Mary Landrieu

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. I intend to use 2 minutes and yield back the remainder of my time to the leadership.

Ms. LANDRIEU. Will the Senator yield for 30 seconds?

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, while the leaders are in the Senate with their final remarks, I take the opportunity again to thank them for their work--Senator Baucus and Senator Grassley as the leaders of the Finance Committee--as we work toward a very significant victory and a conclusion on the issue of a tax credit for the Guard and Reserve. The Senate is going on record again this morning, as we did several weeks ago when this bill left the Senate, to include them in a tax provision. They will not technically be included in this bill, but there will be a bill sent back over to the House, as we said. That would not have happened without the help of Senator Baucus from Montana and Senator Grassley from Iowa. I personally thank them along with thanking Senator Durbin and Senator Boxer for their help on this original amendment. We have explained it as well as we can, the arguments as to why our Guard and Reserve deserve our focus and attention to provide help to their families while they are serving for all Americans on the front line. I am so pleased we could come together as Members of the Senate to provide that help for them. Now it is in the hands of the House of Representatives. As we return from this break, however long or short it is, we will then take up this issue as they decide over in the House how they would like to handle it. I hope they will take the bill as we have sent it, pass it, and then it will go to the President's desk for immediate signature because we all want to give them the help and support they most certainly are giving us at this special time. I yield back the remainder of my time.

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I see the senior Senator from Louisiana on the floor. I know he will want to respond in a moment. I so appreciate the comments from the Senator. But I would like to add, very briefly, that as you have spoken about the senior Senator from Louisiana, the great consensus builder that he is, and helping us to move very important pieces of legislation, always with the greatest sense of dignity and principle, I want to say, as his partner in the Senate, I could not have a better partner. He is a person who works in such a complementary way with me. We work well together, and it is because of the great spirit he brings to his work. I think because of his spirit, we have been a better team together than we are individually for our State. I learned that from him. I want to give him so many compliments this morning and thank him for his great service.

Ms. LANDRIEU. Under the previous order, I think I still have----

Ms. LANDRIEU. I will reserve the remainder of my time.

