Mary Landrieu

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I understand we have about 2 hours on the Democrat side to debate this important bill. I appreciate the Senator from Massachusetts giving me such time as I might use. It will probably be 15 or 20 minutes, perhaps longer but hopefully not. I want to start by asking my colleague from New Hampshire--I appreciate his work on this important piece of legislation. I actually agree with him. The people who are covered in this bill need relief in the pension provisions which we govern through our laws covering ERISA as well as in our Tax Code. I don't disagree with him that we have provided much needed and extremely important relief. But I want to ask, before I start my remarks, if he could comment on the approximately 9.5 million Americans who seem to be left out of this act and are working in the construction industry. If we seek to create jobs in America, that is one of the sectors we have the potential--as the economy begins, hopefully, to recover--where we could see some people actually going back to work. I was wondering if maybe the Senator could comment about the multiemployers. I think there are about 9.5 million. Would he care to comment about why they have been left out?

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Ms. LANDRIEU. OK. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that after the Senator from Iowa speaks, I be allowed to speak for another 10 or 15 minutes. And I understand there are other Senators coming down to speak.

Ms. LANDRIEU. Madam President, I thank the Senator from Pennsylvania. I know the issue he wants to speak about--asbestos--is a very important issue that has great ramifications for workers and businesses in our country. I know he spent a great deal of time on that subject. We only have, on this side, about 45 minutes to debate this very important pension bill that also affects large, small, and medium-sized corporations and workers, whether they are union workers or not. I wanted to come to the floor after the opening of this debate this morning and answer some of the questions that were raised, or comments made by my good friend, the Senator from New Hampshire, and also the Senator from Iowa. Before the Senator from Iowa leaves, I thank him for his leadership. He has worked very hard on this bill and there is no doubt, as the Senator from Mississippi came to the floor and said, that there is a great deal of good being accomplished in this pension reform bill that helps us to direct capital in a much more effective and productive way, at a time when our country needs to be creating jobs, not destroying them, and at a time when we need to be strengthening all of our companies, not weakening them. There is no argument on this side about that issue--none. No Democratic Senator has come to the floor to argue that there are not a lot of good things in this bill for companies in America, particularly the airline industry and steel companies, which are in very precarious situations with a deadline looming. Let me put that in the Record. What is at issue is why 10 million workers are left out--10 million workers and the companies that employ them. Some of those companies are small and medium-sized companies that employ unionized workers. Some of them employ nonunionized workers. I want to respond to a couple of things. The Senator from Iowa made a statement I would like to correct. He said it could not possibly affect 9.7 million workers. I have the GAO report--and that is where we get this information--which says 9.7 million participants, because of the White House's position and the very partisan Republican approach on the House side that was taken--this is the GAO report that shows clearly there are 9.7 million workers who will be left out. About 13 million workers in the country are unionized, and a great deal of them will be left out. The second point is, the Senator from New Hampshire came to the floor and said: The Senator from Louisiana could not possibly be right because she claims this bill--the compromise purposely denied help to union workers because the underlying bill protects unions. For the record, I will say he is correct in part. This is the difference. If you are a union that is fortunate enough to be attached to a big company that the Republican leadership in the House wants to help, you get help in this bill. Let me repeat that. If you are a union that happens to be attached to a very large company that the Republican leadership in the House, with the support of the White House, wants to help, you get relief, and you get relief whether your company is in trouble or not. Let me submit for the record that General Electric Company will get relief, and they deserve it. General Electric deserves this help. Their pension is funded at 116 percent. Verizon is funded at 104 percent. AT&T pensions are funded at 111 percent. Prudential is funded at 112.1 percent. Edison Electric is funded at 100.2 percent. J.P. Morgan is funded at 102.8 percent. Southern Companies is funded at 112.8 percent. Wells Fargo is funded at 102.8 percent. These are large companies; some are union, some are not. There is a company that was written in on a special provision, and they may deserve it, but it causes some of us to be cynical about how these conferences, behind closed doors, work. UPS, which is a large company and a union company--and I support their help--gets help. If you are a company that is overly funded, and a company that has union workers, the union is lucky to be attached to you because if they are left on their own, they don't get help. If you are a multiemployer plan, a union, not fortunate enough to be attached to a big company, but you are attached to a little company, or to a medium-size company, the White House and the Republican leadership in the House decided you don't deserve the help. I have been waiting on the floor for 4 hours to get an answer to the question, why were they denied help? The Record shows--and I will submit for the Record--the fix that Senator Kennedy asked for and that 86 Members of this body voted for--the fix in this bill, which would have given relief to everyone, whether you are a big company or a little company, whether you were union or nonunion, and that passed the Senate with 86 votes. We are proud of that work. It went over to the House, and under partisan political leadership, the help for 10 million workers was stripped out because they were not lucky enough to be attached to a big enough company. That is the truth. The fix would have given money to the Federal Treasury, not taken money. Again, this fix did not cost anything. I can understand if someone would come to the floor and say: Senator, we simply could not afford it; we just could not afford it; we are fighting a war in Iraq; we have deficits; we cannot afford it. Let me remind everyone, there is no cost to the Federal Treasury for this particular fix. In fact, as Senator Kennedy spoke about, fixing the multiemployer pension plan adds money to the Treasury. I have to sit here and listen to people argue that this was a good compromise? I have to go home and explain to my constituents, and I cannot explain it to them. Let me just tell you how it works in Washington these days: Bills that cost money to the Treasury get passed all day long. Bills that add money to the Treasury cannot get passed. I don't know how to explain that to my constituents in Louisiana. I don't know how to go home and explain to my constituents in Louisiana that the big companies, some union and some nonunion, get help, but the small companies that some people purport to represent and union workers got left out for no good reason. Let me answer another charge. One of the Senators said: Senator, this is just the process; this happens all the time. I remember a time when it did not happen this way. I came to the Senate 7 years ago. When I got here, there used to be a Senate position and a House position, not a Republican position and a Democratic position. We had a Senate position. I am proud to be part of the Senate of men and women, Republicans and Democrats, who can put a fair deal together and will fight for a fair deal and not collapse, capitulate, and give in, and that is exactly what happened in conference. So when my colleagues ask, Does this give this Senator confidence or any Senator confidence that the conference process works, I would say simply, No, it diminishes confidence. It undermines confidence. It does not build good will. It tears down what little good will is left and makes a mockery of it. I wish for once the Senate would stand up and send a bill over to the House and say there is no reason we can't include everyone; it doesn't cost anything. These poor people who wake up early in the morning and stay up late at night trying to put bread on the table and pay their rent and buy gasoline that is now over $2 deserve a fair shake. It doesn't cost anything. There is no skin off your back. But no, we just cave, all of us just cave. It is a shame. No, this does not help the process. This does not build confidence. This does not encourage anyone. The fourth point I want to answer is, oh, there she goes, the Senator from Louisiana and other Senators on the Democratic side, making the perfect the enemy of the good. I am not looking for a perfect bill. I am looking for a square deal. I did not come here looking for a perfect bill. No Senator comes here looking for a perfect bill. There is no such thing. But I am still waiting for one Senator to come to the floor and give me one--one--good reason why 10 million workers and the companies that hire them that came here asking us for help when it is in our power to help, when it does not cost us anything to help, why were they taken out of this bill? I have not received an answer to that question yet. I will tell my colleagues, we may vote on this bill in an hour or so, and I may end up voting for this conference report. Some Democrats will vote no. But because there are some very good provisions in this bill and there are companies in my State that will be helped--and I want to support large companies because they are hiring, they are struggling; some of them are not; some of them are doing very well. I have no problem. We all need to be pro-business, pro-growth, and pro-jobs. I am probably going to vote for this conference report. I don't know how the rest of the caucus will vote. Some will and some will not, but that still does not answer my question or solve this problem. I have to go back and tell 10,000, maybe more, workers in Louisiana: Sorry, you were left out. When they ask: Senator, we didn't cost them anything, why did they leave us out? I want someone to tell me why so I can go back and tell them. I am going to ask that question on every bill, and I am going to put an amendment on every bill, with Senator Kennedy's help and other colleagues, whether this conference report is adopted or not, until we finally get an answer. I hope it is not the answer I think it is. I will state it again and, until I get my answer, I am going to keep stating it. I think the answer is, because these employers that have multiemployer plans are mostly unions that are not attached to big companies, that have a lot of money invested in lobbyists and others who can be here talking to everybody all day long, and I think the White House decided that because most of these are unions that do not support them at election time, they are not going to support them at this time. I know that is harsh, and I know it sounds very direct. I don't know any other way to be because that is the only conclusion to which I can come. Again, it does not cost money. They were in the original bill; 86 of us voted for it. Until I get a better answer, I am going to have to go around and tell people that is the answer. If someone wants to debate me here, in a private debate somewhere else, write me a letter, give me a report, then I will stop saying that, and I will just say I was wrong and here is a good reason, and I will accept that and accept it as the process and just go on and fight another day. But I have yet to hear the answer. Let me state again for the Record, in case anybody thinks the only businesses that are getting help are businesses that are in trouble, GE is funded at 116 percent; AT&T at 111 percent. So we are not just helping companies whose pensions are in bad shape. Part of the bill is to not put money in a pension that doesn't need it--obviously, these pensions don't need it because they are overfunded--and to get that money back in circulation to create jobs. I am for that 100 percent.

