenues to the five coastal producing States without moratoria off their coasts Alaska, Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi and Alabama based on each state's production, with 35 percent of each State's allocation directed to coastal counties and parishes. When Hurricane Ivan struck back in September of last year, it should have been a wake up call to us all. Although the storm did not hit Louisiana directly, its impact on the price and supply of oil and gas in this country could still be felt four months later. One can only imagine what the impact would have been had Ivan cut a more Western path in the Gulf. How many more hurricane seasons are we going to spend playing Russian roulette with our oil and gas supply? Returning a portion of OCS revenues to coastal producing states is crucial to restoring and preserving the vital wetlands and the billions in energy investments they protect. It will also help further strengthen our national economic security by maintaining our current energy supply and continuing to provide the platform for us to go further in our quest to develop domestic resources while attempting to reduce our reliance on foreign energy supplies. In addition to ensuring that the vital offshore energy development that has served our Nation's needs for 50 years can continue, the SCORE Act also seeks to establish opportunities for new development on the OCS. The legislation would direct the Secretary of Interior to establish seaward lateral boundaries for all coastal States by regulation. Coastal States with a moratoria currently in place off their coasts would have the option, through their Governor with the consent of the State legislature, to explore the possibility of offshore energy development off their coasts. These coastal States could petition the Secretary of Interior for a resource assessment of energy sources located within their seaward lateral boundaries. With these assessments in hand, the State legislature of the State could request that any or all of the area within their boundaries, but only beyond 20 miles from their coastline, be made available for leasing. If the Secretary permits leasing within the requesting State's boundary, the State qualifies to receive a portion of revenues generated from any production that takes place within their seaward lateral boundary. Finally, SCORE would provide the opportunity for innovative, alternative uses of the OCS, including renewable energy projects such as wind, wave and solar. A portion of revenues from this production would be shared with the State off whose coastline the production took place. Next week the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, under the leadership of Chairman Domenici and Senator Bingaman, will begin marking up comprehensive energy legislation. I am hopeful that some aspects of the proposal I have laid out today will be included as part of the bill reported out of committee. I look forward to working with my colleagues on the Committee over the next few weeks to further discuss these concepts and make them a reality. Quite simply, SCORE allows our country to continue to utilize the tremendous and vital natural resources of the OCS while also providing us the opportunity to further explore the unlimited potential of this vast frontier. It is time to base our decisions on modern successes rather than out-dated worries.

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, today I have 18 young men and women from Louisiana and the Washington area taking part in Take Our Daughters and Sons to Work Day. I am going to submit all of their names for the Record to show that they spent a day working in the Senate with me and with some of the other Senators and have seen firsthand the work that goes on. I want to acknowledge the MS Magazine Foundation that started Take Our Daughters and Sons to Work Day to thank them for organizing this effort where there are thousands, maybe perhaps millions, of young people who have taken a day out of their school work to go to the various places where Americans are working to contribute to making this country of ours a better country and this world a better place. I thank these young men and women for being a part of this special day and taking their time to come and learn about the workings of the Senate: From St. Catherine of Siena School: Gabrielle Bordlee, Metairie, LA; From Schriever Elementary School: Cameron Dark, Houma, LA; From Georgetown Day School: Alexa Dettlebach, Chevy Chase,

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, today I rise with the Senator from Tennessee, Mr. Alexander, my colleague from Louisiana, Mr. Vitter, and the senior Senator from South Dakota, Mr. Johnson, to introduce legislation which we believe is a new and enhanced version of one of the most significant conservation efforts ever considered by Congress. The Americans Outdoors Act is a landmark multi-year commitment to conservation programs directly benefitting all 50 States and hundreds of local communities. It creates a conservation royalty earned from the production of oil and gas found on the Outer Continental Shelf, OCS, and directs it towards the restoration of coastal wetlands, preservation of wildlife habitat, and to help build and maintain local and state parks for our children and grandchildren. By enacting this legislation, we will be making the most significant commitment of resources to conservation ever. It will ensure a positive legacy of protecting, preserving and enhancing critical wildlife habitat, open green spaces and the opportunity for Americans to enjoy