Ms. LANDRIEU. Yes. The Secretary of Defense, Washington, DC, March 17, 1998. Hon. Floyd D. Spence, Chairman, Committee on National Security, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Mr. Chairman: The Department of Defense report, enclosed, has been prepared in response to the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1997. Section 1232 of that Act directed submission of a report and draft legislation to provide tax incentives to employers of members of Reserve components. The Department of Defense does not support submission of legislation at this time but is submitting draft legislation as a drafting service. Sincerely, Bill Cohen. Enclosure: As stated. A Report to Congress Concerning Incentives to Employers of Members of the Reserve Components This report responds to the requirements of section 1232 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1997 (P.L. 104-201, September 23, 1996), which requires a report to the Committee on the Armed Services of the Senate and the Committee on National Security of the House of Representatives regarding tax incentives to employers of members of Reserve components to compensate for absences of Reserve employees due to required training and performance of active duty. overview Increasingly, members of the National Guard and Reserve are being called upon to augment the active duty forces in the post-Cold War world. This is a sound use of resources and an integral part of our national military strategy. More recently, Reserve component members have responded to the call in Operation RESTORE HOPE in Somalia, Operation UPHOLD DEMOCRACY in Haiti, and Operation JOINT ENDEAVOR/JOINT GUARD in Bosnia. Previous Congresses have viewed legislation that would provide incentives such as tax expenditures as having a fixed and recurring budgetary effect. A number of methods could resolve such a problem. background Generally, members of the Reserve components (both National Guard and Reserve members) are required to attend one weekend of inactive duty training per month and 14 days of active duty training annually. Over and above this training, members are often required to participate in mobilization training, formal schools, and special training. Additionally, many Reservists are called upon to provide PERSTEMPO relief (reducing the active duty Service members time away from home station). For some individuals, this may exceed the normal Reserve participation requirements. Some Reserve members, who support specific weapons platforms, are actually spending up to 180 days a year on military duty. This is compounded by involuntary call-ups to support missions such as Operation DESERT STORM and JOINT ENDEAVOR, which required the use of the Reserve components. In addition to this busy Reserve schedule, the vast majority of Reserve component (RC) members are employed full-time in civilian occupations. So, not only are RC members working full-time in the civilian community, they are meeting their Reserve obligation, which has substantially increased beyond the minimum 38 days a year prescribed by law. This ``part-time'' Reserve obligation is substantially different from any other part-time activity in which most employees participate. They may be involuntarily called to active duty in times of national emergencies. Although efforts are made to reduce any conflict these absences may cause, some conflict is unavoidable. Title 37 U.S.C. section 1008(b) mandates that each Quadrennial Review of Military Compensation (QRMC) conduct ``a complete review of the principles and concepts of the compensation system for members of the uniformed services.'' The Sixth QRMC stated that conflicts between RC members and their full-time civilian employers account for nearly one-third of all personnel losses incurred by the Reserve components. demonstrated need Employer concerns From an employer's viewpoint, unscheduled absences create a variety of problems. While Reservists repeatedly demonstrate that their military training and experience benefit their civilian employers, budget-minded employers must also consider the impact of unexpected long-term absences on their businesses. positive approach to the pressures caused by unplanned employee absences than simply enforcing Reservists rights. Department of Defense concerns Trained and equipped members of the National Guard and Reserve are an integral part of the national military strategy. With a smaller active duty force, the Department is maximizing all available resources to meet mission requirements. This has increased the day to day use of the Reserve components. There are substantial economic benefits to the government to use the Reserve components as they cost the government less to maintain--anywhere from 25% to 75% of the cost of their active duty counterparts. This is part of the rationale for the dramatic shift of missions and force structure from the active to the reserve forces. It is the nation's advantage, therefore, to use its Reserve components. Retention of RC members becomes critical. It is in the government's best interest to keep well-trained individuals in the military, rather than incurring the additional training costs (roughly $26,000 per new recruit). The train- up time associated with recruiting new individuals into the force is also considerable. In spite of our efforts to provide a benefits package that makes continued Reserve service an attractive proposition, employer conflict is often cited as the number one reason why individuals decide to leave Reserve component military service. department of defense efforts The DoD has undertaken several initiatives to reduce conflicts between Reservists and their employees. Since 1970, the DoD has developed an aggressive program to encourage employer support. The National Committee for Employer Support of the Guard and Reserve (NCESGR) is an agency within the Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Reserve Affairs that promotes cooperation and understanding between RC members and their civilian employers. This program has grown from several hundred employers and professional and labor organizations to more than 3000 community leaders nationwide. Despite these efforts, the Sixth QRMC stated that 10 to 20 percent of RC members continue to experience significant employment-related conflicts. In an effort to protect Reserve employees, the 103rd Congress passed the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act (USERRA). This legislation protects ``non-career service members'' from job discrimination based on Uniformed Service. USERRA has simplified statutory employment protections and provided a system of local arbitration for individual cases. While protecting the employee, USERRA does not, however, address any adverse effects Reserve service may impose upon employers. Employers are required to provide seven basic entitlements by statute: prompt reinstatement, status, accrued seniority, health insurance coverage, training/retraining, special protections, and other non-seniority benefits. Despite these efforts, the major employer disincentive to encouraging employee participation in the Reserve components is the additional costs and reduced profits stemming from Reserve participation. previous legislative proposals Recognizing the substantial role that employee attitudes and practices have on Reserve readiness, legislative proposals granting a monetary incentive (in the form of a tax credit) to employers of National Guard and Reserve members have been introduced several times, the most recently in the 103rd Congress. The Department understands that there may be other methods to soften the employer's burden. The main points of the most recent legislative proposals are outlined below. Summary of past proposals DoD 100-49 (100th Congress): Credit and deduction; 20 percent of amount paid and 10 percent of amount unpaid; any training; nonrefundable; and annual maximum of $2000 per member. H.R. 71 (103rd Congress): 50 percent of amount paid and 10 percent of amount unpaid of actual compensation paid when employee was performing qualified active duty; annual maximum of $2000 per member; and no credit for employee not scheduled to work. Additionally, the Sixth QRMC made the following recommendations: Nonrefundable credit of 50% paid to Reservist on military leave and 10% credit for amount unpaid; Include credit for self-employed individuals; and Certification of Veterans' Reemployment Rights compliance. draft legislation The Department has developed draft legislation, as a drafting service, for a tax credit program for employers of Ready Reservists and self-employed Reservists as required by section 1232 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1997. Because of associated costs in the form of federal tax receipt losses for such a program, neither the Department of Defense nor the Administration support submission of the legislation at this time. Because section 1232 requests the draft legislation, however, the attached draft is submitted as a drafting service pursuant to paragraph 7i, Office of Management and Budget Circular A-19, dated September 20, 1979. conclusion Assistance to employers who support National Guard and Reserve participation by their employees could reduce an employer's costs associated with employee absence due to their participation in the National Guard and Reserve on contingency operations. The Department understands the loyalty of the employers burdened with the costly and unanticipated absences of their Reserve employees. We salute such employers and seek their continued support. Tax or other incentives for employers might help to ameliorate some of their problems. Any such plan, of course, must compete for resources in the ever shrinking availability of Federal programs.