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, we all know that the war in Iraq is not without its controversies or detractors. But it is also important to note that the spirit of the American people is transcendent. Whether you supported the war in Iraq, as I did, or whether you opposed it, the people of this Nation are very conscious of the sacrifice that our military men and women are making for us all are grateful. I rise today to give one small example of the American people's spirit from Lafayette, LA. The soldiers of the 256th Army National Guard Infantry Brigade were recently put on alert and notified that they could be heading to Iraq soon. As for any Guard unit, such deployments mean a tremendous disruption in the lives of the citizen soldiers who make up this brigade. They miss work, they miss graduations, they miss birthdays, they miss reunions, and sadly, for some, they miss weddings. When the announcement went out that the 256th could be deploying, Spec. Jeremy Meyers and his fiancee, Amy Glorioso, decided that they needed to move up their wedding date. But as everyone knows, weddings are expensive, and food, flowers, and venues have to be reserved and paid for months in advance. Changes to wedding dates can mean thousands of dollars in additional costs. But thanks to the organization and drive of Merilyn Crain, the owner of L'Eglise in Vermilion Parish, and the patriotism and dedication of businesses throughout the Lafayette region, seven couples will enjoy their dream weddings--earlier than planned--and for free. This act of generosity is the perfect symbol of the deep appreciation and love that all Americans feel for their soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines. The people of the Lafeyette region, and all of Louisiana should be proud of the example they have set in rallying around the men and women of the 256th. As the Bible teaches us, ``No greater love hath any man than this, that he should lay his life down for another.'' It is therefore appropriate that we should repay the debt we owe our military, by assisting them with ceremonies that celebrate the love between two people. Mr. President, I congratulate the businesses and individuals whose generosity made these efforts possible. I will have the privilege of meeting the members of the 256th and their families this coming Monday. I will also get a chance to thank some of the members of Operation Enduring Love personally. However, I wanted to take this opportunity to tell this inspiring story here on the Senate floor, and record for posterity the names of those businesses and performers who have participated. They are: L'Eglise, Inc. of Abbeville, Let's Talk Dinner Personal Chef Service of Lafayette, Crystal Weddings of Lafayette, Occasions Cake Boutique of New Iberia, Sugar Art Wedding Cake, American Legion Post 69 988-0799 of Lafayette, Viet Nam Veterans of America, Acadiana Chapter No. 141 of Fontenot, Mary Ellen's Tux Shop of Lafayette, Antoinette's Bridals & Formals of Lafayette, Chef Bobby & Dot's Le Bon Manger Catering of Kaplan, Sugar Art, A La Carte of Lafayette, Tsunami of Lafayette, Schilling Distributing Co Inc. of Lafayette, Glazer's Companies of Lafayette, Quality Brands Inc. of Lafayette, Interior Plant Services of New Iberia, Paul's Jewelry of Lafayette, Spedale Spedale's of Lafayette, Beyond Flowers of Lafayette. Cajun Cottage Gifts of Erath, Flowerland of Lafayette, The Gardenaire at River Ranch of Lafayette, Steve's Flowers of Lafayette, Floral Design Classes of ULL of Lafayette, Flower's Etc. of Lafayette, Sam's Club--Floral Dept. of Lafayette, Louisiana Wholesale Florists, Aveda Institute of Lafayette, JM French Skin Care Line of Rayne, Studio One 2 One of Lafayette, Royal Day Spa & Salon of Lafayette, The Client Salon & Day Spa of Abbeville, Creative Memories Photography, Robin May Photography of Lafayette, Ken Romero Photographer, Shane Falgout, Photographer, Dominick Cross Photography, Fast Forward Multi-Media of Lafayette, Regent Broadcasting of Lafayette. Dr. Paul Baker, Beth Fontenot, Mike Vidallier, Lynn Broussard and Company, Kurt Boudreaux, Tommy Benoit String Quartet, Limousines Limited of Lafayette, Diamond Limousine Inc. of Lafayette, Gabriel's Jewelers, WHC, Inc., Shady Acres of Abbeville, Crystal Cottage of Lafayette, Armentor Jewelers of Abbeville, Jean's Bridal Accessories of Patterson, Jolie Mariee ``Weddings By Anne,'' Best Western Hotel Acadiana of Lafayette, Right Angle of Lafayette, Special T Ice Company of Abbeville, and Pictage, Inc. of Torrance, CA.

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. Madam President, I rise with my colleague from Tennessee, to recognize the introduction of legislation in the House of Representatives today by Congressmen Don Young of Alaska and George Miller of California. The Get Outdoors Act is similar to an effort that many of us in the House and Senate were involved in during the 106th Congress. I am particularly pleased to be joined by Senator Alexander to announce our intention to introduce similar legislation in the Senate in the coming weeks. The principles and concepts within this legislation from the 106th Congress were then and continue today to be one of the most significant conservation efforts ever considered by Congress. Our goal is to provide a steady, reliable stream of revenue to fund some of the most urgent conservation needs in the country. The Get Outdoors Act, or GO Act, as the House bill will be referred to, is almost identical to the legislation considered by the House and Senate in the 106th Congress. That legislation had overwhelming bipartisan support. It was a landmark, multi-year commitment to conservation programs benefitting all 50 States. The legislation we will be introducing uses a conservation royalty earned from the production of oil and gas off the Outer Continental Shelf for the protection and enhancement of our natural and cultural heritage, threatened coastal areas and wildlife habitat. It also reinvests in our local communities and provides for our children and grandchildren through enhanced outdoor recreational activities. By enacting this legislation, we can ensure that we are making the most significant commitment of resources to conservation ever and ensure a positive legacy of protecting and enhancing cultural, natural, and recreational resources for Americans today and in the future. As many of our colleagues will remember, during the 106th Congress the House of Representatives passed almost identical legislation by a vote of 315 to 102 and the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources reported a similar version that had the support of both the Chairman and Ranking Member. In addition, in September of 2000, a bipartisan group of 63 Senators sent a letter to the majority and minority leaders indicating their support to bring the bill to the floor. The effort was supported by Governors, Mayors and a coalition of over 5,000 organizations from throughout the country. Unfortunately, despite that tremendous and unprecedented network of people who came together in support of the legislation, 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 honored. What has happened is exactly what those of us who initiated the effort always anticipated. Each of these significant programs has been shortchanged and a number of them have left out altogether or forced to compete with each other for scarce resources. So, today, the House has taken a great step to introduce similar legislation. The principle of the bill Senator Alexander and I will soon introduce provides a reliable, significant and steady stream of revenue for the urgent conservation and outdoor recreation needs of our rapidly growing cities. If we were to look at a map of the country and put lights where most of the population is, we would see a bright ring around the country because two-thirds of our population reside within 50 miles of our coasts. As a Senator from a coastal State, I understand the pressures that confront many of our coastal communities. Today, with the price of oil near a 13-year high we should channel some of those revenues and re-invest them in our natural resources. Some of the programs in the legislation we plan to introduce will include: impact assistance, coastal conservation and fishery enhancement for all coastal States and eligible local governments and to mitigate the various impacts of producing States that serve as the ``platform'' for the crucial development of Federal offshore energy resources from the Outer Continental Shelf. It does not reward drilling, but it does acknowledge the impacts to and the contributions of States that are providing the energy to run the country; flexible and stable funding for the State and Federal sides of the Land and Water Conservation Fund while protecting the rights of private property owners and with a particular emphasis on alleviating the maintenance backlog confronting our national parks; wildlife conservation, education and restoration through the successful program of Pittman- Robertson; urban parks and recreation recovery to rehabilitate and develop recreation programs, sites and facilities enabling cities and towns to focus on enhancing the quality of life for populations within our more densely inhabited areas by providing more green-spaces, more playgrounds and ball fields for our youth and the parents and community leaders that support them; historic preservation programs, including full funding of grants to the States, maintaining the National Register of Historic Places and administering the numerous historic preservation programs that are crucial to remember our proud past and fully funding the Payment In Lieu of Taxes program, or PILT, in order to compensate local governments, predominantly out west, for losses to their tax bases because the Federal Government owns so much land in a number of those States. While we confront the challenges of a war, budget deficits and a struggling economy, I believe it would be wise and we would show good stewardship to take this opportunity to set aside a small portion of the oil and gas royalties to our States and localities for initiatives such as outdoor spaces or recreation facilities where our children can play. The essence of this legislation, the American Outdoors Act, is to take the proceeds from a non-renewable resource for the purpose of reinvesting a portion of these revenues in the conservation and enhancement of our renewable resources. We wanted to come to the floor today to share these ideas with our colleagues, to encourage their input and ask them to be a part of this unique conservation effort. I would also like to add how much I appreciate the leadership of Senator Alexander. I think we will make a great team and thank him for his cosponsorship as we attempt to move this legislation through the process.

