Mary Landrieu

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. I send this amendment to the desk for its consideration, but my intention is to speak for about 10 or 15 minutes and then I am going to ask to withdraw the amendment because, unfortunately, even though this is an extremely meritorious concept, I am not certain we have the votes for it at this time, but I thought I should take some time to talk about it.

Ms. LANDRIEU. I wish to set that amendment aside temporarily and speak on an amendment which I intend to withdraw.

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I withdraw my amendment.

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I offer this amendment on behalf of myself and Senator Breaux, Senator Pryor, and Senator Lincoln from Arkansas--the two Senators from Arkansas and Louisiana. There are other Senators who are very interested and have given us a lot of encouragement as we moved forward with this concept. I first want to thank the leaders of this bill for their tremendous work in putting a very balanced transportation bill together. You can see how controversial and emotional some of this debate is regarding highways and jobs. Highways, if not built correctly or built in the right way, or if rail or mass transit isn't provided, if the trade burden is too heavy on one area, can cost jobs, as you just heard the Senator from Pennsylvania speak. This is a very complicated and very big bill and a very expensive bill, but one we certainly have to find a way to afford because it is the infrastructure on which our economy in large measure is built. It is not the only infrastructure. I would like to remind everyone that schools and education are just as important, but our highways, our rail, and our Interstate System particularly are the foundation for jobs and economic growth. The concept of the amendment I talk about--again, I am going to withdraw it--is to pull a few percentage points of dollars away from the general program and direct it to the completion of major interstate routes that are in desperate need in order to handle the new international trade and the increased truck traffic and the increased moveable inventories that are in large measure traveling by truck on our highways because of policies we have as a Congress put into place over the last couple of years. We have an Interstate System to be proud of. We have made mistakes over the decades as we have constructed it. Obviously we have not been as sensitive to the environment when we began this several decades ago as we are today. But it has been a remarkable achievement of the American people, to dedicate their tax revenues and their gasoline tax revenues and general tax revenues. It is a true partnership between the Federal Government and local governments, as we built this Interstate System, primarily built by the Federal Government. As you can see, these are the major corridors throughout our country. In the early days of the country, as trade was more east-west, as we traded more with Europe and with the Pacific rim, our highways have had to move across the country and of course the whole Nation has been on a westward expansion. It started on the east coast and then moved westward. The problem now is States such as Louisiana and Texas and in large measure Pennsylvania, Indiana, Michigan, Missouri--the heartland States, these States right here in the middle of the country--are under a tremendous burden as the population has increased. I realize two- thirds of our population lives within 50 miles of a coast. I am from a coastal State so I understand the populations are very heavy. But the populations are also very heavy right here in the heartland and there simply are not enough interstates moving north-south. That is what this amendment attempts to do, to say to those writing these policies--and all of us have an input in that--let us pay attention to finishing some of these interstate corridors. From Louisiana, the corridors that are most important to us are I-49 and I- 69. I will talk about that in just a minute. Again, the map shows the concentration of interstates is east of the Mississippi River, not west. The Western States, particularly those in the center, need to have additional interstates that are completed. I- 49 would affect Louisiana, Arkansas, Mississippi, and others; I-69 which is not completed, Texas, Louisiana, Arkansas, Tennessee, Kentucky, Indiana, and Michigan; I-35, which is not completed, Iowa and Minnesota; the CANAMEX interstate, which is not yet completed, Arizona, Nevada, Utah, Idaho; and ports to plains, Texas, Oklahoma, and Colorado. Although I did mention Pennsylvania, I want to put up another map. I know the chairman has worked very hard. I am sure he and the staff know these numbers, but 46.6 percent of the truckborne traffic that comes from Canada comes through this entrance right here, and 49 percent that comes from Mexico or through Mexico comes through this point. The I-69 corridor, which is not finished, is a very important corridor to be completed because other corridors that do exist--there are probably one or two others in this section--are not enough to handle the percentage of the traffic. The Senators from Pennsylvania, Senator Specter and Senator Santorum, with New York and Pennsylvania right here, are feeling the sting of a lot of those trucks coming through, not stopping, not delivering goods, not delivering jobs, but creating a lot of traffic, havoc, a lot of potholes, and accidents are coming through these corridors because of the way our economic system is developing. Do we want to stop the economic growth? Absolutely not. But we have to provide for it. That is basically what our amendment attempted to do. I wish to speak for a few more minutes about it, but I am hoping as we draw some attention to this corridor and the percentages of trade that come through on a north-south direction we can get more help and more support. I think the committee has done a beautiful job. I have worked with the chairmen on both sides. Louisiana has been treated fairly. This is not a complaint from the State of Louisiana. I like the idea that our State, along with many others, is getting a bit more money under the new formula. I think it sounds very fair when you say every State should get at least 95 percent of what they put in. But the problem with that is it sort of takes away a bit from our concept of interstates and completing interstates. Whether it helps Louisiana or not, ultimately, when these corridors are completed, it helps every State. In this case, two of the corridors I am speaking about would cut through Louisiana, and would be a great help to us, and also to the whole Nation and our metropolitan areas. That is the underlying concept of the amendment. Again, to generally describe it, it would take a small percentage--6 percent--which equates to about a $16 billion commitment over the next 6 years to finishing anywhere from four to five of the major corridors through the middle part of the country. This is only one. There would be others that would fall into this concept and this amendment. Let me keep the I-69 chart up for 1 minute and talk about one of five that will be completed in the middle part of the country. I-69 will serve the Nation's top 25 seaports, 13 inland waterway ports, and 15 of the Nation's top air cargo ports. One of the reasons we need to finish I-69 is because it helps to link our seaports, our waterways, and our airports. That is true for every one of these corridors that would be proposed in this plan. When I-49 is complete--hopefully one day soon--it will extend from New Orleans to Kansas City, but it benefits the whole Midwest part of the country, from the great port of New Orleans, the port of Houston, the port of Mobile, with huge amounts of trade and traffic which are goods imported and exported moving through these ports. They need north-south corridors. We simply don't have enough north-south corridors. We have a lot of east-west corridors but not north-south corridors. Once completed, the I-49, I-29, and I-35 corridors will intersect with nine other east-west interstates, including I-94, I-190, I-80, I- 70, I-44, I-40, I-30, I-20, and I-10. Building the north-south corridors connects them to the east-west to make this grid workable and helps all of us to be more efficient and profitable as we move goods and services around and through this great Nation. There is one final point I want to show a picture of. This is a hard picture for me to look at, but the ranking Member from Vermont, Senator Jeffords, has actually seen this with his own eyes. He was gracious enough to come down to Louisiana. We were literally standing there looking at a bridge, which is not in this picture frame. The Senator asked me what would happen to the bridge if there was an accident. At that point, a large shrimp trawler literally hit the bridge, knocking the mast of the trawler off and knocking the nets down. The bridge was out of commission for several hours. The Senator witnessed that himself. There is only one way in and one way out. But the frightening thing for people who are observing and listening to this today is this is the main highway for offshore oil and gas revenues coming into the continental United States. This is LA-1. Eighteen percent of the imports and a majority of the offshore oil and gas drilling that is done happens at the end of this road. With a heavy rain, it goes under water. This road needs to be elevated and protected. The marshlands need to be restored. All of that can be done with the right kind of investment. This is probably one of the worst examples of not using our Federal resources directly and well, in the sense that $6 billion is produced from the Treasury off the shores of this highway, but we can't get one penny to broaden or fix this highway--that is not true. We have, through the generosity of the chairman, gotten some money to fix and designate this highway. But this is one of the corridors that could be greatly improved by a commitment to finish the major economic corridors we rely on for our security and which give us energy security--but also in the middle part of the country to help us move oil and gas off our shores to light up Chicago, New York, or places in Pennsylvania and Vermont, and move goods through the Gulf of Mexico. This is a major corridor. My amendment seeks to re-focus only a small percentage--6.4 percent-- of our Federal highway spending on finishing our network. My proposal calls for creating a finish program. The finish program would provide enough funds to finish or substantially finish a few highways of international significance. In 1995, we dissolved the interstate program and left behind a few major uncompleted segments. From its founding by President Eisenhower until its dissolution in 1995, the Federal interstate program provided a dedicated stream of funds to build our system of interstate highways. This map of completed interstate's shows the concentration of interstates east of the Mississippi River and the great gaps in the network that exists west of the Mississippi River, particularly north- south interstates. ISTEA and TEA-21 provided a new program that listed a number of high priority corridors that are vital to national economic development, but did not provide the funding to construct these highways. The proposed finish program would provide the necessary funding to finish or substantially finish the most significant of these Congressionally designated high priority corridors so that we can begin closing the remaining gaps in our national network. All of the proposed roads for the FINISH program have already been Congressionally designated high priority corridors, yet we haven't given them priority funding. Many segments of these roads do not exist. Some of these roads exist but are inadequate and are awaiting improvements. All of these proposed road projects link our borders north and south. All of these proposed road projects will bring tremendous social and economic benefits for both their regions and for the Nation. Of the six corridors that I propose be included in the FINISH program, I want to focus on three specific corridors that I know best because they directly impact Louisiana. These three specific corridors are: I-69, I-49 and LA-1. When completed, this will span the Nation's heartland, connecting Canada and Mexico through the States of Michigan, Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Tennessee, Mississippi, Arkansas, Louisiana and Texas. Since the passage of NAFTA, Canada and Mexico are now the U.S.'s major trading partners. In 2001, 80 percent of U.S. trade with Mexico and 67 percent of U.S. trade with Canada was transported by truck. The I-69 corridor accounts for over 63 percent of the Nation's truck-borne trade with Canada and Mexico. This map of the I-69 corridor shows that the Michigan border points of Detroit and Port Huron account for over 46 percent of the Nation's truck-borne trade with Canada. The Texas border between Laredo and the Lower Rio Grande Valley accounts for over 49 percent of the Nation's truck-borne trade with Mexico. I-69 will serve the Nation's top 25 seaports, 13 inland waterway ports and 15 of the Nation's top air cargo airports. This corridor would directly serve 25 million people. I-69 will provide economic development in some of the Nation's most impoverished regions, including the Mississippi Delta and the lower Rio Grande Valley. In the I-69 corridor States, there are over 9.1 million people living below the poverty level. In 6 of the 9 corridor States, the population in poverty exceeds the U.S. average. Currently, only two sections of this corridor--Interstate 69 from Port Huron, MI to Indianapolis and Interstate 94 from Port Huron to Detroit and west to Chicago--are complete and open to traffic. However, these sections are in need of upgrading. The remainder of I-69, from Indianapolis south to the Mexican border, is in varying stages of completion. Location and environmental studies are near completion and many sections are under design work and construction. When completed, I-49 will extend from New Orleans to Kansas City. When completed, it will provide a continuous trade highway from Canada through the Midwest and New Orleans to Latin America. Major portions of the route are already constructed: In Louisiana, from Lafayette to Shreveport as well as other sections in Arkansas and Missouri. Environmental work has been completed for every unconstructed section of the roadway. Records of decision for every one of these sections have been signed by the Federal Highway Administration. Project funding is the only remaining obstacle to the completion of the Interstate. I-49 is a nationally significant freight distribution and inter-modal corridor that will service the deepwater ports of South Louisiana, New Orleans, Houston, Beaumont--four of the top five ports in the Nation by tonnage--the Great Lakes ports of Duluth, Superior, Chicago, Gary and Milwaukee, as well as numerous other inland waterway ports throughout the Midwest and plains States. The I-49 corridor bisects a 420-mile north-south gap in what is potentially one of the most agriculturally and industrially productive regions of our country between I-55 to the east and I-35 to the west. Once complete, the I-49/I-29/I-35 corridor will intersect with nine other east-west interstate highways including: I-94, I-190, I-80, I-70, I-44, I-40, I-30, I-20 and I-10. With existing rail facilities along the corridor including BNSF, KCS--now NAFTA Rail--and Union Pacific, completion of I-49 will spur the creation and expansion of major inter-modal facilities from Canada to the Gulf of Mexico. Once complete, I-49 will provide $817 million in annual savings to the Nation's economy by reducing travel time, transportation costs and congestion. Over 6 years, these savings will total over $4.9 billion. Coincidentally, the total remaining cost to construct I-49 is estimated at about $4.9 billion. Construction and completion of I-49 will support the creation of up to 206,290 new jobs. I thank the chairman from Oklahoma and the ranking member from Vermont. Of course, the Senator from Nevada had a great deal to do with this bill. I thank them for their balanced approach. But I suggest to them if we could accelerate the completion of some of our major interstates in the middle part of this country, it would help everyone. It is desperately needed from an economic, security, and safety standpoint for the 30 or 40 States that are tremendously affected by the lack of this kind of infrastructure. Amendment No. 2615 Withdrawn