Ms. LANDRIEU. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, I would like to continue by thanking all of the Members of this body, particularly the members of the Finance Committee, particularly the Senator from Oklahoma, who stepped forward and helped us to negotiate a very good end to this situation. But the original cosponsors of this amendment were Senator Murray, Senator Tim Johnson, Senator Maria Cantwell, Senator Jon Corzine, Senator Kerry, Senator Durbin, Senator Dodd, and Senator Pryor. There were 21 Senators who signed the letter to the conferees and I am going to submit their names to the Record, but among them was Senator Bond, who has been a strong advocate for the Guard and Reserve; Senator Akaka, who came to the floor over the weekend to lend his support and his help; Senator Bill Nelson, who came to the floor as well and gave his help and his support. I also wish to thank the leadership, Senator Daschle and Senator Reid in particular, as well as the Republican leadership, who worked hard through these couple of days to make this good end come to be today; particularly Senator Harkin, who was in the Chamber advocating for a different issue that was his primary focus, but without his help in being able to hold the floor and being able to keep the procedure moving in the direction that helped us to make our point, it would not have happened. I also wish to thank the Senator from Alabama, Mr. Sessions, for spending many hours in the Chamber. He and the Senator from South Carolina, Lindsey Graham, have spoken hour after hour after hour on this floor about the needs of the Guard and Reserve. Perhaps we are not making our arguments clear enough; I do not know. But they seem to sometimes leave our mouths and fall on deaf ears. I do not think it is complicated; 690,000 Americans have been called up by our Commander in Chief to go to the front line. As we put bills together here, tax bills, health care bills, education bills, transportation bills, could we please not keep them in mind but put them in the bill and not leave them out. They are not asking for much. They are not asking for 100 percent of any tax credit. But surely $2 billion out of 137 is something we could have done. I know there were arguments, and I think somewhat legitimate--perhaps the amendment was not written in the correct way. Perhaps it was a little more complicated. We have successfully cleared up those complications. I have said there were other amendments in here that to me seemed quite complicated. One in particular was a reimbursement for railroad track maintenance. I guess we trust the railroads to tell us how many miles. I don't think we send out people to walk the tracks and measure the railroad tracks. So I think we trust employers when they say they are paying their Guard and national Reserve and they put that on their tax return. I think most certainly we can trust them and trust the members of our Guard and Reserve. We are trusting them to fight for us and we stand with them. We are honoring the employers, small and large companies that are keeping those paychecks whole, and the least we can do is to provide a 50-percent tax credit. I also wish to thank the floor staff: Lula Davis and Mary Paone, as well as the Republican staff who helped this weekend, and the Senate Finance Committee staff which helped us to work out the final details. On my own staff: Jason Matthews, Jeffrey Wiener, Kevin Avery, Kathleen Strottman, Brian Geiger, Amy Cenicola, and Linda Cox, and particularly my husband and my children, who were supportive of this effort because it could have gone on for many more days. I want to, in the few minutes I have remaining, submit a few more things to the Record. One of them is a letter that came to this Congress, not from the current Secretary of Defense, but from the former Secretary of Defense, Bill Cohen, in 1998, saying basically, while we support the concept of providing incentives to employees of Reserve component members, the Federal Government, we at this time cannot afford such a program, but with the increased use of the Guard and Reserve, particularly for unplanned contingency operations, employers of our Guard and Reserve members are often faced with the unplanned absences of their reservist employees. They may incur additional business expenses associated with the unplanned absences. The report suggests that a financial incentive might be helpful to ameliorate some of the employer problems, particularly for small business owners. There you have the Secretary of Defense, the former Secretary of Defense, outlining that while they couldn't afford to do it in a Defense bill, we most certainly could afford to do it in a tax bill. That is why we started working with the tax bill and with the Finance Committee. I am pleased to say we have come to a good end. So in a few minutes, by a voice vote, this amendment will be adopted. It will go over to the House and to the House leadership on both the Republican and the Democratic side. I urge them to look carefully at what we have sent over there, to pass it the way it is. If they do, it will become law right away. Perhaps when we come back after this election or perhaps before the election, that could be done. But clearly the Senate has acted with respect, with care, with cooperation, and again I thank the Republican leadership and the Democratic leadership for working so well over the weekend to send this amendment, basically intact as we put it together, over to the House. It is now in their court. How much time do I have remaining?

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have those letters printed in the Record.

Ms. LANDRIEU. No.

Ms. LANDRIEU. Yes.

Ms. LANDRIEU. Yes.

Ms. LANDRIEU. Madam President, under the agreement last night I have up to 30 minutes to speak, and I will be happy to yield additional time to Senator Boxer at a later time because I most certainly want to support her comments and to thank her for her great support of this amendment. Without Senator Boxer and many other Senators, the victory that we have achieved this morning would not have been possible. Senator Boxer knows, because she represents the largest State in our Union, that 90,000 guardsmen and reservists reside in California. Today, as she and I are on this floor speaking on their behalf, 7,900 are currently on duty from California, having left their homes from Bakersfield--the home of Chairman Thomas, or the center of his district--to San Francisco to Los Angeles, from Louisiana, from Oklahoma, and from Texas. Thousands of Guard and Reserve men and women have left their families, left their children, left their place of employment and gone to the front lines. We decide where the front line is and we send them. Wherever we say to go, they go, and they have gone in large numbers. I have spent the last few days speaking about this because it is of such critical importance for us in the Senate and for the Congress to understand that we are asking more and more of our Guard and Reserve. This was not always the case. It was not that way in World War I and World War II. It was not that way in the 1950s, 1960s, 1970s, or 1980s, but it is this way today. From 1990 to 2004, we have called up 690,500 Guard and Reserve members. The Guard and Reserve now make up 40 percent of our whole force. We have 1.6 million active members of all of our services, and we have 1.2 million men and women in the Guard and Reserve. Many of these men and women, as my colleagues know because I have said it--and I am sure my colleagues are now aware of this, that when many of our reservists signed up, they expected to make a sacrifice. They knew that one weekend a month they would go on duty, and they knew that in times of crisis they would be sent. What we did not tell them 10 years ago is that there would have been a terrorist attack on 9/11. What we were not able to tell them 10 years ago was that we would make a decision to reduce our Active Forces, thereby putting a greater burden on them. They signed up under a different paradigm. Yet year after year some of us have come to this floor--not just this week, not just last year, but year after year. I have been here 8 years. There is not a year that I can think of that I have not mentioned this--maybe the first year I was here, but most certainly once I got on the Armed Services Committee and it became apparent to me and many others of the major shifts that we were making, and have argued, sometimes successfully and sometimes not successfully, not because I do not think our arguments are clear and compelling but because they seem to fall on deaf ears, that the Guard and Reserve need help. I wish I could spend the time reading some of the hundreds, thousands of e-mails that I have received since this filibuster started. The filibuster is no longer in place because basically the amendment we asked for has been agreed to. It is going to be put in another bill. That is how this whole thing started, was to say that I know that it was impossible for us to amend $137 billion. We could not procedurally amend this bill. The only thing we could have done would have been to vote against it or send it to the President and ask him to veto it because the Guard and Reserve were left out. Both of those strategies were probably not going to happen. So I said that I would accept that, and I would stay here until Thursday or Friday, until I had to, with others helping me, to make sure we could find another vehicle that would be appropriate to put this amendment on as much intact as we could, and that is what happened. There are a lot of Senators to thank, and I think I will spend a moment thanking the Senators before I go into more detail. First, I will just finish this one thought and then I will thank the Senators. I was explaining how the paradigms changed and we are relying more and more on our Guard and Reserve. So when this bill began to be put together 2 years ago, some of us knew that this bill was going to start out at about $50 billion. But we also knew that it would grow because any time there is a tax bill before this Congress, lots of things get attached. NASCAR racing got attached; ceiling fans are in here; railroad reimbursements for maintenance of tracks is in here. I do not have a complaint about one of those items. That is not why we filibustered the bill. What we complained about is the only item that was put in the Finance Committee and sent out of the Senate with 100 percent of us supporting it--all of the Republicans and all of the Democrats supported it--was stripped out by the House Republican leadership. If we cannot find $2 billion of $137 billion in tax cuts to give to the men and women who are taking 100 percent of the risk, 100 percent of the bullets, what are we doing here? That was the point we made. The point was heard loudly and clearly. So with the help of many colleagues, we have corrected the error. We have sent an amendment, in large measure whole. Senator Boxer is correct that a portion that she and I thought was very important, which was to help public entities that keep those paychecks whole as the Guard and Reserve go to the front line and lose 41 percent of their income, according to the GAO study--that was given to us not last week, not a month ago, this study was given to us 3 years ago. We knew 3 years ago that our Guard and Reserve take a 41-percent pay cut. The soldiers do not mind the pay cut. They are eating rations. They are living in tents. They are sleeping on the ground. This is not--well, it is about the soldiers, but it is more about the families they leave behind, about the children without health care, about the wives who have to take two jobs, about the gasoline that has to be put in the car, the car notes that have to be paid. If we can find a tax bill and work on it for 2 years, which we did--2 years of work went into this bill. I am not on the Finance Committee, but I have a great member in Senator Breaux. I know how hard he works, and I know how he supported this amendment as well. I have Congressman Jim McCrery and Congressman Jefferson who worked very hard. The Louisiana interests are well represented in this as well as in many other important bills. But what I objected to was that the Guard and Reserve amendment that would have given a tax credit to the thousands of businesses in this country that are doing the patriotic thing, the right thing, the good thing, and they are getting commended by our President and us, we could not provide them a 50-percent tax cut to keep this paycheck whole for those on the front line.