Ms. LANDRIEU. Madam President, I commend my colleague, the Senator from Tennessee, for his leadership--as I said, for not just this year and the years he has been in the Senate but for his years of service in Tennessee, and as Chairman of this important Commission that outlined some of the principles we are talking about and searching for solutions to today; and for his eloquence in reminding us that even more than good stewardship is required. One particularly fresh idea that he has brought to this effort is the conservation royalty. I think we can begin to see that the companies are not only paying a royalty to the Government, but they are paying a royalty to future generations through conservation. I think it is royalty they would gladly pay. We are not asking them to pay more than they are today. But a portion of what they pay today. I thank the Senator for his leadership, and I look forward to getting, as we said, ideas from our colleagues, taking it to the Energy Committee and developing broad bipartisan support. Even in these days of tight budgets, we can think about setting aside a portion of these revenues which are not insignificant. As you know, last year we generated $6 billion off the coast primarily of Louisiana, Texas, Mississippi, and Alabama, while still honoring the moratorium that is in place along the western coasts the eastern coasts and Florida. Even honoring the moratorium in place, we still were able to generate billions of dollars. Hopefully through this legislation we can dedicate that conservation royalty, a portion, to the worthy causes. I thank the Senator.

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

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. It starts: Drastic pay cuts. Bankruptcy. Foreclosed homes. They aren't exactly the kind of challenges that members of America's military reserves signed up for when they volunteered to serve their country. But for many, the biggest threat to the home front isn't Saddam Hussein or Osama bin Laden. It's the bill collector. And that is a shame. I think the two enemies mentioned before the bill collector are people we need to actually be focusing our attention on, bringing them to justice in one case and finding them in the other. I don't think our troops need to be worried about bill collectors back home, but that is the position we have them in because we have not acted, will not act, refuse to act in the face of giving everybody else tax credits, but we can't seem to find room in the budget for these 634,000 of our bravest. I want to say for the record, in Louisiana, Janet Wright's husband Russell is in the Marine Reserves. He made $60,000 a year. Russell was activated. He will only make $30,000. Mrs. Wright says she started putting water in her children's cereal and hopes her daughter can be quickly potty trained to save on diapers. Mrs. Wright has to count every penny. This family is from Hammond, LA. I just don't think this is right. I think we can do something about it, and this bill attempts to do that. A 50-percent tax credit to those employers to continue to pay their salaries to fill this pay gap is part of this bill. One other point of the bill, and then a short conclusion. We put a cap on interest rates. Many of us have loans out for a variety of different purposes--automobiles, perhaps some business loans that have been made for our businesses, obviously mortgages. We put in an interest rate cap so when you are deployed, you don't have to pay more than a 6-percent rate. When rates were 20 percent and 25 percent, that made a lot of sense and it was a great benefit. But as rates are relatively low today, this bill would make a modest change to either have it at 6 percent or prime plus 1. Again, it is not a huge amount of money, but it could potentially save a family a few hundred dollars a year. It is the least we can do as part of trying to help them make ends meet while their primary breadwinner in most cases is the one deployed. As Congress works to best give our military the tools they need to succeed in the 21st century, we must reinforce and increase the benefits and protections for our Reserves. We have asked so much of them, and they have met every challenge with excellence. As we saw unfolding on our television screens yesterday and today, we couldn't ask them to do more. The least we can do is to look at the package of benefits, upgrade it where we can, make sacrifices in other areas of our budget, and fund them first. They are the ones who are protecting us at this time. When we can provide greater legal protections to ease the stress on the homefront, we must, when and where we can. Failure to act will just exacerbate retention challenges. It will undermine our efforts to succeed in our war on terror. I introduce this bill today. I hope we can have a speedy hearing. I ask my colleagues to join me in sponsoring this bill so we can have a great bipartisan effort. There are many other things we can so the Guard and Reserve really know we appreciate them, because we just do not take pictures with them but we actually put them in our budget. I yield the floor.