their outdoors today and for generations to come. Our legislation builds on an effort made during the 106th Congress that was supported by governors, mayors and a coalition of more than 5,000 organizations from throughout the country. Unfortunately, despite widespread support, our efforts were cut short before a bill could be signed into law. Instead a commitment was made by those who opposed the legislation to guarantee funding for these programs each year through the appropriation process. However, as we have painfully witnessed since then, that commitment has not been met. What has happened is exactly what those of us who initiated the effort always anticipated. Each of these significant programs continues to be shortchanged and a number of them have been left out altogether or forced to compete with each other for Federal resources. The legislation we are introducing today provides reliable, significant and steady funding for the urgent and worthy conservation and outdoor recreation needs of our states and rapidly expanding urban and suburban areas. What makes more sense than to take a portion of revenues from a great but depleting capital asset of the Nation-- offshore Federal oil and gas resources--and reinvest them into sustaining our Nation's natural resources: wetlands; parks and recreation areas and wildlife? The Americans Outdoors Act dedicates assured funding for four distinct programs and honors promises made long ago to the American people. They include: Coastal Impact Assistance--$450 million to oil and gas producing coastal States to mitigate the various impacts of states that serve as the ``platform'' for the crucial development of Federal offshore energy resources from the OCS as well as provide for wetland restoration. This program merely acknowledges the impacts to and contribution of States that are providing the energy to run our country's economy. Since the 1.76 billion acre energy frontier of the OCS was officially opened to significant oil and gas exploration in 1953, no single region has contributed as much to our Nation's energy production. In fact, the OCS supplies more oil to our Nation than any other country including Saudi Arabia. Today, the OCS represents more than 25 percent of our Nation's natural gas production and more than 30 percent of our domestic oil production--with the promise of reaching 40 percent by 2008. It is estimated that 60 percent of the oil and natural gas still to be discovered in the U.S. will come from the OCS. An average of more than $5 billion in revenues from oil and gas production are returned to the Federal treasury each year from the OCS--$145 billion since Production began. That is the second biggest contributor of revenue to the Federal treasury after income taxes. Our legislation seeks to address a historical inequity. The Mineral Lands Leasing Act of 1920 shares automatically with States 50 percent of revenues from mineral production on Federal lands within that State's boundaries. These funds are distributed to States automatically, outside the budget process and not subject to appropriations. In fiscal year 2004, the State of Wyoming received $564 million as a result of this law and the State of New Mexico received $365 million. But, there is no similar provision in law for coastal producing States to share Federal oil and gas revenues generated on the OCS. For both onshore and offshore production, the justification for sharing with the State is the same: The State serves as the platform which enables the Federal Government to support a basic element of our daily lives--turning on our lights, heating our homes and running our commuter trains. In light of the OCS's vital contribution to our Nation's energy needs, economy and national security, it see only fair and logical that we should return a share of these revenues to the few States that are providing this crucial supply of energy. The revenues should be distributed automatically based on what is produced off a State's coastline and a portion of each State's allocation should be shared with coastal counties and parishes. They battle every day with the forces of nature that are steadily undermining our energy security by washing away the barrier islands and marshes that protect critical infrastructure necessary to deliver it. When Hurricane Ivan struck back in September, it should have been a wake up call to us all. Although the storm did not hit Louisiana directly, its impact on the price and supply of oil and gas in this country could still be felt 4 months later. One can only imagine what the impact would have been had Ivan cut a more Western path in the Gulf. How many more hurricane seasons are we going to spend playing Russian roulette with our oil and gas supply? Returning a portion of OCS revenues to Louisiana and other coastal producing States is crucial to restoring and preserving these vital wetlands and the billions in energy investments they protect. This bill will provide $450 million for the State side of the Land and Water Conservation Fund, LWCF, to provide stable funding to States for the planning and development of State and local parks and recreation facilities. The allocation to States would be 60 percent equally among all 50 States and 40 percent based on relative population. This program provides greater revenue certainty for State and local governments to help them meet their recreational needs through recreational facility development and resource protection--all under the discretion of State and local authorities while protecting the rights of private property owners. This bill