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I want to take the time to thank the Senator from Oklahoma. I know he has some concerns about some of the details of this amendment. But because of his work and because of other Senators who worked through the weekend on this, we have put a very solid, substantial, largely intact amendment in place that is going to be passed to the House. Now it will be in the hands of the House leadership to decide if they want to pass this amendment, which is a tax bill specifically for the Guard and Reserve. The underlying bill actually will allow the Guard and Reserve a tax benefit to remove the 10-percent penalty if they would want to take money out of their IRA to help them through tough financial times. According to the hundreds and thousands of e-mails that we have received, myself and many others, we know that our Guard and Reserve are having a tough time. I would just like to read this for the Record. I know the Senator himself has received notices like this. This is from--Janice is her name. I will find out where she is from in a moment. She writes, Senator Landrieu, I have 3 nephews and 2 nieces that are in our National Guard and they are being sent over to Iraq. I am so angry right now that I hope that I don't have to see others go to this war. But let me just say that my nephews and nieces have left behind 11 children without health coverage. I am their aunt and my husband is their uncle. We are taking care of these three children. It is hard for us. We are tired living on a fixed income. This is what this amendment is all about--taking on the burden of having the Guard and Reserve on the front line, and paying those paychecks. Yes, it helps the soldier on the front line, but mostly it helps the families back home. That is what the Senator was able to help us come to terms with. That is what the Senate is sending over to the House--supporting this effort on the House side. I look forward to working with them when we come back in, perhaps after the election--working with the Senators who have spoken up over the weekend and others who were not able to speak up and sent letters in support and cosponsored this effort, Republicans and Democrats, to say let us craft a tax provision, or several tax provisions, that will help our Guard and Reserve, or let us dig a little deeper in the Defense bill to give them the support they need, whether it is health care, whether it is paycheck protection, whether it is other support services, so they can do the job better we are asking them to do. Frankly, I don't think they could do it any better, but they could do it with more peace of mind knowing their families are able to pay the bills, are able to keep the roofs over their heads, are able to put gasoline in their automobiles, and pay the extra childcare expenses. I know other Senators feel as strongly as I do--everyone in this Chamber. But let us not only feel strongly but remember them when we pass these bills. Again, we don't have to remember them only on the Defense bill. Then we end up having to make tough choices and ask the military, Do you want a rifle, or a helmet, or health coverage, or to send a whole paycheck to your family? I don't think our men and women in uniform should be asked to make those decisions, not when we are giving $137 billion in tax cuts to everybody else. That is my point. I know people may disagree. Maybe this vehicle was the right one. But because we were told 3 years ago there was no money in the Defense bill to do this, what option were we left with? We asked it be included. It was included when it left the Senate. I am proud of that. Now we have a chance again sometime in the near future to get this fixed. I am proud of the effort. I reserve the remainder of my time.