Ms. LANDRIEU. According to this reporter: The head of the Army Reserve said yesterday that the 205,000-soldier force must guard against a potential crisis in its ability to retain troops, saying serious problems are being ``masked'' temporarily because reservists are barred from leaving the military while their units are mobilized in Iraq. He goes on to say: Lieutenant General Helmly told his subordinates that he was ``really tired of going to see our reserve soldiers [and finding] they're short such simple things as goggles. It's about damn time you listen to your lawyers less and your conscience more. They will probably get me in trouble. But I told them, I want this stuff fixed.'' Not only are these men and women being called up in unprecedented numbers, not only are they being prevented from leaving, which is masking a potential readiness crisis, but they are also not being provided with some of the basic tools, equipment, and body armor that they need to protect themselves; therefore, contributing to a state of unease. Not that these guardsmen and reservists are not patriotic, not that they would not walk across hot coals, and in many instances they do every day to protect us, but we should at least be able to take these modest steps to make sure we are strengthening them and honoring their service to us. The operations in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Kosovo are ongoing, with no end in sight. We do not know if emergent threats around the world will become real and embroil us in yet other military operations, partially because our Active Forces are stretched so thin we need to call up our Guard and Reserve, and yet because of this we could face a retention crisis. As I said, the deployments are lengthy, the benefits and legal protections are not sufficient in many instances, and the equipment is lacking. So let us hope we can take steps through this legislation and others to fix this situation. I hope the bill I offer today and sponsor today--and I look forward to many cosponsors joining on this bill--will improve the Guard and Reserve benefits, and legal protections. As I said, we are calling it the 21st Century Citizen Soldier Benefit Act. We have had two major changes or improvements to the Guard and Reserve framework, one in 1940 and one in 1994. It is time, 10 years later, this year, 2004, with the unprecedented nature of their service, to step up this framework of support for our Guard and Reserve. It is time for Congress, in my opinion, to take a comprehensive look at the benefits and protections afforded to the members of the Guard and Reserve. We have not done so since 1994. It is time that we do this. My bill does it in several ways. First, we call for equal benefits for equal service in the area of burial benefits, for activated Guard and Reserve should be the same as Active Duty. Guardsmen and Reservists cannot be buried in national cemeteries unless they are killed in action. Think about that. A man or a woman serves not just for 6 months, but maybe 2 years, comes home, is called back to go again, dodges the bullets, gets past the landmines, perhaps is seriously injured but escapes unscathed and comes home after serving valiantly, and then is denied burial benefits because they were not ``killed in action.'' I think because of what they have done, it is time for us to give them the right opportunities for burial in our national cemeteries if they are serving the time that our Active Duty serve, with all the dignity that they would deserve in such a situation. The bill does not authorize every member of the Guard and Reserve to these burial rights, but it is inconceivable why someone who fought overseas for our Nation cannot be buried with his or her comrades simply because one soldier was in the Reserve and one soldier was active--fighting side by side, same foxhole, same patrol, same landmine but yet not the same burial ground. No. 2, we hope in this bill that guardsmen and reservists activated for 2 years should have active duty GI bill benefits--the GI bill, which is probably one of the best pieces of legislation this Congress has ever passed, it is referred to hundreds of time in speeches on and off the floor, and is one of the bills Americans generally know about, quote, and can say what it does. It has enabled millions of American troops to enroll in college when they returned from World War II. The GI bill created a bedrock of middle-class Americans. It was one of the cornerstones that helped us build the middle class, and it ushered in 50 years of unprecedented economic growth. Why? Because when people get good training and good education, their earning potential goes up and the contribution they can make to their community rises in a significant way. Today, members of the Active-Duty Forces receive more in GI benefits than the Guard and Reserve personnel, and if the Guard and Reserve personnel weren't contributing in equal ways to our active duty, I would not be here arguing for them, but they are contributing in equal ways, putting their lives in danger. Our bill will allow them to participate more equally in the GI benefits. The third part of this bill would seek to create parity between Reserve components and Active Duty in terms of their retirement age. Right now, Active Duty can leave the military once they serve 20 years. We think that is a great benefit. It is one of the attractions to the military service. Many of our military men and women serve honorably for 20 years and then retire to go off and have yet a second and third career, as lifespans continue to increase. We are proud of that. We believe and know they contribute in many ways even past their service. But Guard and Reserve today cannot collect retirement until 60 years of age. This bill would reduce it to 55 years and end what is an unjust situation and help them. Hopefully it will address part of this retention issue by making these benefits more generous. The fourth and I think one of the most important issues this bill seeks to address is ending the pay gap faced by guardsmen and reservists. Mr. President, I don't know if in Texas you have had a lot of people complain to you about this, but I sure have had people in Louisiana come up and say to me, Senator, I can't possibly understand how we would ask someone to put on their uniform, go to Iraq, and take a 40-percent, 30-percent, or 20-percent cut in pay, to put their life on the line while we enjoy all the benefits staying home here in a safe place here on the homefront. It is not that we have not had challenges right here on the homefront, but not to the same degree and intensity as we are finding on the front lines of the battlefield. Yet the fact is, because there is no tax credit in our law right now and because it is not mandatory for employers--or the Federal Government, I might add, which is something Senator Durbin and I have worked very hard on together--to maintain their salaries at the level before they leave, some of these guardsmen and reservists are actually taking a 30-percent or 40-percent cut in pay to serve us and to keep us safe. That means while they are making the sacrifice on the battlefield, which many of these men and women are willing to make, we are asking their spouses and their children to give up the car, sell the house, give up their college fund, and it is simply not fair in a country that has the resources we have. In this Congress we want to give tax credits to everybody in the world for everything under the sun. I don't know how we can't find the few hundreds of millions of dollars that it would take to give this tax credit to allow people to serve in the Guard and Reserve and just maintain their salary level while they serve so it doesn't put their families in jeopardy. I am going to go visit our troops in Lafayette on Monday. I know the community comes together. I know the women, many of them, join together for bake sales and help out and pay each other's car payments. Sometimes the community pulls together to pay the mortgage on the house. I think that is wonderful and it is the good old American spirit. But I don't know if it is necessary, not when we are giving out tax credits to companies that are taking jobs overseas, not when we are giving out tax credits to people who make millions and are not putting on the uniform. The least we can do is help our businesses to write off what they would have as a voluntary compensation package to maintain this salary level for the men and women serving overseas to minimize the sacrifice made by their families here at home. It would also require the Federal Government to step up to the plate and, as one of the largest employers in the Nation, to make sure those salaries are compensated. Let me share stories, one or two, from these families. There was an April 22, 2003 article from USA Today that I will ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record.

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I rise to introduce and send to the desk the 21st Century Citizen Soldier Benefits Act which I introduce on behalf of myself. I thought I would take a moment this afternoon to outline the framework and the context of this bill because it has to do with our Armed Forces. It has to do with a very important component of our Armed Forces, which is our Guard and Reserve units, part of our total force, a very important part of that total force as I hope to outline. This is an attempt to put before the Senate and the Congress a comprehensive bill--one that I find and I know people in Louisiana across party lines and in very energetic and enthusiastic ways support because the need is so great--to support our men and women in uniform, particularly our Guard and Reserve components. If the war on terror is teaching us anything--and we are learning some tough lessons each and every day as we move forward through this war--we all know we cannot defend this Nation adequately without the strength provided by our National Guard and Reserves. Since 9/11 when this country was attacked, the first time in this large measure since the attack on Pearl Harbor many years ago, over 355,000 guardsmen and reservists have been mobilized. To give a grasp of that number, our Navy today, arguably the most powerful in the world, has 375,000 sailors. So in 2\1/2\ years, we have called up almost enough guardsmen and reservists to man every ship in the United States Navy. That is a lot of manpower and a lot of womanpower, and they deserve our very best effort. They are not just backfilling for Active Forces. They are serving on the front lines, as we have seen today how brutal those front lines can be. They are being wounded and killed just like our Active Forces. In fact, 97 of the 600 deaths in Iraq have been Guard and Reserve deaths. Today 176,000 citizen soldiers wear the uniform full time, and that number, as I will show, is growing exponentially. By May 1, 40 percent of the troops in Iraq will be members of the National Guard and Reserve. These are men and women who have full-time jobs, who are coaches, small business owners, policemen, firemen, State workers, and waiters and waitresses in our restaurants. They hold many jobs, but they are then called up. They take off their daily dress clothes and put on the uniform and go to the front lines to protect us. In Louisiana, and I know this is true in Texas, thousands of men and women have been called up. We have 3,051 reservists on active duty right now. Over 6,000 Louisiana reservists have been activated since 9/11. For many, their activation periods have unfortunately lasted, because of the demand on our troops, sometimes in excess of 18 months to 24 months. The 528th Engineering Battalion from Monroe, LA, recently deployed to Afghanistan, 500 Louisianans on their way serving already. Marine Reserve Company B of Bossier City, 150 Marines have just been put on alert for mobilization. Company B has already been mobilized before. Last month, the Department of Defense put another 18,000 National Guardsmen on alert status, including 3,800 members from Louisiana's 256th Separate Infantry Brigade. I will be visiting their leaders on Monday, in Lafayette, LA, and be visiting with their families to talk about the separation that is going to occur and how we are doing as a nation, as a State, and as a community, to help them through this difficult time as they help, protect, and give us their very best in this war effort. The National Guard and Reserve, as I said, make up now 45 percent of our forces. We simply cannot fight without them. Yet as I am going to explain, the benefits, their pensions, their compensation, their GI benefits, their retirement benefits, and even their burial benefits do not match with their level of service and do not match with the contribution they are, in fact, making. I understand why because when the framework for the Guard and Reserves was initially put together, they were thought of as sort of a backup, as a filler. They do other things as well other than, of course, fighting wars. They help our States mobilize at times of national and natural disasters. So I am clear, as are many of us, about why initially, as the Guard and Reserve was created and the framework developed, those rules and regulations were put into place back in the 1940s, in the 1960s, and in the 1970s. In 2004, the times are different. The demands are great and they are meeting this challenge. As a Congress we need to meet them more than halfway. Nearly 35,000 have been mobilized more than once. Imagine returning from Afghanistan, reuniting with your family, getting your business restarted, getting back into the desk you left before you went to serve, only to be told to get ready because you are leaving in another few months, get ready to ship out again. We have a retention and recruiting crisis looming on the horizon. I would like to show the number of troops, reservists, who have been called up from 1953 through 1989, through the Berlin crisis of 1961, through the Cuban missile crisis, and the Vietnam war, we called up a total of 199,877, about 200,000, through all of this, three times in 40 years. Since 1990, in the last 14 years, we have called up 634,984--the Persian Gulf war, the intervention in Haiti, Bosnian peacekeeping, Operation Southern Watch, the Kosovo conflict, now our ongoing war on terrorism, which has many fronts, primarily in Afghanistan and in Iraq. That is unprecedented in terms of our recent history. The question to us should be: Are we doing what we should as we are increasing our military budget substantially? I, for one, have supported each and every increase and almost argued in many instances for more money going to our military. What portion of that increase is going to the Guard and Reserve to make sure their pensions are intact, that when they retire their compensation is fair, that their families are cared for at least at a decent and adequate level while they serve us so magnificently and so beautifully? So we can see we are calling more and more on our Guard and Reserve. I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record an excellent article that appeared in the Washington Post in January of this year by Mr. Vernon Loeb, a very excellent staff writer.