Ms. LANDRIEU. I ask unanimous consent the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, each year I try and take advantage of the opportunity to visit some of the high performing schools in my State. This past year, I had the privilege of spending time with the students of Ruston Elementary School in Ruston, LA. I was very impressed by them and their level of achievement. The fifth grade students had just spent the semester studying the U.S. Senate and its role in American democracy. They were eager to learn about our work and the many traditions that make the Senate one of the most deliberative bodies in the world. I asked some of the students if they would mind sharing some of their work with me so that I may bring it back to Washington and enter it into the Record. I would like to thank their teacher, Sonja Walker, for all of her good work. In these poems, the children tell us that they are proud to be an American. I, for one, think America should be proud of them. I ask that the following poems be printed in the Record. The poems follow: I'm Proud To Be American Poem (By Alhira) I'm proud to be an American today. We have rules here in the USA. Rules that we love, rules that we hate. I'm proud to be an American in the USA. We have nice, kind, and sweet in the USA. I love to be an American. Flowers (By Sabrina Bowden) Some flowers are red, Some flowers are blue, Some are yellow, green, and purple, Like Mardi Gras masks Worn on children's smiling faces, While others are orange or white. But one thing they all have in common Are the big green stems And leaves that support the petals And carry fresh, clean water to the leaves. Butterflies (By Pymir Brown) They swirl around in my stomach. It feels like I'm going dizzy. They're playing volleyball. Hitting the ball over the net, Back and forth To each other. Don't you just love butterflies? Busy (By Jasmine Calloway) Busy. Busy yesterday, Busy today. Busy tomorrow, Busy everyday. Busy and work, Must be the same. Work today, Busy tomorrow. If you think about it, It's all the same. Remembering Abe (By Travis Carter) America seems so beautiful, When I see the flag wave, But the most thing I think Of is when Abe freed the slaves. He brought everyone freedom And stopped segregation. He let everybody work together To form a nation. Abe helped us greatly Through our troubled days, So now we have love In all sorts of ways. Love (By Crystal Harris) Love, Love is something you can't make or take, It just comes on a regular basis. But sometimes your love could be taken away. It might be the one you never even cared for, your love. You just tricked your love. Its hard to say goodbye to your love and it never comes back. Don't just dangle over a haystack, go find another love, And love him like you never loved any one before. Love, Love, Love. I'm Proud To Be an American (By Jamakia Hatter) I'm proud to be an American, I'm proud to do what I do, aren't you? I'm proud to stand for what I stand for, Especially when you're number one. I'm proud of what I believe, I'm proud to be in a country that's free. My country tis of thee and its sweet land of liberty. This is why I'm proud to be an American. Feelings (By Judy Huynh) Feelings, hopes, dreams Treasured so beautifully Like a butterfly flying across the meadow. Feelings, sorrows, madness Swirling so painfully Like a tornado. Your hopes and dreams sink Your heart is so cold and pure of darkness Like a vacuum feeding on your sorrows and madness. Feelings, feelings, feelings. If I Were President (By Kevin Jackson) If I were President, it would be fun. I could do all kinds of things. I know I would have to do a lot of work, but in my free time, I would do this. First, I would go and meet Michael Jackson. He is my favorite singer and he would teach me how to do the moon walk. Next, I would go meet my favorite actor, Chris Tucker. He was in my favorite movie, Rush Hour 2. I would ask him about the movie. Last, but not least, I would get my groove on by going to China. I would do all kinds of things. I would eat Chinese Food everyday. This is what I would do. If I Were the Senator (By Randall Loyd) If I were the Senator, I would make a law about recess, Or even school. I would make a law of pizza. There would be free pizza. America the Vacuum Cleaner (By Ben McFatridge) Like a giant vacuum America Sucking all of the evil and terrorists Out of the world, Until it is clean, And rid of terrorists. From Chaos to Courage (By Matthew Rich) We watched them fall, With unbelieving eyes. We saw it burn, With staring eyes. We saw the rubble, With teary eyes. Then we saw the flag, With its brilliance, Shining through the dust. Now we see it With courage in our eyes. Please Remember (By Samantha Rich) Remember when time was ours to enjoy. Sometimes you wish you could turn around, And live it again, But you can't. So remember, Remember what happened. How we were there for each other, Singing Christmas music, Cheering for each other, Hoping for each other to win. So remember all that happened, Back when things were the same, And I'll always remember you and smile. Though memories last, time goes on. Although it is hard, We always have to say goodbye. So please remember, Please remember me. Why (By Shane Rich) Sometimes I wish I could just ask why, and that why would be answered. If I had that opportunity this is what I'd ask. Why can't we have world peace, where terrorists didn't exist, and bombs, and guns, and wars were unheard of? Why can't we come together to join and be a nation? And why can't it be that no one was prejudice or racist? And why can't we take out all the bad and use truth and kindness to fill it in? But if I could change it I wouldn't, because I'm going to leave that to God!