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, everyday more than 1,600 prisoners are released from jail and head back to the streets of America's neighborhoods and communities. That is more than 600,000 each year. When they get out, they are often get sent back to same neighborhoods where they got into trouble in the first place and more than two-thirds of them return to a life of crime. This problem could get worse, if we don't take action. We have the largest prison population than at any other time in our history. Two million people are behind bars, the result of tougher penalties, particularly for drug offenses, and ``three-strikes and you're out laws'' in many States. While the worst offenders will stay behind bars indefinitely, 95 percent of people in jail will get out at some point in time, either on parole, or after completing their sentences. The challenge for us and our communities is clear: we must find a way to successfully integrate offenders back into society after they get out of prison. The task is daunting. Many offenders face a unique set of personal challenges, legal restrictions, and social barriers that make the transition to productive citizenship extremely difficult for them. Substance abuse is the most common problem. Eighty percent of all offenders abuse drugs and alcohol, or were under the influence of drugs and alcohol when they committed their crimes. Only about 13 percent of them receive treatment while they are in prison, according to the Office of National Drug Control Policy. Spending for in-prison substance abuse programs has been cut so that States and localities can devote more funding for housing the increased number of prisoners in their corrections systems. Drug addicted offenders face even bigger challenges when they get out. Corrections agencies are often required to return prisoners to the place where they were convicted. That means released offenders get sent back to economically distressed neighborhoods where drugs are plentiful, but hope is not. These men and women go back to face the same temptations and demons that led to their addictions and their criminal conduct. Resources for treatment in these communities are stretched thin and a lot of former inmates cannot get help. Another important barrier to success as a citizen is poor education. Offenders are more than twice as likely to have not graduated from high school than the general population. One study found that one-third of inmates could not find an intersection on a map; the same percentage could not explain a billing error or place information on an automobile maintenance form; and only one in 20 could figure out what bus to take from using a schedule. If you cannot use a map or read a bus schedule, you will not be able to find your way to an office in an unfamiliar part of town to interview for a entry level job as a file clerk. If you cannot explain a billing error to someone, you will not be able to get a job in customer service. There are basic-skilled jobs that do not require a college education available for ex-offenders. But too many of our offenders lack the basic skills to get these jobs and if people are not working, they are more likely to get into trouble. Studies have shown that unemployment contributes to criminal conduct. The New York State Department of Labor found that 80 percent of offenders who violated probation or parole were unemployed. To make matters worse, many States exclude felons from holding certain kinds of jobs and obtaining professional licenses. A felon might not be able to get a cosmetology license or certain kinds of drivers' licenses. They may also be denied housing assistance and certain kinds of welfare benefits; 15 to 27 percent of released inmates expect to go to homeless shelters when they get out. These statistics make it clear why so many of our ex-offenders end up back in trouble with the law. Untreated substance abuse problems, poor education and job skills, and homelessness work to sap offenders of their drive, ambition, and hope. Crime seems like the only option for ex-offenders and they return to a life of crime 67 percent of the time. Recidivism has its costs. Crime has devastating affects on the neighborhoods that see the most criminal activity. Housing an inmate for one year costs State prison systems $21,000 and costs the Federal system $25,000 per year. But the victims pay the biggest costs in pain, suffering, and fear. I believe that we can do better than a 67 percent recidivism rate and we can reduce the amount of pain inflicted on victims if we invest in programs that help offenders get over the barriers and the personal difficulties that keep them from becoming productive citizens. Research shows that these kinds of programs can help prepare offenders for life outside of prison. According to one U.S. Department of Education study, participation in correctional vocational and education programs reduces recidivism by 29 percent in State prisoners and 33 percent for Federal prisoners. Substance abuse treatment programs can cut drug use in half and reduce recidivism by 20 percent. In fact every dollar invested in substance abuse programs saves taxpayers $7.46 in other government and social costs according to the Bureau of Justice Statistics. Today, I am introducing the Protecting Our Communities by Making Returning Offenders Better Citizens Act of 2004. This legislation will establish a $1.5 billion grant program at the Department of Justice to help States and communities develop comprehensive reentry strategies to turn felons into productive citizens. Funding would be available to State and local corrections and offender supervision agencies to a range of services including substance abuse treatment, basic education programs, job skills training, civic education, mentoring services, and family counseling services. The bill encourages these governmental agencies to partner with local non-profits, community organizations, and faith-based organizations to deliver these services to offenders both in and out of jail. This legislation will also help the families of offenders when an offender returns home. Some 1.5 million children had a parent in a State or Federal prison in 1999 and 7 million children have a parent under some form of correctional supervision. These children are seven times more likely to end up in the criminal justice system. The return of an offender to the home can also produce a great deal of family strife. The adjustment can be very difficult. An unstable home environment only helps to foster criminal behavior. My legislation will help corrections agencies institute family programs to help keep families close while a parent is incarcerated. Prisons and jails would be able to improve family visitation facilities, provide reduced cost phone service so that inmates can keep in touch with their families, or develop other innovative programs to keep family in the lives of offenders. Parole and probation agencies can work with family support agencies and other government agencies to provide a range of services so that families can successfully adjust to having an offender back home. The experts are just beginning to examine the important role family services can play in reducing recidivism. One study found that prisoners with no visitors were six times more likely to re-enter prison within the first year of parole than those with three or more visitors. A variety of family integration programs for offenders have also shown great promise. The La Bodega de la Familia program in New York City and the Michigan Department of Corrections's Project SEEK have produced terrific outcomes, reducing drug use and violent behavior by children. These programs offer an array of services to offenders in addition to family counseling. They serve as focal point for offenders to get substance abuse counseling, job training, and education. We need more programs like this and my legislation will make that possible. We also need to do more to make offenders understand not only the responsibilities of citizenship, but also its benefits. Certain offenders can be denied the right to vote, public housing benefits, some welfare benefits, and they are legally barred from certain kinds of employment. What they often do not know, however, is that they can get these rights back under certain circumstances. While we make offenders well aware of what civic rights and benefits they are denied when they get released, they do not receive information on how they can get those rights back. In order to qualify for a grant, grantees must provide offenders with information on how they can restore their voting rights and any other rights or benefits denied them because of their criminal records. States will not have to change any laws to meet this requirement, they are only required to provide information to offenders. I believe that this will send a powerful message to released offenders that we want them to become full participants in our democracy despite their past mistakes. I believe providing information on how to restore their rights can help motivate offenders to follow a different path and underscores our willingness to give them another chance. Our communities have done a terrific job protecting the public. The crime rate has fallen 55 percent over the last decade, the lowest level in 30 years. They have succeeded through hard work and the investment of the Federal Government in local law enforcement. We passed tougher criminal penalties, provided funding for equipment and technology, and put 100,000 community policing officers on the streets. Keeping our streets safe is a constant battle that is far from over. These criminals are coming back. Some will be ready for the challenges of citizenship, many will not. The Federal Government can help again by providing the right resources to corrections and our parole and probation agencies. President Bush announced his support for a $300 million initiative to help offenders with job training, transitional housing, and mentoring with faith-based organizations. The President's program was an excellent start. The Protecting Our Communities by Making Returning Offenders Better Citizens Act will build on this so that every offender gets a second chance to turn themselves from felons into fellow citizens. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, everyday more than 1,600 prisoners are released from jail and head back to the streets of America's neighborhoods and communities. That is more than 600,000 each year. When they get out, they are often get sent back to same neighborhoods where they got into trouble in the first place and more than two-thirds of them return to a life of crime. This problem could get worse, if we don't take action. We have the largest prison population than at any other time in our history. Two million people are behind bars, the result of tougher penalties, particularly for drug offenses, and ``three-strikes and you're out laws'' in many States. While the worst offenders will stay behind bars indefinitely, 95 percent of people in jail will get out at some point in time, either on parole, or after completing their sentences. The challenge for us and our communities is clear: we must find a way to successfully integrate offenders back into society after they get out of prison. The task is daunting. Many offenders face a unique set of personal challenges, legal restrictions, and social barriers that make the transition to productive citizenship extremely difficult for them. Substance abuse is the most common problem. Eighty percent of all offenders abuse drugs and alcohol, or were under the influence of drugs and alcohol when they committed their crimes. Only about 13 percent of them receive treatment while they are in prison, according to the Office of National Drug Control Policy. Spending for in-prison substance abuse programs has been cut so that States and localities can devote more funding for housing the increased number of prisoners in their corrections systems. Drug addicted offenders face even bigger challenges when they get out. Corrections agencies are often required to return prisoners to the place where they were convicted. That means released offenders get sent back to economically distressed neighborhoods where drugs are plentiful, but hope is not. These men and women go back to face the same temptations and demons that led to their addictions and their criminal conduct. Resources for treatment in these communities are stretched thin and a lot of former inmates cannot get help. Another important barrier to success as a citizen is poor education. Offenders are more than twice as likely to have not graduated from high school than the general population. One study found that one-third of inmates could not find an intersection on a map; the same percentage could not explain a billing error or place information on an automobile maintenance form; and only one in 20 could figure out what bus to take from using a schedule. If you cannot use a map or read a bus schedule, you will not be able to find your way to an office in an unfamiliar part of town to interview for a entry level job as a file clerk. If you cannot explain a billing error to someone, you will not be able to get a job in customer service. There are basic-skilled jobs that do not require a college education available for ex-offenders. But too many of our offenders lack the basic skills to get these jobs and if people are not working, they are more likely to get into trouble. Studies have shown that unemployment contributes to criminal conduct. The New York State Department of Labor found that 80 percent of offenders who violated probation or parole were unemployed. To make matters worse, many States exclude felons from holding certain kinds of jobs and obtaining professional licenses. A felon might not be able to get a cosmetology license or certain kinds of drivers' licenses. They may also be denied housing assistance and certain kinds of welfare benefits; 15 to 27 percent of released inmates expect to go to homeless shelters when they get out. These statistics make it clear why so many of our ex-offenders end up back in trouble with the law. Untreated substance abuse problems, poor education and job skills, and homelessness work to sap offenders of their drive, ambition, and hope. Crime seems like the only option for ex-offenders and they return to a life of crime 67 percent of the time. Recidivism has its costs. Crime has devastating affects on the neighborhoods that see the most criminal activity. Housing an inmate for one year costs State prison systems $21,000 and costs the Federal system $25,000 per year. But the victims pay the biggest costs in pain, suffering, and fear. I believe that we can do better than a 67 percent recidivism rate and we can reduce the amount of pain inflicted on victims if we invest in programs that help offenders get over the barriers and the personal difficulties that keep them from becoming productive citizens. Research shows that these kinds of programs can help prepare offenders for life outside of prison. According to one U.S. Department of Education study, participation in correctional vocational and education programs reduces recidivism by 29 percent in State prisoners and 33 percent for Federal prisoners. Substance abuse treatment programs can cut drug use in half and reduce recidivism by 20 percent. In fact every dollar invested in substance abuse programs saves taxpayers $7.46 in other government and social costs according to the Bureau of Justice Statistics. Today, I am introducing the Protecting Our Communities by Making Returning Offenders Better Citizens Act of 2004. This legislation will establish a $1.5 billion grant program at the Department of Justice to help States and communities develop comprehensive reentry strategies to turn felons into productive citizens. Funding would be available to State and local corrections and offender supervision agencies to a range of services including substance abuse treatment, basic education programs, job skills training, civic education, mentoring services, and family counseling services. The bill encourages these governmental agencies to partner with local non-profits, community organizations, and faith-based organizations to deliver these services to offenders both in and out of jail. This legislation will also help the families of offenders when an offender returns home. Some 1.5 million children had a parent in a State or Federal prison in 1999 and 7 million children have a parent under some form of correctional supervision. These children are seven times more likely to end up in the criminal justice system. The return of an offender to the home can also produce a great deal of family strife. The adjustment can be very difficult. An unstable home environment only helps to foster criminal behavior. My legislation will help corrections agencies institute family programs to help keep families close while a parent is incarcerated. Prisons and jails would be able to improve family visitation facilities, provide reduced cost phone service so that inmates can keep in touch with their families, or develop other innovative programs to keep family in the lives of offenders. Parole and probation agencies can work with family support agencies and other government agencies to provide a range of services so that families can successfully adjust to having an offender back home. The experts are just beginning to examine the important role family services can play in reducing recidivism. One study found that prisoners with no visitors were six times more likely to re-enter prison within the first year of parole than those with three or more visitors. A variety of family integration programs for offenders have also shown great promise. The La Bodega de la Familia program in New York City and the Michigan Department of Corrections's Project SEEK have produced terrific outcomes, reducing drug use and violent behavior by children. These programs offer an array of services to offenders in addition to family counseling. They serve as focal point for offenders to get substance abuse counseling, job training, and education. We need more programs like this and my legislation will make that possible. We also need to do more to make offenders understand not only the responsibilities of citizenship, but also its benefits. Certain offenders can be denied the right to vote, public housing benefits, some welfare benefits, and they are legally barred from certain kinds of employment. What they often do not know, however, is that they can get these rights back under certain circumstances. While we make offenders well aware of what civic rights and benefits they are denied when they get released, they do not receive information on how they can get those rights back. In order to qualify for a grant, grantees must provide offenders with information on how they can restore their voting rights and any other rights or benefits denied them because of their criminal records. States will not have to change any laws to meet this requirement, they are only required to provide information to offenders. I believe that this will send a powerful message to released offenders that we want them to become full participants in our democracy despite their past mistakes. I believe providing information on how to restore their rights can help motivate offenders to follow a different path and underscores our willingness to give them another chance. Our communities have done a terrific job protecting the public. The crime rate has fallen 55 percent over the last decade, the lowest level in 30 years. They have succeeded through hard work and the investment of the Federal Government in local law enforcement. We passed tougher criminal penalties, provided funding for equipment and technology, and put 100,000 community policing officers on the streets. Keeping our streets safe is a constant battle that is far from over. These criminals are coming back. Some will be ready for the challenges of citizenship, many will not. The Federal Government can help again by providing the right resources to corrections and our parole and probation agencies. President Bush announced his support for a $300 million initiative to help offenders with job training, transitional housing, and mentoring with faith-based organizations. The President's program was an excellent start. The Protecting Our Communities by Making Returning Offenders Better Citizens Act will build on this so that every offender gets a second chance to turn themselves from felons into fellow citizens. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. I would like to answer the question. First of all, the Senator has drafted many amendments in his career. If he wants to help me modify this amendment, I would appreciate his help. It clearly is my intention to get this direct tax credit in a way that makes sure that these companies can take tax credits for the Guard and Reserve. If we can write $137 billion worth of instructions to other companies about how this would apply to their tax credit, we could most certainly write a law or rule that allows these companies to be able to cover the paychecks, which they are doing already. This is totally voluntary. These companies don't have to do it. But if they are going to do it-- some in Oklahoma and some in Louisiana are digging deep--they have budgets to meet. They are paying the guys on the front line and then paying to replace them in their offices. I will tell you why I don't want to put it on the Armed Services bill. I see the chairman on the floor, the Senator from Virginia. What happens is--and the Senator from Oklahoma knows this--under our rules, the Defense Department gets just so much money. Why should I ask my soldiers to make a choice: Do you want a paycheck for your wife, or do you want a covered Humvee for your battalion? I am not asking them that question. You might want to; I am not. Do you want a paycheck for your wife, daycare for your children, or do you want a covered Humvee for yourself? How would you like to answer that question? That is why I object to putting it on the Defense bill. This is a tax package bill. I don't have to take one Humvee away from them. I don't have to take one rifle away from them, or one helmet away from them. All I have to do is put them in this bill. And I am going to stand here until 100 Members of the Senate agree to do it, and if not we will be back here next year. How much time do I have remaining?