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. It starts: Drastic pay cuts. Bankruptcy. Foreclosed homes. They aren't exactly the kind of challenges that members of America's military reserves signed up for when they volunteered to serve their country. But for many, the biggest threat to the home front isn't Saddam Hussein or Osama bin Laden. It's the bill collector. And that is a shame. I think the two enemies mentioned before the bill collector are people we need to actually be focusing our attention on, bringing them to justice in one case and finding them in the other. I don't think our troops need to be worried about bill collectors back home, but that is the position we have them in because we have not acted, will not act, refuse to act in the face of giving everybody else tax credits, but we can't seem to find room in the budget for these 634,000 of our bravest. I want to say for the record, in Louisiana, Janet Wright's husband Russell is in the Marine Reserves. He made $60,000 a year. Russell was activated. He will only make $30,000. Mrs. Wright says she started putting water in her children's cereal and hopes her daughter can be quickly potty trained to save on diapers. Mrs. Wright has to count every penny. This family is from Hammond, LA. I just don't think this is right. I think we can do something about it, and this bill attempts to do that. A 50-percent tax credit to those employers to continue to pay their salaries to fill this pay gap is part of this bill. One other point of the bill, and then a short conclusion. We put a cap on interest rates. Many of us have loans out for a variety of different purposes--automobiles, perhaps some business loans that have been made for our businesses, obviously mortgages. We put in an interest rate cap so when you are deployed, you don't have to pay more than a 6-percent rate. When rates were 20 percent and 25 percent, that made a lot of sense and it was a great benefit. But as rates are relatively low today, this bill would make a modest change to either have it at 6 percent or prime plus 1. Again, it is not a huge amount of money, but it could potentially save a family a few hundred dollars a year. It is the least we can do as part of trying to help them make ends meet while their primary breadwinner in most cases is the one deployed. As Congress works to best give our military the tools they need to succeed in the 21st century, we must reinforce and increase the benefits and protections for our Reserves. We have asked so much of them, and they have met every challenge with excellence. As we saw unfolding on our television screens yesterday and today, we couldn't ask them to do more. The least we can do is to look at the package of benefits, upgrade it where we can, make sacrifices in other areas of our budget, and fund them first. They are the ones who are protecting us at this time. When we can provide greater legal protections to ease the stress on the homefront, we must, when and where we can. Failure to act will just exacerbate retention challenges. It will undermine our efforts to succeed in our war on terror. I introduce this bill today. I hope we can have a speedy hearing. I ask my colleagues to join me in sponsoring this bill so we can have a great bipartisan effort. There are many other things we can so the Guard and Reserve really know we appreciate them, because we just do not take pictures with them but we actually put them in our budget. I yield the floor.

Ms. LANDRIEU. According to this reporter: The head of the Army Reserve said yesterday that the 205,000-soldier force must guard against a potential crisis in its ability to retain troops, saying serious problems are being ``masked'' temporarily because reservists are barred from leaving the military while their units are mobilized in Iraq. He goes on to say: Lieutenant General Helmly told his subordinates that he was ``really tired of going to see our reserve soldiers [and finding] they're short such simple things as goggles. It's about damn time you listen to your lawyers less and your conscience more. They will probably get me in trouble. But I told them, I want this stuff fixed.'' Not only are these men and women being called up in unprecedented numbers, not only are they being prevented from leaving, which is masking a potential readiness crisis, but they are also not being provided with some of the basic tools, equipment, and body armor that they need to protect themselves; therefore, contributing to a state of unease. Not that these guardsmen and reservists are not patriotic, not that they would not walk across hot coals, and in many instances they do every day to protect us, but we should at least be able to take these modest steps to make sure we are strengthening them and honoring their service to us. The operations in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Kosovo are ongoing, with no end in sight. We do not know if emergent threats around the world will become real and embroil us in yet other military operations, partially because our Active Forces are stretched so thin we need to call up our Guard and Reserve, and yet because of this we could face a retention crisis. As I said, the deployments are lengthy, the benefits and legal protections are not sufficient in many instances, and the equipment is lacking. So let us hope we can take steps through this legislation and others to fix this situation. I hope the bill I offer today and sponsor today--and I look forward to many cosponsors joining on this bill--will improve the Guard and Reserve benefits, and legal protections. As I said, we are calling it the 21st Century Citizen Soldier Benefit Act. We have had two major changes or improvements to the Guard and Reserve framework, one in 1940 and one in 1994. It is time, 10 years later, this year, 2004, with the unprecedented nature of their service, to step up this framework of support for our Guard and Reserve. It is time for Congress, in my opinion, to take a comprehensive look at the benefits and protections afforded to the members of the Guard and Reserve. We have not done so since 1994. It is time that we do this. My bill does it in several ways. First, we call for equal benefits for equal service in the area of burial benefits, for activated Guard and Reserve should be the same as Active Duty. Guardsmen and Reservists cannot be buried in national cemeteries unless they are killed in action. Think about that. A man or a woman serves not just for 6 months, but maybe 2 years, comes home, is called back to go again, dodges the bullets, gets past the landmines, perhaps is seriously injured but escapes unscathed and comes home after serving valiantly, and then is denied burial benefits because they were not ``killed in action.'' I think because of what they have done, it is time for us to give them the right opportunities for burial in our national cemeteries if they are serving the time that our Active Duty serve, with all the dignity that they would deserve in such a situation. The bill does not authorize every member of the Guard and Reserve to these burial rights, but it is inconceivable why someone who fought overseas for our Nation cannot be buried with his or her comrades simply because one soldier was in the Reserve and one soldier was active--fighting side by side, same foxhole, same patrol, same landmine but yet not the same burial ground. No. 2, we hope in this bill that guardsmen and reservists activated for 2 years should have active duty GI bill benefits--the GI bill, which is probably one of the best pieces of legislation this Congress has ever passed, it is referred to hundreds of time in speeches on and off the floor, and is one of the bills Americans generally know about, quote, and can say what it does. It has enabled millions of American troops to enroll in college when they returned from World War II. The GI bill created a bedrock of middle-class Americans. It was one of the cornerstones that helped us build the middle class, and it ushered in 50 years of unprecedented economic growth. Why? Because when people get good training and good education, their earning potential goes up and the contribution they can make to their community rises in a significant way. Today, members of the Active-Duty Forces receive more in GI benefits than the Guard and Reserve personnel, and if the Guard and Reserve personnel weren't contributing in equal ways to our active duty, I would not be here arguing for them, but they are contributing in equal ways, putting their lives in danger. Our bill will allow them to participate more equally in the GI benefits. The third part of this bill would seek to create parity between Reserve components and Active Duty in terms of their retirement age. Right now, Active Duty can leave the military once they serve 20 years. We think that is a great benefit. It is one of the attractions to the military service. Many of our military men and women serve honorably for 20 years and then retire to go off and have yet a second and third career, as lifespans continue to increase. We are proud of that. We believe and know they contribute in many ways even past their service. But Guard and Reserve today cannot collect retirement until 60 years of age. This bill would reduce it to 55 years and end what is an unjust situation and help them. Hopefully it will address part of this retention issue by making these benefits more generous. The fourth and I think one of the most important issues this bill seeks to address is ending the pay gap faced by guardsmen and reservists. Mr. President, I don't know if in Texas you have had a lot of people complain to you about this, but I sure have had people in Louisiana come up and say to me, Senator, I can't possibly understand how we would ask someone to put on their uniform, go to Iraq, and take a 40-percent, 30-percent, or 20-percent cut in pay, to put their life on the line while we enjoy all the benefits staying home here in a safe place here on the homefront. It is not that we have not had challenges right here on the homefront, but not to the same degree and intensity as we are finding on the front lines of the battlefield. Yet the fact is, because there is no tax credit in our law right now and because it is not mandatory for employers--or the Federal Government, I might add, which is something Senator Durbin and I have worked very hard on together--to maintain their salaries at the level before they leave, some of these guardsmen and reservists are actually taking a 30-percent or 40-percent cut in pay to serve us and to keep us safe. That means while they are making the sacrifice on the battlefield, which many of these men and women are willing to make, we are asking their spouses and their children to give up the car, sell the house, give up their college fund, and it is simply not fair in a country that has the resources we have. In this Congress we want to give tax credits to everybody in the world for everything under the sun. I don't know how we can't find the few hundreds of millions of dollars that it would take to give this tax credit to allow people to serve in the Guard and Reserve and just maintain their salary level while they serve so it doesn't put their families in jeopardy. I am going to go visit our troops in Lafayette on Monday. I know the community comes together. I know the women, many of them, join together for bake sales and help out and pay each other's car payments. Sometimes the community pulls together to pay the mortgage on the house. I think that is wonderful and it is the good old American spirit. But I don't know if it is necessary, not when we are giving out tax credits to companies that are taking jobs overseas, not when we are giving out tax credits to people who make millions and are not putting on the uniform. The least we can do is help our businesses to write off what they would have as a voluntary compensation package to maintain this salary level for the men and women serving overseas to minimize the sacrifice made by their families here at home. It would also require the Federal Government to step up to the plate and, as one of the largest employers in the Nation, to make sure those salaries are compensated. Let me share stories, one or two, from these families. There was an April 22, 2003 article from USA Today that I will ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record.