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President. I have been listening to the debate over the past few days, and I think that a common theme on both sides of the aisle has been this is not a perfect bill. There are those on this side of the aisle who rightly say that this bill does not go as far as it could; that it doesn't focus enough of the assistance on low-income seniors and could do more to keep employers from reducing or eliminating benefits for their employees. Others have raised concerns about the fact that there is a $1,400 ``doughnut hole'' and an overly restrictive assets test that will mean less help for too many Americans. There are those on the other side of the aisle that have rightly said that this bill does not do enough to address the long-term solvency issues facing Medicare. They contend that this $400 billion expansion, without making additional structural reforms, puts Medicare on an unsure footing for the future. It is for these reasons that Members on both sides of the aisle have said they will vote against this bill. Many maxims have been used over the past few days to describe the choice before us. Some have said, ``A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.'' Others have said, ``Let us not make the perfect be the enemy of the good.'' Still others have said, ``Something is better than nothing.'' I have spent the last 25 years in public service, and if there is one thing I have learned, it is that a true compromise is one from which no one side walks away completely happy. If there is anyone who knows that lesson better than I, it is the senior Senator from Louisiana, Senator Breaux. I have often said that if there is a deal to be had, Senator Breaux will find it. He has an amazing talent for bringing two sides together in a way that preserves the key principles of both. I think he has succeeded in doing that again here. Going into the conference, Democrats insisted that the final bill must include the following: meaningful assistance to low income beneficiaries; providing Federal assistance to Medicare seniors on Medicaid, dual eligibles; strong Government fallbacks; and real incentives for employers to retain coverage. The conference agreement represents major victories in all four of these key areas. First, and perhaps most importantly, beneficiaries with low incomes will get immediate assistance in paying for their drugs. The premium, deductible and coverage gap would be waived for people earning up to $12,123 a year, $16,362 per couple. Those making up to $13,470, $18,180 per couple will not have to pay a premium or be subject to a coverage gap and would only have a $50 deductible. What this means in real terms is that one-third of all Medicare beneficiaries, over 200,000 of which are from my State, will get immediate assistance to drugs at little to no cost to themselves. These are people who today have no help. This bill also provides $88 billion in tax incentives to employers to encourage retaining existing retiree drug coverage. CBO estimates those incentives will greatly diminish the number of employers who will reduce or eliminate their coverage because of passage of this bill. It ensures that all beneficiaries will have access to drug coverage by providing a strong government fallback in the event that private plans do not provide adequate coverage in any particular region. Finally, it provides meaningful support to Medicare providers so that they can continue to care for our Nation's elderly. These are major victories. I am, however, disappointed by some of the provisions that were ultimately included in this bill, most especially the asset test. I understand that the asset test in this bill is fashioned after asset tests used to determine a person's eligibility for Social Security Income (SSI) and Medicaid. I understand that it is, in fact, three times as generous as the asset tests used by those programs. Yet, in my view, further restricting eligibility for vital Government programs so as to separate out the near poor from the poor is a precedent that should be abolished, not furthered. I think the American public would be shocked to learn how restrictive these asset tests are. In this bill, if a senior whose income is less than $12,123 a year has more than $6,000 in assets, they will no longer qualify for assistance with their premiums or deductibles. The proponents of the asset test claim that they are necessary to ensure that a person doesn't claim to have an income of $12,123 and at the same time have a vacation home in Florida and $50,000 in stocks. But these are not the people that these asset tests affect. Who they end up affecting is a widow who is living on her husband's $600 a month Social Security check, but just so happens to have a $10,000 life insurance policy or home full of furniture valued at $3,000. That is just not fair. While I am not able to change this policy here, I do intent to work to change it later. Ten years have passed since this body was first presented with the need to reform Medicare. We have long recognized that the ways of medicine have changed. Medications and outpatient services have taken the place of intrusive surgeries and long-term hospitalization. We know that Medicare has not keep pace with those changes nor does it reflect the current needs of our seniors. Over the past 10 years, we have assembled task forces, engaged in numerous studies, held countless hearings and drafted several legislative proposals, but we have never gotten to where we are today, at the brink of passing a bill that will put us on the path of making reform a reality. I think we must act now. In a time of rising deficits, it is unlikely we will have $400 billion or the political will to make these improvements any time in the near future. The seniors in my State are tired of waiting for the perfect bill. If we do not pass this bill this year, who knows how much more time will pass before we get to this point. It certainly won't be next year. If we had not reduced our surpluses by giving out tax cuts, perhaps we could have done more, but there is no sense in wondering what could have been. What we need to focus on now is what can be. One year ago, I was in Louisiana running for re-election and I promised the people of Louisiana that while I would be with the President some of the time and I would be with the Democratic caucus some of the time, no matter what, I would be with the people of Louisiana 100 percent of the time. This bill is good for Louisiana. Ultimately, that is why I support it. In Louisiana, one out of every two seniors has no prescription drug coverage. Today, 72-year-old Ethel Cernigliaro of Homer is one of them. With only her $727 a month Social Security check to depend on, Mrs. Cernigliaro finds a way to pay her utilities, buy groceries and still cover the $300 and more she pays each month for prescriptions. At this point, Mrs. Cernigliaro doesn't know all of the details of how this Medicare reform will help her, but she is certain of one thing: It has got to be better than what she has now. ``I've been following it closely, and it is certainly encouraging to know someone is trying to do something,'' she said. This bill means seniors like Mrs. Cernigliaro will no longer be without assistance for the drugs they need to maintain their quality of life and health. She and the 200,000 seniors like her will, in most cases, pay no more than $5 a prescription for their medications. Because of this reform, no senior citizen in our State will be without some level of coverage for prescriptions. What's more, this bill will deliver $551 million over the next 10 years in emergency assistance for Louisiana's hospitals, most of which are struggling to keep their doors open. It will provide $156 million in much needed assistance to Louisiana's doctors. Without this assistance, these doctors could no longer afford to care for Medicare patients. It will provide $25 billion in help for our Nation's rural communities, many of which are in Louisiana. This represents the largest, most comprehensive rural package ever passed by Congress. Finally, this bill provides for much-needed prevention services, including screening for heart disease and diabetes, which could have helped to save the lives of the nearly 10,000 Louisiana seniors who died of these diseases last year. If this bill does not pass, the people of my State will go yet another year without these important interventions. I, for one, cannot ask them to wait. Since Medicare was first passed into law in 1965, it has been amended and modified hundreds of times. This comprehensive reform package is not the first, nor will it be the last. I look forward to working with my colleagues in the months and years to come to ensure that the Medicare program, and this new prescription drug benefit, will be all that it promises to be and more.