would provide for Wildlife Conservation, Education and Restoration. A total of $350 million is allocated to all 50 States through the successful program of Pittman-Robertson for the conservation of non-game and game species, with the principal goal of preventing species from becoming endangered or listed under the Endangered Species Act. By taking steps now to prevent species from becoming endangered we are able to not only conserve the significant cultural heritage of wildlife enjoyment for the people of this country, but also avoid the substantial costs associated with recovery for endangered species. Allocations to States would be based on a formula of two-thirds relative population and one-third relative land area and the Urban Parks and Recreation Recovery Program, UPARR--$125 million in the form of matching grants, 70 percent, to provide direct assistance to our cities and towns so that they can focus on the needs of their populations within the more densely inhabited areas around the country where there are fewer green-spaces, playgrounds and soccer fields for our youth. I would also like to acknowledge our interest in several programs that are not part of this initial package but will be considered as the bill moves through the process. For example, the Federal side of the Land and Water Conservation Fund, which focuses primarily on Federal land acquisition. The goal of the Federal side of the LWCF was to share a significant portion of revenues from offshore development with States to provide for protection and public use of the natural environment. It is our intention to discuss this program with our colleagues on the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee with the goal of developing a compromise that will garner broad support. In addition, other worthy programs that are not part of the legislation we are introducing today but ideally would be part of a larger more comprehensive effort include Historic Preservation, Payment in Lieu of Taxes, PILT, and the Forest Legacy program. While we confront a time of war, budget deficits and a struggling economy, setting aside a portion of oil and gas royalties to our States and localities for initiatives such as outdoor spaces or recreation facilities for our children to play could not be more crucial. Programs such as the State side of the Land and Water Conservation Fund are in fact the economic stimulus that our States and cities need in these times. It is time we take some of the proceeds we extract from our earth and reinvest them into conserving our great outdoors for generations to come. To continue to do otherwise, as we have done for the last 50 years, is not only environmentally and fiscally irresponsible. It ignores our American duty of stewardship to our Nation, our planet and our children.

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I rise today in honor of Alcohol Awareness Month to recognize The Century Council for its efforts to prevent underage drinking. The Century Council is a national, not for profit organization funded by America's leading distillers to develop and implement programs designed to combat drunk driving and underage drinking. These programs, such as Ready or Not: Talking with Kids About Alcohol, Brandon's Story, and Alcohol 101 Plus, are making great strides in reducing the amount of underage drinking and irresponsible consumption of alcohol. Right now, The Council is kicking off its sixth annual National Prom and Graduation Safety Months Initiative. Between April and June, The Council has planned a series of events across the country to educate students, parents and the general public about making responsible decisions with regard to beverage alcohol. Over the past two decades, progress has been made in the effort to stop underage drinking through the implementation of effective programs and increased public awareness regarding the negative consequences of underage drinking. According to the most recent figures from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 749 people under the age of 21 were killed in alcohol- related traffic crashes during April, May and June in 2003 as well as countless non-fatal injuries. In Louisiana, alcohol is a factor in 20 percent of all traffic fatalities involving minors, and it is a factor in 15 percent of all traffic accidents involving minors. It was once said that ``holding young people solely responsible for underage drinking is like holding fish responsible for dying in a polluted stream.'' As a mother of two young children, I know that I will soon have to speak to my own kids about alcohol use. As all of the other parents in this Chamber and across the country can say, the conversation between a parent and a child about alcohol use is not always an easy conversation. However, improved communication between parents and children is essential to preventing underage drinking. According to a recent survey by TRU Omnibuzz in 2003, 65 percent of adolescents identify parents as the leading influence in their decision to drink or not to drink. Unfortunately, 36 percent of adolescents say they had not spoken to either parent about alcohol. This communication gap can be minimized by through programs that increase awareness, educate parents and kids and help facilitate conversations between parents and kids about the dangers of underage drinking. The role of parents in the efforts to reduce underage drinking is critical. I commend The Century Council for giving parents and children across the Nation the valuable tools to initiate those important discussions regarding alcohol.