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I rise to introduce and send to the desk the 21st Century Citizen Soldier Benefits Act which I introduce on behalf of myself. I thought I would take a moment this afternoon to outline the framework and the context of this bill because it has to do with our Armed Forces. It has to do with a very important component of our Armed Forces, which is our Guard and Reserve units, part of our total force, a very important part of that total force as I hope to outline. This is an attempt to put before the Senate and the Congress a comprehensive bill--one that I find and I know people in Louisiana across party lines and in very energetic and enthusiastic ways support because the need is so great--to support our men and women in uniform, particularly our Guard and Reserve components. If the war on terror is teaching us anything--and we are learning some tough lessons each and every day as we move forward through this war--we all know we cannot defend this Nation adequately without the strength provided by our National Guard and Reserves. Since 9/11 when this country was attacked, the first time in this large measure since the attack on Pearl Harbor many years ago, over 355,000 guardsmen and reservists have been mobilized. To give a grasp of that number, our Navy today, arguably the most powerful in the world, has 375,000 sailors. So in 2\1/2\ years, we have called up almost enough guardsmen and reservists to man every ship in the United States Navy. That is a lot of manpower and a lot of womanpower, and they deserve our very best effort. They are not just backfilling for Active Forces. They are serving on the front lines, as we have seen today how brutal those front lines can be. They are being wounded and killed just like our Active Forces. In fact, 97 of the 600 deaths in Iraq have been Guard and Reserve deaths. Today 176,000 citizen soldiers wear the uniform full time, and that number, as I will show, is growing exponentially. By May 1, 40 percent of the troops in Iraq will be members of the National Guard and Reserve. These are men and women who have full-time jobs, who are coaches, small business owners, policemen, firemen, State workers, and waiters and waitresses in our restaurants. They hold many jobs, but they are then called up. They take off their daily dress clothes and put on the uniform and go to the front lines to protect us. In Louisiana, and I know this is true in Texas, thousands of men and women have been called up. We have 3,051 reservists on active duty right now. Over 6,000 Louisiana reservists have been activated since 9/11. For many, their activation periods have unfortunately lasted, because of the demand on our troops, sometimes in excess of 18 months to 24 months. The 528th Engineering Battalion from Monroe, LA, recently deployed to Afghanistan, 500 Louisianans on their way serving already. Marine Reserve Company B of Bossier City, 150 Marines have just been put on alert for mobilization. Company B has already been mobilized before. Last month, the Department of Defense put another 18,000 National Guardsmen on alert status, including 3,800 members from Louisiana's 256th Separate Infantry Brigade. I will be visiting their leaders on Monday, in Lafayette, LA, and be visiting with their families to talk about the separation that is going to occur and how we are doing as a nation, as a State, and as a community, to help them through this difficult time as they help, protect, and give us their very best in this war effort. The National Guard and Reserve, as I said, make up now 45 percent of our forces. We simply cannot fight without them. Yet as I am going to explain, the benefits, their pensions, their compensation, their GI benefits, their retirement benefits, and even their burial benefits do not match with their level of service and do not match with the contribution they are, in fact, making. I understand why because when the framework for the Guard and Reserves was initially put together, they were thought of as sort of a backup, as a filler. They do other things as well other than, of course, fighting wars. They help our States mobilize at times of national and natural disasters. So I am clear, as are many of us, about why initially, as the Guard and Reserve was created and the framework developed, those rules and regulations were put into place back in the 1940s, in the 1960s, and in the 1970s. In 2004, the times are different. The demands are great and they are meeting this challenge. As a Congress we need to meet them more than halfway. Nearly 35,000 have been mobilized more than once. Imagine returning from Afghanistan, reuniting with your family, getting your business restarted, getting back into the desk you left before you went to serve, only to be told to get ready because you are leaving in another few months, get ready to ship out again. We have a retention and recruiting crisis looming on the horizon. I would like to show the number of troops, reservists, who have been called up from 1953 through 1989, through the Berlin crisis of 1961, through the Cuban missile crisis, and the Vietnam war, we called up a total of 199,877, about 200,000, through all of this, three times in 40 years. Since 1990, in the last 14 years, we have called up 634,984--the Persian Gulf war, the intervention in Haiti, Bosnian peacekeeping, Operation Southern Watch, the Kosovo conflict, now our ongoing war on terrorism, which has many fronts, primarily in Afghanistan and in Iraq. That is unprecedented in terms of our recent history. The question to us should be: Are we doing what we should as we are increasing our military budget substantially? I, for one, have supported each and every increase and almost argued in many instances for more money going to our military. What portion of that increase is going to the Guard and Reserve to make sure their pensions are intact, that when they retire their compensation is fair, that their families are cared for at least at a decent and adequate level while they serve us so magnificently and so beautifully? So we can see we are calling more and more on our Guard and Reserve. I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record an excellent article that appeared in the Washington Post in January of this year by Mr. Vernon Loeb, a very excellent staff writer.

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I join with many colleagues who came to the Senate Chamber today to express appreciation and recognition of Senator Robert Byrd as today he cast his 17,000th vote representing the people of West Virginia. I can hardly think of what more to say other than he has truly been an exemplary Member of this body and a pillar of this institution, someone we all respect. I only hope our votes can be cast as conscientiously as his have been all these many years. I join my colleagues in congratulating him today.