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, two years ago, I had the distinct pleasure of spending an hour with the President of China, Jiang Jiamin. As you know, President Jiamin is tremendously busy and has numerous requests for personal meetings, but he agreed to meet with this particular U.S. delegation because of the importance of the subject we were there to discuss, international adoption. During this meeting, he shared with us that the Chinese believe every child born is born with a red string attached to their heart, the other end of which is tied to the ankle of their soul mate. It is because of this string, they believe, that soul mates eventually find each other and spend the rest of their lives together. It is his belief, that perhaps the same is true of children who are adopted. That when they are born, their hearts have a string that is tied to the ankle of their forever family, and it is because of that heartstring that they eventually find one another. I will treasure the memory of this meeting forever. Not only because it was an extreme honor to meet with such a learned and distinguished leader, but because it reminds me of how profound adoption is. 19,237 children were adopted by American citizens last year. 18,477 children the year before that, 16,363 in 1999 and 15,744 children in 1998. That is almost 100,000 children in four years. I think it is easy for us to understand the impact that these adoptions have had on the adoptive families and the orphan children, but what I would like to focus on this morning is the impact that this has for the diplomatic relations between the United States and countries throughout the world. In sheer numbers alone, the impact is evident. In real terms, these children are ``mini-ambassadors'' to 200,000 American citizen parents, 400,000 grandparents, conservatively 800,000 aunts and uncles, and 300,000 siblings. According to a recent report by the U.S. Census Bureau, 1.6 million people in the United States were adopted, fifteen percent of them from abroad. Because of this magnificent process, communities all over the U.S. are deepening this understanding and affinity for the people of the world. September 11 reminded us of the importance of continuing to build bridges with the nations of the world. International adoption is one very effective and lasting way to build these bridges. Over this past year, I have also had the privilege of meeting with the Presidents of Kazakstan, Romania and Russia and high-ranking government officials from Cambodia, Vietnam, Guatemala, Africa, and the Ukraine. Each time the message is the same. They want to do what they can to make the Hague more than just a piece of paper with 59 signatures on it. They are looking to the U.S. to lead the way toward a system of international adoption and child welfare that is based on best practices. A system comprised of meaningful protections for the adoptive parents, the birth parents, and perhaps most importantly the children; a system that universally recognizes that a government institution is not and cannot be an adequate replacement for a family and works toward the shared mission of finding every child in this world a loving and nurturing, permanent family. I am proud to be here today, along with my colleague, the Senior Senator from Oklahoma, to introduce legislation that will take us in that direction. What it proposes to do is simple, but what it might help us to achieve is limitless. Simply put, this bill hopes to streamline the existing international adoption process, consolidate its federal functions into one agency and to empower that agency with the staff and resources it needs to represent the United States, the largest beneficiary from international adoption. With this office in place, the United States can begin to lead the world community in forging an international system of adoption that protects the interests of all those involved. Under current law the federal responsibility for international adoption lies with the Department of State and the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services. This dual jurisdiction gives rise to several problems including: lack of coordination, lack of accountability, duplication of efforts and unnecessary paperwork and fees for prospective adoptive families. It also impedes the State Departments ability to fulfill its responsibilities as the central authority under the Hague Treaty on Cooperation in International Adoption. Now, you may be asking yourself, as I have many times, what does adoption have to do with immigration? You see, under current law children adopted by United States citizens abroad are treated as immigrants, forced to apply for an immigrant visa to enter the United States. This process is not only impractical, since these children obtain automatic citizenship upon entry into the United States, it is inequitable. Children born to U.S. citizens abroad are conferred automatic citizenship upon their birth and are therefore permitted to travel to the United States on a U.S. passport. Children adopted by United States citizens should be afforded this same protection. This bill affords them that protection. This bill also proposes that we update the current law definitions of an ``adoptable child'' to reflect the types of children in need of homes throughout the world. The current law definition of ``orphan'' reflects the reality for which it was created; to help U.S. citizens adopt children orphaned by the wars in Korea and Vietnam. As such, it is an extremely narrow definition that in many cases prohibits a family from bringing their newly adopted child to the United States. In creating an Ambassador at Large for international adoption, this bill hopes to provide the leadership and high level diplomatic representation so desperately needed in international adoption. Under his or her leadership, the Office of International Adoptions will be able to take the proactive measures necessary to limit corruption and ensure that adoptions are performed in the most efficient, transparent manner possible. The Hague Treaty already gives the State Department this responsibility; this bill is designed to help them fulfill it. Let me tell you why we need to act now to pass this legislation. Because of the lack of consistent leadership by the United States in this area, many countries around the world are in ``crisis mode'' and have been forced to take unilateral actions to solve perceived problems in the system. For two years, there has been a moratorium on international adoption in Romania. The second anniversary of the INS issued suspension in Cambodia is fast approaching. The governments of Guatemala and Vietnam have taken actions to limit the number of international adoptions. In each and every one of these cases, the foreign governments have expressed frustration with the lack of action on the part of the U.S. to limit corruption or close potential loopholes in the system. The end result, hundreds and thousands of children are left in orphanages. This cannot be. I have spent the past two years talking to foreign governments, agencies, and most importantly, adoptive parents and they tell me that this legislation is needed. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this legislation and I look forward to seeing it passed as soon as possible.