Ms. LANDRIEU. I thank the Senator for yielding. Did the Senator know--because he raises an excellent point. We would not want to create a tax credit that basically allowed a $100,000 or $150,000 salaried worker to continue on the front line because it would inadvertently benefit the higher end. So did the Senator know that we crafted our amendment with a cap which we thought was reasonable so in the example that he gave, in the amendment that is being discussed now, that the $100,000 salaried worker who went over to Iraq would receive $30,000 in Reserve pay, according to our amendment, if his employer wanted to pay him up to $45,000 only, and they would get a $15,000 credit. So he would receive, on the front line, $45,000 instead of the $30,000, but he would still be losing $55,000 in income. So the family back home would still be losing $55,000 in income, which is a tough thing for these families. I am not trying to help people who could otherwise help themselves, but that is still a pretty significant loss of income, as the Senator knows. But we do have a cap because of that purpose. We did not want to unfairly benefit those at the top end. I will say that many employers are covering that gap now, and they are absorbing that difference now. We would only be subsidizing the first basically $15,000 of that. I would, frankly, be open to subsidizing more, but too many Members objected to that. So as a compromise, we sort of settled on this cap. I understand what the Senator is saying. I just wanted to ask him if he was aware that we did have a cap on this amendment.

Ms. LANDRIEU. Would the Senator yield for just one more question? He is so patient.

Ms. LANDRIEU. If the Senator will yield, the Senator is correct. It will compete for resources, and that is why those of us who have worked on this will be careful to request it at the appropriate time. We understand there is competition among resources. That is why I have taken the opportunity of talking, when we were about ready to pass this bill--$137 billion in tax credits. Surely, we could have found $2 billion out of this as we spread out the scarce resources. I would not call $137 billion scarce, but it is $137 billion out of which we could have found $2 billion. We cannot amend that bill, but did the Senator know there might be another bill that already passed the House of Representatives, which is over here, that we could amend and send back to the House? It would not become law on this, and I know he knows that. But we could send it to the House, and if they pass it and send it to the President's desk, it could become law on a different bill?