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, today I rise with the Senator from Tennessee, Mr. Alexander, my colleague from Louisiana, Mr. Vitter, and the senior Senator from South Dakota, Mr. Johnson, to introduce legislation which we believe is a new and enhanced version of one of the most significant conservation efforts ever considered by Congress. The Americans Outdoors Act is a landmark multi-year commitment to conservation programs directly benefitting all 50 States and hundreds of local communities. It creates a conservation royalty earned from the production of oil and gas found on the Outer Continental Shelf, OCS, and directs it towards the restoration of coastal wetlands, preservation of wildlife habitat, and to help build and maintain local and state parks for our children and grandchildren. By enacting this legislation, we will be making the most significant commitment of resources to conservation ever. It will ensure a positive legacy of protecting, preserving and enhancing critical wildlife habitat, open green spaces and the opportunity for Americans to enjoy their outdoors today and for generations to come. Our legislation builds on an effort made during the 106th Congress that was supported by governors, mayors and a coalition of more than 5,000 organizations from throughout the country. Unfortunately, despite widespread support, our efforts were cut short before a bill could be signed into law. Instead a commitment was made by those who opposed the legislation to guarantee funding for these programs each year through the appropriation process. However, as we have painfully witnessed since then, that commitment has not been met. What has happened is exactly what those of us who initiated the effort always anticipated. Each of these significant programs continues to be shortchanged and a number of them have been left out altogether or forced to compete with each other for Federal resources. The legislation we are introducing today provides reliable, significant and steady funding for the urgent and worthy conservation and outdoor recreation needs of our states and rapidly expanding urban and suburban areas. What makes more sense than to take a portion of revenues from a great but depleting capital asset of the Nation-- offshore Federal oil and gas resources--and reinvest them into sustaining our Nation's natural resources: wetlands; parks and recreation areas and wildlife? The Americans Outdoors Act dedicates assured funding for four distinct programs and honors promises made long ago to the American people. They include: Coastal Impact Assistance--$450 million to oil and gas producing coastal States to mitigate the various impacts of states that serve as the ``platform'' for the crucial development of Federal offshore energy resources from the OCS as well as provide for wetland restoration. This program merely acknowledges the impacts to and contribution of States that are providing the energy to run our country's economy. Since the 1.76 billion acre energy frontier of the OCS was officially opened to significant oil and gas exploration in 1953, no single region has contributed as much to our Nation's energy production. In fact, the OCS supplies more oil to our Nation than any other country including Saudi Arabia. Today, the OCS represents more than 25 percent of our Nation's natural gas production and more than 30 percent of our domestic oil production--with the promise of reaching 40 percent by 2008. It is estimated that 60 percent of the oil and natural gas still to be discovered in the U.S. will come from the OCS. An average of more than $5 billion in revenues from oil and gas production are returned to the Federal treasury each year from the OCS--$145 billion since Production began. That is the second biggest contributor of revenue to the Federal treasury after income taxes. Our legislation seeks to address a historical inequity. The Mineral Lands Leasing Act of 1920 shares automatically with States 50 percent of revenues from mineral production on Federal lands within that State's boundaries. These funds are distributed to States automatically, outside the budget process and not subject to appropriations. In fiscal year 2004, the State of Wyoming received $564 million as a result of this law and the State of New Mexico received $365 million. But, there is no similar provision in law for coastal producing States to share Federal oil and gas revenues generated on the OCS. For both onshore and offshore production, the justification for sharing with the State is the same: The State serves as the platform which enables the Federal Government to support a basic element of our daily lives--turning on our lights, heating our homes and running our commuter