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, two years ago, I had the distinct pleasure of spending an hour with the President of China, Jiang Jiamin. As you know, President Jiamin is tremendously busy and has numerous requests for personal meetings, but he agreed to meet with this particular U.S. delegation because of the importance of the subject we were there to discuss, international adoption. During this meeting, he shared with us that the Chinese believe every child born is born with a red string attached to their heart, the other end of which is tied to the ankle of their soul mate. It is because of this string, they believe, that soul mates eventually find each other and spend the rest of their lives together. It is his belief, that perhaps the same is true of children who are adopted. That when they are born, their hearts have a string that is tied to the ankle of their forever family, and it is because of that heartstring that they eventually find one another. I will treasure the memory of this meeting forever. Not only because it was an extreme honor to meet with such a learned and distinguished leader, but because it reminds me of how profound adoption is. 19,237 children were adopted by American citizens last year. 18,477 children the year before that, 16,363 in 1999 and 15,744 children in 1998. That is almost 100,000 children in four years. I think it is easy for us to understand the impact that these adoptions have had on the adoptive families and the orphan children, but what I would like to focus on this morning is the impact that this has for the diplomatic relations between the United States and countries throughout the world. In sheer numbers alone, the impact is evident. In real terms, these children are ``mini-ambassadors'' to 200,000 American citizen parents, 400,000 grandparents, conservatively 800,000 aunts and uncles, and 300,000 siblings. According to a recent report by the U.S. Census Bureau, 1.6 million people in the United States were adopted, fifteen percent of them from abroad. Because of this magnificent process, communities all over the U.S. are deepening this understanding and affinity for the people of the world. September 11 reminded us of the importance of continuing to build bridges with the nations of the world. International adoption is one very effective and lasting way to build these bridges. Over this past year, I have also had the privilege of meeting with the Presidents of Kazakstan, Romania and Russia and high-ranking government officials from Cambodia, Vietnam, Guatemala, Africa, and the Ukraine. Each time the message is the same. They want to do what they can to make the Hague more than just a piece of paper with 59 signatures on it. They are looking to the U.S. to lead the way toward a system of international adoption and child welfare that is based on best practices. A system comprised of meaningful protections for the adoptive parents, the birth parents, and perhaps most importantly the children; a system that universally recognizes that a government institution is not and cannot be an adequate replacement for a family and works toward the shared mission of finding every child in this world a loving and nurturing, permanent family. I am proud to be here today, along with my colleague, the Senior Senator from Oklahoma, to introduce legislation that will take us in that direction. What it proposes to do is simple, but what it might help us to achieve is limitless. Simply put, this bill hopes to streamline the existing international adoption process, consolidate its federal functions into one agency and to empower that agency with the staff and resources it needs to represent the United States, the largest beneficiary from international adoption. With this office in place, the United States can begin to lead the world community in forging an international system of adoption that protects the interests of all those involved. Under current law the federal responsibility for international adoption lies with the Department of State and the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services. This dual jurisdiction gives rise to several problems including: lack of coordination, lack of accountability, duplication of efforts and unnecessary paperwork and fees for prospective adoptive families. It also impedes the State Departments ability to fulfill its responsibilities as the central authority under the Hague Treaty on Cooperation in International Adoption. Now, you may be asking yourself, as I have many times, what does adoption have to do with immigration? You see, under current law children adopted by United States citizens abroad are treated as immigrants, forced to apply for an immigrant visa to enter the United States. This process is not only impractical, since these children obtain automatic citizenship upon entry into the United States, it is inequitable. Children born to U.S. citizens abroad are conferred automatic citizenship upon their birth and are therefore permitted to travel to the United States on a U.S. passport. Children adopted by United States citizens should be afforded this same protection. This bill affords them that protection. This bill also proposes that we update the current law definitions of an ``adoptable child'' to reflect the types of children in need of homes throughout the world. The current law definition of ``orphan'' reflects the reality for which it was created; to help U.S. citizens adopt children orphaned by the wars in Korea and Vietnam. As such, it is an extremely narrow definition that in many cases prohibits a family from bringing their newly adopted child to the United States. In creating an Ambassador at Large for international adoption, this bill hopes to provide the leadership and high level diplomatic representation so desperately needed in international adoption. Under his or her leadership, the Office of International Adoptions will be able to take the proactive measures necessary to limit corruption and ensure that adoptions are performed in the most efficient, transparent manner possible. The Hague Treaty already gives the State Department this responsibility; this bill is designed to help them fulfill it. Let me tell you why we need to act now to pass this legislation. Because of the lack of consistent leadership by the United States in this area, many countries around the world are in ``crisis mode'' and have been forced to take unilateral actions to solve perceived problems in the system. For two years, there has been a moratorium on international adoption in Romania. The second anniversary of the INS issued suspension in Cambodia is fast approaching. The governments of Guatemala and Vietnam have taken actions to limit the number of international adoptions. In each and every one of these cases, the foreign governments have expressed frustration with the lack of action on the part of the U.S. to limit corruption or close potential loopholes in the system. The end result, hundreds and thousands of children are left in orphanages. This cannot be. I have spent the past two years talking to foreign governments, agencies, and most importantly, adoptive parents and they tell me that this legislation is needed. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this legislation and I look forward to seeing it passed as soon as possible.

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. Thank you. I urge Democrats and Republicans to support cloture on this bill.

Ms. LANDRIEU. Fifty years.

Ms. LANDRIEU. I will speak for the bill.

Ms. LANDRIEU. Reserving the right to object, I would like to speak on the bill.

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I know people have come down here and complained about standard market design. I realize the Senators from the Northeast are concerned about the language that has been put in this bill. But I will tell you, the reason the language has been put in the bill like this is that there are Southerners who are generating a lot of electricity. Why? Because we are drilling, and we are producing, and we are building plants in the South. And I will be darned if our ratepayers have to pick up the tab to ship that electricity to the Northeast. They need to be doing a better job of building plants and laying down pipelines. I have more pipelines in Louisiana per capita than any State in the Union. If you took an x-ray of the country, you would be shocked. Like a little skeleton, you could see the pipelines under Louisiana. We cannot build any more. And do not believe we are taking the gas from those pipelines. We are sending it all over the country. We are happy to. But we cannot pay for all of it. We have to share the costs in an appropriate way. So I say to my Democratic colleagues, when they say there is nothing in the bill for Democrats, may I please remind them there is no drilling--30 more seconds--there is no drilling in this bill in ANWR.

Ms. LANDRIEU. I thank the Senator from New Mexico. There is no drilling, in this bill, in ANWR, which I know the President fought very hard for and this Senator thought might be reasonable, but the majority wasn't there.

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, as a member of the energy committee who has worked very hard with both the distinguished Senators from New Mexico, Mr. Bingaman and Mr. Domenici, as well as the former chair from Alaska, Senator Murkowski, trying to fashion a bill that balances the great interests of every region of this country, I am proud to come to the Senate and urge my colleagues to vote for this Energy bill. There are provisions that should be in this bill that are not. There are many aspects of this bill that I would have written differently myself. However, the fact is, as any member on the Energy and Natural Resources Committee can state, we have had hours and hours, maybe hundreds of hours, of hearings on how we create a more reliable electricity structure in this Nation, how we try to use our great natural resources in a better fashion to help create the energy this country needs to be more independent and more economically competitive. I come from the State of Louisiana, which is a net exporter of energy. We do a lot of energy production in Louisiana, not just in oil and gas but cogeneration. We have municipal as well as private companies, public companies, municipal generators of electricity. We drill for a lot of oil and gas. We are not a mining State in that sense, like the West, but we mine our resources and we do a much better job than we did 10 years ago and a heck of a lot better job than 20 or 30 years ago. Why? Because the United States has some of the toughest, most stringent environmental laws in the world when we take our coal out of the ground or when we drill off our shore. The Shell Oil company told me last year if they put all the oil they spilled off the coast of Louisiana in a container, it would not fill up the bottom fourth of a barrel. There are people in the Senate who think we cannot mine our resources in a way that protects our environment. Do we have a perfect system? No. Is it one of the best in the world? Absolutely. So this Senator and this Democrat is for using our natural resources in a way that helps meet the energy demands of this Nation. This country consumes more energy per capita than any nation in the world. As far as I am concerned, we have an obligation to produce it. Some Members think we can consume, consume, consume and not produce anything. One of the most extraordinary aspects about this bill is streamlining of regulations, trying to untie people's lands so we can appropriately extract natural resources, clean our coal, have good technology off our shores, and use that money to invest in our environment. People say the Senator from Louisiana is on the floor because Louisiana gets money out of this bill. The State gets some help. We deserve some help because for 50 years we have sent over $140 billion of this Nation's treasury off the shores of Louisiana. That is not pocket change. We have saved the redwood forests, and we have funded the whole land and water conservation funding for the Nation. Now we have an opportunity to take a portion of that money and save the wetlands of America. It is not Louisiana's wetlands. This is the largest delta in the continental United States, and it is in crisis. It is washing away. The chairman from New Mexico came to see it. He does not need to read a book or anything about it; he has seen it. So, yes, we have some resources, a tiny percentage of the money that comes out of the great natural resources of the Gulf of Mexico, not to give this Senator any special project, because I sure do not have any special sweet deal. The deal I have cut for my State, which the Senator knows, is to save these wetlands, where migratory birds for the whole Nation go, and fisheries off the coast of the Gulf of Mexico, from the east coast to the west coast. So there are lots of good things in this bill. I know we have problems with MTBE. I know we have problems. I am very disappointed in the hydrogen section that would have helped us move to hydrogen cars. I am very disappointed. The ranking member fought very hard for renewable portfolio standards, and I am disappointed that his language was stripped out. But I can tell you, the chairman from New Mexico has fought like a tiger to get a balanced bill. The fact is, we are not divided Democrat against Republican; we are divided regionally. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for 1 more minute.