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, let me begin my remarks this afternoon by thanking my friend and colleague, the Senator from Washington, for her leadership in this very important area. Because of her work, and the work of a man whose leadership we all miss dearly, Senator Paul Wellstone, victims of domestic violence have access to programs designed to protect them from what many would agree is the worst type of violence there is. Currently, the Federal Government provides a little under $500 million in domestic violence prevention and treatment programs. The amendment offered by Senator Murray proposes to take our commitment to put an end to domestic abuse to the next level by filling in the gaps left by current law and programs. As you well know, the goal of the underlying bill offered by my friend and colleague, Senator DeWine, is a simple, but important one, to prevent murder. What it says is that the murder of woman and her unborn, viable child is morally wrong and should be illegal. There is no disagreement on that point. The majority of yesterday's debate has been how best to draft a Federal law narrowly tailored to accomplish that goal. What this amendment attempts to remind us is that there are two ways to prevent the murder of a woman who is pregnant. One, you can put in place laws that recognize the loss of life of the mother and the viable fetus and impose the stiffest of penalties on those found guilty of committing such a murder. But equally important, you can put in place protections and programs that prevent this type of murder before it takes place. The sponsors and supporters of this underlying bill claim that their objective is to protect the life of a woman and her unborn child, but their actions indicate otherwise. A few Members have come to the floor to raise legitimate concerns about some of the provisions of this bill, but for the most part, the arguments offered by my Republican colleagues are nothing more than excuses. I would like to take a moment to address a few of these so-called reasons to not support this amendment and offer a rebuttal. The first reason given by groups, such as the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the National Right to Life, for their opposition to this amendment is that the underlying bill is ``clearly an inappropriate vehicle for this amendment as the issues are completely unrelated.'' If I understand this position correctly, it appears that the opponents of the amendment believe that domestic violence is unrelated to murder of pregnant women. This position is misguided at best. Let me tell you what the facts are: In the United States, a woman is more likely to be assaulted, injured, raped, or killed by an intimate partner than any other type of assailant. Every day, 4 women are murdered by boyfriends or husbands. This year alone, 240,000 pregnant women were physically abused by their intimate partners. Sixty percent of all battered women are beaten while they are pregnant. Women are most likely to be killed while attempting to leave their abuser. In fact, women who attempt to escape are at a 75 percent higher risk of being murdered than their peers. The No. 1 reason women leave abusers is to protect their children, born and unborn. Homicide is the leading cause of death for pregnant women and evidence suggests that a significant portion of all female homicide victims are killed by their intimate partners Let me read for you a quote from an ABC News article dated April 25, 2003: ``Most pregnant women are killed by people they know, like husbands or boyfriends,'' said Pat Brown, a criminal profiler and CEO of the Sexual Homicide Exchange . . . ``Sometimes it depends on how far along the woman is in the pregnancy . . . If it's a serial killer, they normally go after women who may be three months pregnant and are not showing very much . . . With husbands and boyfriends, the women tend to be eight months pregnant . . . they can see the woman and the unborn child as something in the way, keeps them from living the lifestyle they want.'' In fact, one of the stories told by my colleague from Kansas was of Tracy Marciniak, whose unborn child was murdered by his abusive father a week before he was due to be born. The Senator from Kansas was right, it would be unfair for anyone to say that there was no murder victim in that case. But it is equally unfair for him and others on the other side of the aisle to claim that there was not a victim of domestic violence in that case. Another argument that has been made is that this amendment cannot be passed because if it did it would kill this bill. That is simply not true. With the Murray amendment attached, there is nothing to prevent the House of Representatives from taking up and passing the amended version as soon as tomorrow. If they did, the bill could be signed by the President sometime next week and could become law within a week. The reason that is ``not possible'' is not a matter of Senate procedure or rules. It is not possible because the House Republicans' mode of leadership is ``our way or the highway.'' It is not possible because they refuse to fund programs that help stop a murder before it happens. It is not possible because they are more interested in making a political point than making a difference. Finally, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have claimed that they cannot support this because it calls for additional resources, and being in a deficit, we cannot afford to bring additional resources to bear on this issue. Senator Murray's amendment calls for an additional $400 million over 5 years to help fill in the gaps left by current domestic violence programs. With less than $100 million a year, we can make a difference in the lives of the 4 million who have been or will be abused by an intimate partner this year alone, save the fact that domestic violence results in a net loss of $18.4 billion a year for business owners and taxpayers. Here is what the truth is. When something is a priority for this administration, we have the resources, and when it is not, we are broke. The recently passed budget included $27 billion in tax cuts for people whose income is over $1 million a year. How is it we can find money for this and then claim the deficit as an excuse for opposing an amendment that uses less than one-tenth of 1 percent of that funding to save lives? President Bush claims that the purpose of this bill is to protect women, but at the same time his budget cuts funding for violence against women programs by $10 million, rape prevention funding by $29 million, and freezes funding for the domestic violence hot line and domestic abuse shelters. I think that is out of line with what the American people thinks, and it is certainly out of line with what I think. As I said earlier, if my colleagues have legitimate reasons to oppose this amendment, we are happy to listen. In fact, we are willing to do what is necessary to get past any partisan difference and to move this issue forward. Unfortunately, our colleagues are not. I think you have to ask yourselves, then, what is this debate really all about?

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I come to the floor to support my colleague from the State of Washington and her comprehensive amendment on this important bill and discussion this afternoon. I thank her for the extraordinary work she has done in the area of domestic violence, not just this year but in every year she has been a Member of this body, over a long period of time, her intense interest and advocacy for women and for children and for families and for communities which her effort shows today. I have a great deal of respect for the Senator from Ohio. He and I usually don't find ourselves on opposite sides, so it is unusual that I would be here supporting an amendment and the Senator from Ohio, Mr. DeWine, would be opposing it. I understand there are a few--not many-- good reasons that people could raise today against this amendment. But I will tell you what one of the reasons is not that I have heard in this Chamber and I have seen sent out by such groups as the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the U.S. Right to Life organization, two organizations that oppose Senator Murray's amendment. They have some legitimate arguments in this document about some of the details of the amendment, but they also go so far as to say that one of the reasons we should not support this amendment is because it is irrelevant to the underlying subject. Irrelevant? Domestic violence is irrelevant to the deaths of pregnant women, when experts across the board, Republican and Democratic, people who have been prosecutors before--go look at any study--will tell you the majority of women who are killed in the latter terms of their pregnancies are killed not by strangers, not by people who just happen on to their house, but they are killed by the hands of their husbands or the fathers of their children? I have to sit here and read a vote alert from the Chamber of Commerce, supposedly representing women who own businesses, supposedly representing women, many of whom are business owners, who perhaps have been victims of domestic violence, and not a word in this memo about ``so sorry that you were beaten so badly that you and your unborn died,'' nothing. They go on to say this is an inappropriate vehicle for this amendment because the issues involved are ``completely unrelated.'' I hope my Chamber of Commerce in Louisiana did not approve this document because I don't believe businesses in Louisiana think these subjects are unrelated, since one of the recent things that just happened in my State was a woman shows up to go to work about 2 years ago in Jefferson Parish, gets out of her car, and in front of about 50 people, going through the revolving doors to get into her place of business, her husband comes up to her, takes out a revolver, sticks it in her face and blows her head off. Whether she was pregnant or not, I can't recall. But to say that it is irrelevant to the subject that we are debating is an insult to many people. Let me clarify one other point. People come to this floor and act like the Senator from Washington and the cosponsor, who was Senator Wellstone, before his death--he did a magnificent job on this subject the years he represented his State in the Senate. In his memory, I will say this: He worked like a Trojan on this subject. This bill was introduced in the 106th Congress, the 107th Congress, and the 108th Congress. But this bill, although there has been one hearing, pushed mostly by Democrats, has never received a markup, not in the 106th, 107th, and not in the 108th. Evidently, there is not enough Republican leadership thought that this is an important subject to discuss. Those of us who came to the floor today to debate this issue to try to protect people from murder--women and, yes, their unborn children-- wonder what we have actually accomplished today because with the underlying bill, the only way you can prosecute people is if the murder actually occurs on Federal property. The bill we are going to pass today is not nearly as good as the 21 or 31 statutes that are already on the books that are legitimate and genuine efforts. When we asked to have some help for the victims of domestic violence, who are women and their children, we get all kinds of ``can't do it,'' ``too complicated,'' ``too expensive.'' Then I have to read the Chamber of Commerce business alert that says the whole subject is not relevant. I want to read from ABCNEWS.com for the Record, ``Expectant Victim,'' April 25. On Monday, police found the remains of 20-year-old April Renee Greer, whose dismembered body was found in a trash can that had washed into a farmer's field. She was 8\1/2\ months pregnant when she was reported missing on March 8. Experts and women's advocates are not surprised to find that pregnant women are especially prone to violent deaths. In many cases, pregnant women are killed by their husbands or significant others. ``Most pregnant women are killed by people they know, like husbands or boy friends''. . . . Think of that. It is one thing to get attacked in a dark alley by somebody you don't know; you are coming home later than you should be. It is another thing to be beaten to death by someone who is supposed to love you. It is very terrible for a child to sit there and watch their father, in many cases, beat up their mother in front of them. It breaks more than their spirit. It crushes their heart and destroys their life. You would think that somebody on the other side of the aisle would think this was significant and relevant and would want to do something about it and put some money in this bill to do something about it. But, no, we don't have time for it, we can't have a hearing on it, and it is too complicated for anybody to understand. I don't think this is complicated. Let me go on to read this: ``Sometimes it depends on how far along the woman is in the pregnancy,'' she said. This is Pat Brown, a criminal profiler and CEO of the Sexual Homicide Exchange. I am sorry, I don't know what State. ``Sometimes it depends on how far along the woman is in the pregnancy,'' she said. ``If it's a serial killer, they normally go after women who may be three months pregnant and are not showing very much. With serial killers, the women are tiny, easy to handle, not too big--someone they can easily overcome. They go after a `neat package,' something that is desirable where they could get something big. ``With husbands or boyfriends, women tend to be eight months pregnant--they're there and the baby is coming,'' Brown continued. ``They can see the woman and unborn child as something that is in the way, keeps them from living the lifestyle they want.'' And we come to the floor and ask for a little help for domestic or sexual violence, maybe a little time off of work to get her situation in order because her husband is working and he also happens to be the one beating her. She needs 30 days to get a job. They say: No, we cannot give you 30 days. We ask for 30 days of unpaid leave, and the Chamber of Commerce goes wild saying they can't afford it--and they don't have to pay for it. We talk about increasing grants to local communities to help them provide shelters, since we have not seen a significant increase in shelters, but that is too complicated. So I ask, What have we done today? Are we going to save any lives, whether it is the life of the unborn, or whether it is the life of a woman? No, because there is no money in this for prevention. We, obviously, want to just prosecute people in a very small place, on Federal land, maybe just to make a point. I came to the Senate to do more than just make a point, and I think the Senator from Washington came here to make more than a point. We came here to make a difference. This afternoon, there is no difference being made and it is a shame. In conclusion, I want to say something about the Right to Life Association. I have worked with them on cloning. I don't support human cloning. Some people do; I don't. I have worked with them. When they came to my office yesterday to tell me they were sorry that they could not support the Murray amendment because it would ``mess up the bill''--and they need a clean bill--I would like to think they need an effective bill. But they just need a clean bill. For what, I am not sure. Maybe for television commercials. I think we need an effective bill. I would like to prevent these deaths of unborn children, of women, give prevention on the front end, and then go ahead and prosecute people. In my State, that is what we do because we already have a law on the books. So I am happy that Louisiana is already there. The Right to Life Association said they could not support help for domestic violence victims because they, again, agreed with the Chamber of Commerce that it is not relevant. I hope people who support the Right to Life Association might write them an e-mail or something today and explain to them that regardless of how you feel, whether you are pro-choice or pro-life, clearly, this is relevant to the underlying bill. With that, I yield the floor. I support the Murray amendment.