trains. In light of the OCS's vital contribution to our Nation's energy needs, economy and national security, it see only fair and logical that we should return a share of these revenues to the few States that are providing this crucial supply of energy. The revenues should be distributed automatically based on what is produced off a State's coastline and a portion of each State's allocation should be shared with coastal counties and parishes. They battle every day with the forces of nature that are steadily undermining our energy security by washing away the barrier islands and marshes that protect critical infrastructure necessary to deliver it. When Hurricane Ivan struck back in September, it should have been a wake up call to us all. Although the storm did not hit Louisiana directly, its impact on the price and supply of oil and gas in this country could still be felt 4 months later. One can only imagine what the impact would have been had Ivan cut a more Western path in the Gulf. How many more hurricane seasons are we going to spend playing Russian roulette with our oil and gas supply? Returning a portion of OCS revenues to Louisiana and other coastal producing States is crucial to restoring and preserving these vital wetlands and the billions in energy investments they protect. This bill will provide $450 million for the State side of the Land and Water Conservation Fund, LWCF, to provide stable funding to States for the planning and development of State and local parks and recreation facilities. The allocation to States would be 60 percent equally among all 50 States and 40 percent based on relative population. This program provides greater revenue certainty for State and local governments to help them meet their recreational needs through recreational facility development and resource protection--all under the discretion of State and local authorities while protecting the rights of private property owners. This bill would provide for Wildlife Conservation, Education and Restoration. A total of $350 million is allocated to all 50 States through the successful program of Pittman-Robertson for the conservation of non-game and game species, with the principal goal of preventing species from becoming endangered or listed under the Endangered Species Act. By taking steps now to prevent species from becoming endangered we are able to not only conserve the significant cultural heritage of wildlife enjoyment for the people of this country, but also avoid the substantial costs associated with recovery for endangered species. Allocations to States would be based on a formula of two-thirds relative population and one-third relative land area and the Urban Parks and Recreation Recovery Program, UPARR--$125 million in the form of matching grants, 70 percent, to provide direct assistance to our cities and towns so that they can focus on the needs of their populations within the more densely inhabited areas around the country where there are fewer green-spaces, playgrounds and soccer fields for our youth. I would also like to acknowledge our interest in several programs that are not part of this initial package but will be considered as the bill moves through the process. For example, the Federal side of the Land and Water Conservation Fund, which focuses primarily on Federal land acquisition. The goal of the Federal side of the LWCF was to share a significant portion of revenues from offshore development with States to provide for protection and public use of the natural environment. It is our intention to discuss this program with our colleagues on the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee with the goal of developing a compromise that will garner broad support. In addition, other worthy programs that are not part of the legislation we are introducing today but ideally would be part of a larger more comprehensive effort include Historic Preservation, Payment in Lieu of Taxes, PILT, and the Forest Legacy program. While we confront a time of war, budget deficits and a struggling economy, setting aside a portion of oil and gas royalties to our States and localities for initiatives such as outdoor spaces or recreation facilities for our children to play could not be more crucial. Programs such as the State side of the Land and Water Conservation Fund are in fact the economic stimulus that our States and cities need in these times. It is time we take some of the proceeds we extract from our earth and reinvest them into conserving our great outdoors for generations to come. To continue to do otherwise, as we have done for the last 50 years, is not only environmentally and fiscally irresponsible. It ignores our American duty of stewardship to our Nation, our planet and our children.