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Neil Naraine be granted the privileges of the floor for the duration of the debate.

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. Approximately 15 minutes. Madam President, I join my colleagues on the floor to make relatively brief remarks about this very important energy bill. As a member of the Energy Committee that has worked very hard to produce this bill, and as confident as I am that a majority of the people in Louisiana want us to produce a good and balanced bill, I want to stand to support the bill that is before us and to urge our colleagues to vote yes on this measure. I commend the chairman from New Mexico and the ranking member from New Mexico on the Senate side and the chairman and the ranking member on the House side for producing a bill that is truly the best bill this Congress can produce. Is it a perfect bill? Absolutely not. Does it leave some very important sections out that many of us would like to see? Absolutely yes. Does it address every regional concern? No. And no national bill, no bill that comes out of this Congress, would ever be able to make each region perfectly happy because energy, of all issues, is not really a Democrat or Republican issue. It really is based on the regions of the country from which we all come. Some regions consume a great deal more energy than they produce. Some regions and states, like Louisiana, are a net exporters of energy. We are proud of that fact. We get beat up a lot about it from people who do not necessarily understand the oil and gas industry, but we are proud to drill in environmentally sensitive ways for oil and gas and proud that we contribute so much to nations energy supply. So we will never have a bill that is going to satisfy the regional and parochial interests of every Member. I am convinced, having worked on this Energy bill, or something like it, for the 7 years I have been in the Senate, that this is the best bill this Congress can put forward. The second point is, after we pass this bill--and I am confident we will pass and the President will sign it, there is nothing that prevents us, either individually or as a Congress, from stepping forward in the next few months or years to make improvements and adjustments to the bill. We can continue to push for policies that increase our supply, increase new and renewable fuels, improve our conservation, and make this Nation more energy self-sufficient. But we have not had an Energy bill since 1992. In that bill, Congress revolutionized wholesale electricity markets, encouraged renewable energy production through tax incentives and streamlined and reformed the licensing for nuclear facilities. In this bill, one of the things I am proudest of, working with Senator Domenici, is to improve, increase and facilitate the construction and licensing of new nuclear facilities because I believe it is time for the United States to have a renaissance in its nuclear industry, so we can increase the supply of energy and drive down prices for all of our consumers, whether they be residential, industrial, or commercial. For the life of me, I cannot understand why the United States cannot recognize the importance of nuclear energy as a component of our energy policy. Many developed countries, such as France, have realized the new and exciting technologies in this area that make nuclear safe, clean, and reliable. In France, approximately 80 percent of all their electricity consumption is produced by nuclear power. I am also very proud of the fact that we have, for the first time, recognized the tremendous contribution that Louisiana and Texas and, to a certain degree, Mississippi and Alabama make in producing oil and gas off of our shores. We have sent to the Federal Government billions and billions of dollars of tax revenues. We have produced many jobs. We are doing our part in Louisiana to make our Nation energy self-sufficient, and we are proud of it because we think for every hour we work, every month we contribute, every year we send money, we put our troops less at risk having to defend America's interests for oil and gas and energy supplies around the world. It is something that people in Louisiana are very proud of. The fact is, there is something for all of us to gain from this compromise bill. We need to move forward on this bill, in my opinion. No. 1, it increases our domestic production of energy and, therefore, lowers the prices for everyone. It is hard to estimate what the lowering of the prices will be, but this bill addresses that concern and make steps towards providing a variety of energy sources. Second, it creates new jobs. So for everyone who is concerned, it lowers unemployment. There is not a Senator in this Chamber who is not concerned about increasing employment rolls and lowering unemployment rolls. This bill, by creating hundreds of thousands of jobs, will, in essence, do that. We also take steps to conserve, not as many steps as this Senator would have liked to take. I appreciate the comments of the Senator from Hawaii and others, including Senator Dorgan, who spoke about the missed opportunities in this bill. They encouraged us to really step up for conservation measures and I agree. The Presiding Officer made some very appropriate and, I thought, discerning remarks about our missed opportunities for conservation. We have missed some opportunities, but there are still, in this bill, some very excellent conservation and research and development initiatives to be proud of. I might remind the Democratic caucus, our No. 1 objective--not my No. 1 objective but the No. 1 objective of our Democratic caucus--was not to drill in ANWR. There is no drilling of ANWR in this bill. Other Democrats objected to more drilling off the coast of Florida. There is no more drilling off the coast of Florida in this bill. There were Democrats who objected to drilling in the Great Lakes. There is no drilling in the Great Lakes. So for those who wanted not only energy conservation but, in their view, environmental protections, this bill represents that compromise. Let me say a word about natural gas because it is very important to Louisiana. Demand is exceeding supply and prices have been abnormally high for the better part of this year. The growing gap between demand and supply has been apparent for some time. Presently our demand is 22 trillion cubic feet annually. The Energy Information Administration projects that the demand will increase by over 50 percent by the year 2025. There is a naturally occurring abundance of natural gas. If we don't do something about producing more of this precious resource the gap between what we need and what we consume is only going to grow. We must act now. If we don't, the problem will continue to drive up prices and make our industries noncompetitive with industries in Europe and Asia, Africa, and other parts of the world. Natural gas is at the heart of helping this Nation to secure and stabilize its employment sector. In the short term, we provide royalty relief for ultra deep gas wells, something I worked on. I am proud that is in this bill. In the long term, the bill provides for the construction of a natural gas pipeline--a great deal of controversy. The bottom line is this pipeline could bring 65 trillion cubic feet into the market over the next 10 or 20 years. It is gas we need, gas we are going to use, and gas that will lower prices. In addition to all of that, it is going to put several hundred thousand people to work. Whether you are in Alaska or other States, a lot of people could use jobs right now. This is a jobs bill. Let me say a word about coal. We don't produce a lot of coal in Louisiana, but there are some States that do. I guess I have a great deal of sympathy for States that, like Louisiana, utilize their natural resources. West Virginia and Pennsylvania are natural resource-based States. Why shouldn't the people of those States get to use the natural resources they have to create jobs and to do it in a way that helps keep the environment clean? We have some clean coal technology in this bill. It might not be perfect, but what is the alternative? Shut down all the coal mining in the country, put thousands of people out of work, and drive up energy prices? Let's use the technology and encourage the development of even better technology. We have over 250 years of coal reserves in this Nation. The people of our Nation deserve to use those reserves responsibly to their benefit. I am proud that this bill includes some important renewable fuel standards. In addition to some of the other issues that have been discussed in this bill, we promote wind power. That is very exciting. You wouldn't imagine, though, that we are going to have some of the same interesting debates we have had over oil and gas production; that is, ``not in my backyard.'' I want the energy, but I don't want to see the rigs. I was quite amused by the fight that went on in Massachusetts or off the east coast about where we are going to put the windmills. People want wind power, but they don't want the windmills that produce the power. Unless our technology can put windmills underground and have the wind go underground, I don't know how we can avoid the aesthetics issue. Since I am used to seeing oil rigs, I kind of like the way they look and most certainly enjoy fishing around them because they make excellent places to fish that we in Louisiana have understood now for quite some time. I am encouraging wind power and hope we won't have the same ``not in my backyard'' attitude that we have had about other ways to produce energy. Certainly, wind is a very interesting source of power and evidently something that we will never run out of. It is an endless supply. We are encouraging wind power in this bill and solar energy which is quite exciting. I happened to visit some of the most outstanding solar institutes in the world, one of my last visits to Israel several years ago. I was very encouraged by the technology that is ready to come on the market with the right kind of encouragement and incentives. Many of these are in this bill. We can create new building materials that can lead the way to the 21st century. This bill includes $300 hundred million for solar programs, several hundreds of millions of dollars for wind and energy production, and $500 million in grants for biomass programs. Biomass is another example of a new and exciting technology which takes other materials to create energy. It serves to move us to a more diverse portfolio of supply to produce the energy we need for our Nation. Another important part of this bill is the increased authorization for the Low Income Heating Assistance Program. Being from Louisiana, a State that is hot most of the year, and that we have had a hard time explaining to people that you can die from heat as well as die from cold, we have not been able to get the low-income housing assistance program directed to Southern States. This bill accomplishes that. For Southern States, this is very important to help our people who pay high energy bills and need the air-conditioning, not for comfort but literally to keep them from dying or expiring in some of the hottest and most humid weather. We are very happy that this increased authorization is in this bill. Finally, I know the chairman from New Mexico and the ranking member will work with us to put some real teeth in the freedom car proposal that the President has launched and I support. It is not strong enough in this bill, but, as I said, nothing will stop us from coming back and putting real time frames and real measures of success. Mandates for hydrogen fuel cells in our Federal fleet could be added to this bill. But our clean schoolbus technology, some other things that are in this bill, make it, on balance, a very fine bill and one that this country needs. Again, this is not a Democrat or a Republican bill. It is really a bill in which regional interests are at stake. But from the perspective of Louisiana and particularly in the South, places that produce a lot of energy, this bill gives us relief. It gives us hope that natural gas prices can be reduced. It produces jobs, and it helps us lower the unemployment rate as well as makes our country more energy self- sufficient. For all of those reasons, I will give my vote and support to the bill. I yield the floor.