Ms. LANDRIEU. If the Senator will yield for a question, I appreciate the Senator's comments. I look forward to working with him. He has been one of the leaders in supporting the Guard and Reserve. The question is, is he familiar with--if he is not, we can send it over--a letter from Secretary Bill Cohen on March 17, 1998, that says to the then- chairman of the Committee on National Security in the House--and this was in 1998--is the Senator aware that back in 1998, the former Secretary of Defense sent a letter noting: With the increased use of the Guard and Reserve, particularly for unplanned contingency operations, employers of the Guard and Reserve members are often faced with the unplanned absences of their Reservist employees. They may incur additional business expenses associated with the unplanned absences. Does the Senator from Alabama know this report that was sent to us in 1998--3 years before September 11, 2001, and 3 years before 643,000 Guard and Reserve were called up, and that the Department of Defense has been petitioning Congress to provide some tax credit for employers who are picking up 100 percent of the expense? Does the Senator know that, and would he like to comment about our ongoing efforts?

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. I would particularly like to thank the Senator from Iowa. There is a long list of Senators, but I need to particularly thank the Senator from Iowa, for the two of us have been on the floor together for the last 2 days. He has been very generous in terms of helping with this issue, and he is a cosponsor of this amendment as well. He has been a tremendous supporter. The Senator from Iowa has also, our colleagues know, had other issues which he will speak about in a moment, very important to farmers, actually in my State as well as Iowa and States all over the Nation, but I would be remiss if I did not thank the Senator from Iowa who has been arguing, holding the floor, making our points so we could get our colleagues to focus on this issue, which has been done, and now we have a bill we can send to the House. So I thank the Senator.

Ms. LANDRIEU. Will the Senator yield for 30 seconds?

Ms. LANDRIEU. Madam President, I am so pleased to be on the floor and to thank our leadership: First, Senator Frist, our majority leader, from Tennessee; Senator Daschle, the minority leader; and Senator Reid, who has worked so tirelessly today. Reasonable minds came together on some of these issues. I particularly thank the Senator from Oklahoma, Senator Nickles, for working throughout the day with us on this very important amendment for the Guard and Reserve; and particularly, Senator Kit Bond, who was one of the leaders on the Republican side; Senator Jeff Sessions for his kind remarks today; Senator Jeffords, who signed the letter to the President; Senator Nelson of Florida and Senator Akaka, who came to the floor; Senator Murray for her strong support of the amendment; Senator Boxer for being an original cosponsor of the amendment, along with Senator Durbin and Senator Kerry. There may be others I can mention in the next few minutes because this truly was a success for all of us and the Senate, for the Republican leadership and the Democratic leadership of the Senate, to be able to come to a reasonable agreement to pass a tax credit for members of the Guard and Reserve, to pass a significant tax credit for businesses in this country, particularly small businesses that are really struggling to make ends meet and are doing the patriotic thing. Madam President, I had submitted this for the Record several days ago, so I will not repeat it. I call attention to the hundreds of businesses--potentially thousands--that will benefit directly from this tax credit, but most important, it is the guardsmen and reservists whose paychecks will continue, whose families will be supported, who will be the direct and most important beneficiaries of the agreement reached tonight. I thank my colleagues, and I will speak in more detail tomorrow about the benefits. Because we worked together and kept working in good faith and because we kept them in our minds, the Senate tomorrow at some time will pass, by unanimous consent, according to the agreement just reached, a tax credit for businesses. It won't technically be in this huge bill I have been holding up for 3 days. As I started this discussion, there was nothing we could do to get it in this bill. The only thing that could have happened to get it in the bill is if we pass it, the President would veto it, send it back, and tell us to rewrite it. The chances of that happening were not good. So we negotiated the next best thing, which was passing a stand-alone tax credit for the Guard and Reserve out of the Senate again, as we have already done with 100 Members of the Senate--Republicans and Democrats--and sent to the House. Now the focus will be on the House leadership. Now the focus will be on the House. Is the Republican leadership in the House going to stand up for the men and women in the Guard and Reserve? Are they going to include them or leave them out of their tax bill? That is something the House leadership will have to discuss. I am so proud tonight of the Senators. Again, many Senators helped. I will go into more detail in the morning about that. Let me make sure that I have included in the Record the Military Officers Association, representing 376,000 members. I will submit for the Record the Reserve Officers Association. In the morning, I will submit many other documents we have received from Active and Reserve military organizations for members of the military coalition thanking us for standing strong for them to get a tax credit for them. If anybody deserves a tax credit--and if we can afford $137 billion for many other interests in America--nobody deserves it more than the employers, particularly the small employers of under 500 or a thousand. That is not that small, but in the definition of small business, something under 500 is technically called a small business. In my State, we think of a 10- or 15-employee company as small. But particularly for those small- and medium-sized businesses that are doing the patriotic thing, keeping the paycheck whole for the Guard and Reserve while they are on the front line and also hiring replacements for them to run the factories, the businesses, the architectural firm, or drive a truck, et cetera. So I am just as proud as I can be tonight to thank my colleagues for working so well together. It has been a pleasure particularly working with Senator Daschle, who has the patience of a saint on many of these issues and in the way he has negotiated with Senator Frist to bring this to a good end. I will yield back the remainder of my time tonight and, of course, reserve the right to speak again in the morning on this important subject. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Ms. LANDRIEU. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for about 10 minutes.