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, approximately 211,300 women will be diagnosed with breast cancer this year. No doubt, you know one of these women. In fact, they may be your sister, mother, aunt, cousin or dear friend. In most cases, the doctor will prescribe immediate and often times aggressive treatment in the hopes of stalling further progression of the disease. The quality of care that breast cancer patients receive is critically important to their survival. Despite the urgent need for Federal protections to ensure that breast cancer sufferers receive appropriate treatment, very few exist. It may shock you to learn that women who have undergone surgical treatments such as breast removal mastectomy--or lymph node dissections are being sent home within hours of having surgery because insurance companies are unwilling to reimburse recovery time in hospitals, a practice referred to as ``Drive-Through Mastectomies.'' These women have reported being sent home still drowsy from anesthesia, weakened from hours of surgery, and with drainage tubes attached to their bodies, while simultaneously experiencing the immense emotional trauma associated with the removal of a breast or lymph nodes. To this end, I am pleased to have worked with Senator Snowe to introduce the Breast Cancer Patient Protection Act of 2005. This legislation will prevent insurance companies from restricting hospital stays resulting from mastectomies to less than 48 hours and hospital stays resulting from lymph node dissections to less than 24 hours. This bill does not prevent a doctor from discharging a woman prior to these minimum requirements, if he/she determines, in consultation with the patient, that this is the best treatment option. The Breast Cancer Patient Protection Act simply ensures that these types of medical decisions are made by doctors, not insurance companies. The legislation also prohibits insurance companies from circumventing the legislation through practices such as providing incentives to doctors or patients to reduce length of stays associated with mastectomies or lymph node dissections. To be fair, we must acknowledge that this legislation will not change the nature of mastectomies and lymph node dissections for the majority of women. Over 19 States have already put State laws in place that work to the same end as the Breast Cancer Patient Protection Act, and the vast majority of insurance companies have already responded on their own to this problem. However, this is a case in which the injustice, while small in number of women it affects, is clear. And just as the injustice is apparent, the solution is simple. It is high time that the Federal Government took action. Yes, many states have already done so, and yes, many insurance companies have, too, but if even one woman is forced to go home too soon after such an invasive surgery, that is one woman too many. It is not the fact that this is happening to many women, it is the fact that it is happening to any women. For all of our sisters, mothers, daughters, aunts, friends, and loved ones, it is time for us to provide the needed protections. I ask for your support of the Breast Cancer Patient Protection Act of 2005.

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, approximately 211,300 women will be diagnosed with breast cancer this year. No doubt, you know one of these women. In fact, they may be your sister, mother, aunt, cousin or dear friend. In most cases, the doctor will prescribe immediate and often times aggressive treatment in the hopes of stalling further progression of the disease. The quality of care that breast cancer patients receive is critically important to their survival. Despite the urgent need for Federal protections to ensure that breast cancer sufferers receive appropriate treatment, very few exist. It may shock you to learn that women who have undergone surgical treatments such as breast removal mastectomy--or lymph node dissections are being sent home within hours of having surgery because insurance companies are unwilling to reimburse recovery time in hospitals, a practice referred to as ``Drive-Through Mastectomies.'' These women have reported being sent home still drowsy from anesthesia, weakened from hours of surgery, and with drainage tubes attached to their bodies, while simultaneously experiencing the immense emotional trauma associated with the removal of a breast or lymph nodes. To this end, I am pleased to have worked with Senator Snowe to introduce the Breast Cancer Patient Protection Act of 2005. This legislation will prevent insurance companies from restricting hospital stays resulting from mastectomies to less than 48 hours and hospital stays resulting from lymph node dissections to less than 24 hours. This bill does not prevent a doctor from discharging a woman prior to these minimum requirements, if he/she determines, in consultation with the patient, that this is the best treatment option. The Breast Cancer Patient Protection Act simply ensures that these types of medical decisions are made by doctors, not insurance companies. The legislation also prohibits insurance companies from circumventing the legislation through practices such as providing incentives to doctors or patients to reduce length of stays associated with mastectomies or lymph node dissections. To be fair, we must acknowledge that this legislation will not change the nature of mastectomies and lymph node dissections for the majority of women. Over 19 States have already put State laws in place that work to the same end as the Breast Cancer Patient Protection Act, and the vast majority of insurance companies have already responded on their own to this problem. However, this is a case in which the injustice, while small in number of women it affects, is clear. And just as the injustice is apparent, the solution is simple. It is high time that the Federal Government took action. Yes, many states have already done so, and yes, many insurance companies have, too, but if even one woman is forced to go home too soon after such an invasive surgery, that is one woman too many. It is not the fact that this is happening to many women, it is the fact that it is happening to any women. For all of our sisters, mothers, daughters, aunts, friends, and loved ones, it is time for us to provide the needed protections. I ask for your support of the Breast Cancer Patient Protection Act of 2005.