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I first compliment Senator DeWine for the outstanding job he has done. He is in a meeting and is not in the Senate at this moment, but we have worked closely together in our capacity now as chair and ranking member, as when I chaired the committee and he served as the ranking member. We have worked together through many different issues. I cannot say enough about his commitment to helping steer a bill that in many instances is contentious--not necessarily because of anything related to the District of Columbia specifically, but of other ideas and ideologies that sometimes find their way into this bill. He and I are both very sensitive to that and support the new leadership team of the District and have tried our best to steer this bill through for the District as well as for the Nation. I wanted to begin by complimenting him and also say, second, there are some terrific new initiatives in this bill, very much needed. One, led by Senator DeWine, is the continued effort to reform the foster care system, first acknowledging the Mayor himself has taken quite a leadership role and has appointed very able leaders in the District to take a system that is broken, that was in many ways completely dysfunctional, and to begin to bring framework, parameters, results to it which will literally save children's lives, heal families, and find homes for children who have no homes. Senator DeWine and I believe, along with Mayor Williams, there is no such thing as an unwanted child; there are just unfound families. There are indeed families not only in the District of Columbia but around the Nation which are in need of our assistance, our charity, our help, and our care. When we cannot heal a family and keep them strong to raise the children born to them, it is our responsibility to find a new family for that child or that sibling as quickly as possible. We will not stop until it is achieved. Senator DeWine has provided some additional framework in which to make that possible. In addition, I am very pleased, along with Senator Byrd, who chaired this committee for many years, that there is also a critical infrastructure piece which indicates we as a Congress have a responsibility, in that the District is not a State, it does not have a State government but it has the same needs, and Congress has stepped up for infrastructure investments in the District which benefit the whole region--Maryland and Virginia as well. One of the primary projects we have funded is the cleanup of the Anacostia waterway which affects the region. It is a major environmental project getting tremendous help and support in this bill. The security enhancements for emergency planning for the District, I need not tell of its importance. It is in the Nation's Capital, under the threat of terror, that we continue to function. We know how important that is. I begin with compliments to the Chair for including these and many other provisions. I take the next 5 minutes to lay down some other important points regarding the most contentious issue in this bill. This issue was at the core or center of the debate over the future of public education in the United States of America. It has to do with a proposal of vouchers, taking money from public schools to send children to private schools. That issue is the center of debate over the future of public schools in America. It is that issue, unfortunately, because of the nature of the process in the Senate, which is going to be put into the omnibus appropriations bill. I want to go on record as strongly objecting to it once again and to set the myths from the facts. The first myth is: The voucher proposal does not drain money from public schools or from other Federal priorities, that this is ``new'' money. For the record, the $40 million used to pay for this three-pronged approach--of which a third is for vouchers--was taken from the Commerce-Justice-State bill. In other words, that is $39 million less spent on law enforcement, homeland security, or health care. Again, this is not new money. There were no new taxes raised. There were no new taxes identified to pay for this. This $39 million came out of already existing Federal revenues that are now going to fund vouchers for 1,500 children in the District of Columbia. It is not new money. It is coming from the Commerce-Justice-State bill. I contend unless a new tax is raised at the Federal level or in the District of Columbia, it is not new money. It is a myth. The next myth I would like to put to rest is the voucher proposal is limited to children in failing schools. Some of us who have opposed this proposal, without certain amendments, have continued to say--not everybody on the Democratic side, for sure, but I have said, as the ranking member, I could support a program that had full accountability and was aimed at helping children in failing schools. Why? Because it is not their fault the schools have failed. It is our fault. It is not necessarily their parents' fault, because parents do not run the schools. Parents are busy trying to run their households, take care of their children, and sometimes work two or three jobs. If we have failed the children, then let us give them help as we reconstitute those schools under the new accountability proposal, and give them some temporary help to move to a school that might be performing. I offered that proposal. It was rejected. This proposal is not limited or designed specifically for children in failing schools because the power behind this wants to undermine public schools, not help poor children in failing schools. That is the truth. The fact is, there is nothing in this language that prevents a child enrolled in a high-performing public school or a private school, for that matter, from attending a private school at public expense. Let me repeat, there is nothing in the language the Republican majority is pushing that prevents a child enrolled in a high-performing public or private school from attending a private school at public expense, with no accountability to the public taxpayer. The third myth is this is not just a voucher demonstration program; it is a balanced, three-pronged approach for school improvement. The fact is, in the language pushed by the Republican majority, the only part of this three-pronged demonstration program that is authorized to receive funding for more than 1 year is the voucher portion. What is more, the only one that will be evaluated for success at the end of 5 years is the voucher program. First, let me say the only part of this demonstration program that is authorized in this bill to receive funding for more than 1 year is for vouchers. My opponents will say: Senator, the other funding is authorized in other parts of the education bill. That may be correct. Technically, it is correct. But in this proposal--that has been sold, and sold again, once, twice, and sold as a three-pronged approach--this language only has one prong that is authorized and funded, and that is vouchers. That is a fact, and that is wrong. What is more, the proponents will say at least one good thing at the end of this 5-year ``demonstration project'' is, we will know definitively whether vouchers work or not. The fact is, Senator Carper and I, who tried to negotiate a compromise, felt strongly that would be a very good benefit to know finally. Cleveland and Milwaukee have demonstrated with this. There is so much misinformation. We said, at least it would be worth it to our Democrats who oppose it and to Republicans who think vouchers are the answer, the only answer, to public schools in the Nation, and that is what they want. I think they are wrong. We said, let's have a comprehensive demonstration program. But this language does not have the evaluation language. It dropped the evaluation language. The only thing we will know is, do children who receive vouchers do better in higher performing private schools than they did in poorly performing public schools? I would suggest we already know the answer to that. We do not have to spend $13 million of taxpayer money that is unaccountable to find out. We already know the answer to that. What we do not know the answer to is if children are given vouchers to leave a low-performing public school to go to a higher performing private school, or if those same children are given a chance in a higher performing public school, or if those same children are given a chance in a higher performing public charter school, do they do essentially better? Does the voucher itself, the essence of the voucher itself, have any bearing on the academic achievement of the child? That we do not know, and we will not find out, thanks to the language that is in this bill. The fourth myth is: At the end of this 5-year demonstration program, we will finally know if vouchers are a solution. I spoke about that. The fifth myth is: Vouchers help to improve student achievement. We will not know that after 5 years because of the language that was taken out. In conclusion, there were some of us willing to support a true three- pronged demonstration program. This is only one prong. There were some of us who would be willing to say we could go through the demonstration if, at the end, we actually knew and had the tight evaluation that would tell us some answers the country would be very interested in knowing. That language was dropped. There were some of us who said, if accountability was part of this, as the administration promised--accountability, not just to the parents, and not just responsibility to students, but accountability to the taxpayers who pick up millions and millions of dollars--billions of dollars--in education expenses--they want to know, is their money working. But the authors--not Senator DeWine, the chairman, but others who have pushed this--are obviously not interested in letting the taxpayers know if their money is actually accomplishing anything, because the test language and the accountability language has been dropped. It is a false hope. I will conclude. When we make promises to people with power and money and status, and we do not keep those promises, that is bad enough. But when we offer false hope to children who have very little, to families which have been discriminated against, to poor people who have little, and we fail to keep those promises, that is a sin indeed. We should be ashamed of the actions that represent this bill today. I withdraw my objection to the unanimous consent request.