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Ms. LANDRIEU. On behalf of myself, Senator Murray, Senator Mikulski, Senator Lincoln, Senator Daschle, Senator Reid of Nevada, Senator Nelson of Florida, Senator Johnson, Senator Clinton, and on behalf of 5.5 million members of the military coalition and their families, I ask my colleagues to consider giving us the 51 votes necessary to pass this important amendment tonight. This amendment will restore the full pension promised and counted on by widows and widowers of our military personnel. This particular group of patriots is ironically the only group of Federal employees to see their pension plan reduced by an average of 37 percent. If we receive 51 votes in this Chamber tonight, there will be 250,000 widows, primarily, some widowers, who will see their pensions increased, and over a million potential widows and widowers will see their pension increased. For the State of Alabama, 6,000 families will be directly affected; the State of Georgia, 9,000 families; Maryland, 5,700; North Carolina, 8,000; Ohio, 5,000; Pennsylvania, 7,000; South Carolina, 6,000; Texas, 21,000; and Virginia, 13,000. If we do not pass this amendment, all of these families and widows will receive hundreds of dollars less per month than they were counting on and we promised. The offset would be to make sure that people who earn money in the United States and try to flee and go other places and claim that they are patriots, we would let them pay the tax so these real patriots, the people who moved every 2 years and put their lives on the line and then counted on their pension, would really get it. The Senator from Oklahoma will say it costs money and it will close a tax loophole for those who flee so they do not pay taxes to support our troops. This body should pay the pensions of the military widows and widowers. That is what my amendment will do.

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I ask to call up amendment No. 2775.

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. I understand.

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. Madam President, the second amendment I wish to talk about for a moment and offer tomorrow for a vote is not about the military; it is about education. I was in the Chamber earlier today speaking about education. Let me recap. Senator Murray offered an amendment which I was pleased to vote for, proud to vote for. Although it only received 48 votes, I think it was one of the most important amendments we discussed all day. The reason I say that is because one of the major platforms of this administration when this President took office--I can remember the speeches. I sat in the great room of the House Chamber and listened to the State of the Union speeches. I will paraphrase, but I heard this. I heard the leader of our country say we are not doing enough in education; that our schools were not doing what they should do, and that he had a plan. If we would just stop throwing money at the system, if we would start expecting success, not funding failure, if we would embrace accountability, if we would make sure all of our teachers were certified, and if we would really work together across party lines and come up with a new plan for public education in our Nation, that is what we should do. I was convinced, committed, and worked very hard to see that bill pass, and it passed. That was the No Child Left Behind Act. It was not a big lift for me for a number of reasons. I am very proud of my State because before we entered into this agreement at the Federal level, the State of Louisiana was one of about five States in the Union that was pioneering this exact concept. It said for 150 years we have just thrown money at the system not really requiring or expecting good results and not really measuring our commitment of dollars based on the results we were getting, and that did not seem to make sense. So we switched our system, holding all schools accountable, not just for the averages for the subgroups of children--African Americans, rural children, poor children--but making sure we were not leaving anybody out. We were well on our way. Louisiana was doing great. Then this administration came in and said: Your plan, although you like it and the people of Louisiana like it and you are making progress, I do not think it is strong enough. He, the leadership, pushed this country into an even stricter plan. The leadership, the administration, said: If you go there, I will be there. I will help and provide the funding in the budget for No Child Left Behind. One of the reasons I am going to vote against this budget tomorrow is because that did not come true, because it is short $9 billion. For Louisiana, it means about $200 million. I have schools that have been rated as in need of improvement. They are trying so hard, and they are doing a beautiful job. But they need to hire a few more teachers. This administration said it would be there to help hire the teachers. The President said that, but it is not in his budget, and it is not in the budget in the chairman's mark to help them. Unfortunately, one of the small items that is in the budget which really pours salt on the wound is, while we do not have the $9 billion for No Child Left Behind, I want to share with everyone what is in the budget, which is very hard to read. What is in the budget is $50 million to send kids from public schools to private schools, basically. It reserves $50 million for school choice initiatives that move children from public schools to private schools. Now we have the situation where we are not going to fund taking children from lower performing schools to move them into higher performing public schools, but we are going to specifically provide additional money to move them into private schools. For the record, in Chicago, under the President's plan, 125,000 students were eligible for transfer, meaning that 125,000 students found themselves in schools that did not make the mark. They requested a transfer to a higher performing public school, which is one of the promises of No Child Left Behind, but only 3,000 were transferred. Why? Because there is no space. Why? Because they do not have the money to hire additional teachers. Why? Because the President's budget specifically prohibits money from being used for school construction, because the Republican leadership, led by President Bush, does not want money spent on school construction. I do not know how children are moved from a lower performing school to a higher performing school if the higher performing school is filled unless classrooms are added, expanded, or teachers are added. Because he flat-funded the teacher section and prohibits money from being used to build additional schools, I am not quite sure how our superintendents, Democrats or Republicans, are going to handle it, but they have a real challenge before them. In Los Angeles, we have 230,000 children who are eligible for transfer. I do not think anybody in the Chamber could guess how many actually were transferred. One hundred students. Two hundred thirty thousand children are eligible, and 100 were transferred. I learned today, and I am going to submit for the Record, if I can verify it--and if not, I will remove this from the Record--there has not been a new school built in L.A. in the last 20 years. That may not be correct, but I want to say it tonight. If it is not, I will remove it from the Record. L.A. is growing so fast, and these children have no place to go, and this budget does not help them get anywhere. It says instead of helping children go to new public schools, we are going to send them to private schools. Of course, there are no spaces in the private schools, either, so I am not sure where we are going to send them. In Baltimore, 30,000 children--that is this year--last year were eligible for transfer. Only 194 were transferred. In New Orleans, in my home city, 35,000 children were in failing schools. Only 400 were transferred. The rest were denied because of lack of space in higher performing schools. My amendment is going to remove the $50 million, and say no money can be spent in this budget sending children to private schools until we provide options for them to go to public schools. Many of these families would choose public schools, but according to this budget they cannot go because we will not help them add teachers, and they are strictly prohibited from using the money for school construction in this budget. Those are the two amendments: One to help spouses in the military. I think we can find a few million dollars to help them and I am hoping to take this out of the budget so we can keep our priorities straight, which is helping all schools with the best we can, but living up to our promises of No Child Left Behind first. When we have funded that effort, which is not just any other Government program--I know we do not fund every Government program at the authorized levels, but this is different. This was a special promise made. This was the foundation of a new beginning for our public schools. This was a promise that was made to the people of our country, and it is a promise that is not fulfilled in this budget, which is why, again, I will vote against it, and I will be pleased to offer these amendments in the morning. I yield back my time.