Ms. LANDRIEU. Reserving the right to object, I do intend to make a few brief remarks and then will not object to the unanimous consent, but I would like to speak for as much time as I might consume. Hopefully, it will not be more than about 7 to 10 minutes.

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I would like to answer a couple of points that the Senator from Tennessee raised. My colleague from Iowa is here to join me for a few moments to speak on the floor about this subject. Let me say there really isn't a Member I respect more in the Senate than the new Senator from Tennessee. He and I served together on the Energy Committee. I am well aware of his very progressive views on civil rights. I am aware of his history as a clerk for one of the finest justices who has served in the country. I am aware of his connection to Louisiana and as a southern leader. As a Democrat, I respect the work he did in Tennessee as a Republican Governor of that State. I look forward to many wonderful years working with him. But I would like to answer the question of why many people in the South are upset and concerned about what the Republican majority is calling on us to do today. I want to start with the charge that the Senator from Virginia said-- stalling, stalling, stalling. The Senator from Tennessee knows very well the Democrats did not ask for this 30 hours. The Republican leadership is stalling the veterans bill, the Energy bill, and the housing bill, which people in our State--as the Senator from Tennessee knows, I have 400,000 veterans in Louisiana. He must have 500,000 veterans in Tennessee. Their bills are pending while we debate whether or not it is fair to block 4 of 168 nominees--4 of 168. The second point I want to make is that the Senator from Arizona took 90 seconds to come to the floor and refer to the people who are listening--and we do believe the country is interested in the debate here in the Senate--that these four individuals were ``not given a trial.'' I think the words were ``hung without a jury,'' or some such inflammatory language. Please let me say for the Record that these 4 judges out of 168, only 2 percent of President Bush's nominees, were given hearings. The nominee from Texas, Priscilla Owen, 1 full day of hearing; the nominee from Alabama, Judge Pickering, 2 days of hearings, and 1 day was given after the anthrax attack. The Capitol was literally under attack and we felt so strongly about providing a hearing the day after the attack that the nominee was given a hearing. Mr. Estrada was given 1 day of hearing, and Mr. Pryor was given 1 day of hearing. So the notion that these nominees have not been given their day in court, time to express their views and to answer questions, is absolutely false. That is in contrast to the 57 nominees of 63 of President Clinton's nominees. Let me repeat: 57 out of 63 who didn't get 1 minute of a hearing, not 1 minute. These 4 we have blocked for reasons that I and my colleagues will go into--and Senator Harkin will speak about in a minute--have been blocked for very good reasons. All of them got a hearing. I just wanted to make that clear. I know the Senator from Tennessee will remember those hearings in those committees. The third point I want to clarify is the Senator from Utah said he would never not give a nominee the opportunity for a vote. The Record will reflect that the Senator from Utah has voted seven times against cloture for giving a nominee--not a judicial nominee but appointee--a vote on the Senate floor. I urge Senators to not use words such as ``never'' or ``every'' because the fact is, filibusters have been attempted before over the course of our history: In 1968, in 1980, in 1994, and in the year 2000, but they haven't been successful. This filibuster is successful for one reason and one reason only: The American people do not want these four judges on the bench. They just do not want them on the bench, and they are expressing that through the Democrats here in the Senate. I will tell you why. Let me talk about Mr. Pryor for just 1 second. I want my colleague from Tennessee to know, and my colleague from Alabama will know this. I know I am going to aggravate some Democrats when I say this. But I was willing to vote for Judge Pryor, and I had basically told that to the Senator from Alabama, who is a good friend of mine, someone with whom I really enjoy working, who is much more conservative than I am on some issues. But I really do like him and I really do trust him in many ways. I talked with him and we talked about it. I was prepared to vote for Mr. Pryor until this ad appeared. Let me read it to you. Judicial Chambers: While some in the Senate are playing with religion, Catholics need not apply. I am a Catholic. When these ads appear, by right-wing groups that want to divide this country, Catholic against Protestant, Gentile against Jew, man against woman, straight against gay, it is something inside me that just boils up. When the Republican leadership tells me I have a problem with Catholic judges--my father is a Catholic judge, and my sister is a Catholic judge. I don't have problems with Catholic judges. I don't have problems with William Pryor. I have problems with this red meat rhetoric that is anti-American, anti-constitutional, and defies every principle that this country and the men who are dying today and women in Iraq fight for. It is not a matter of whether you are Catholic, whether you are Jewish, whether you are Protestant. You should be judged on qualifications. But the right wing--and I told the Senator from Alabama until the National Republican Party repudiates this ad, the chairman of the party stands up and says these ads have no place, and the Republican Party repudiates these ads, the nominee will not get my vote--not because he is pro-life and I am pro-choice, not because of this or that, but because of this ad. That is what this election is about. I will tell you the people in my State are tired of it. I have Catholics and Protestants who want to be united, to be together, who want to create jobs, who want to help veterans, want to figure out the problem in Iraq, and they are so tired of the Republican leadership just using every little wedge issue, religion or race to wedge everybody apart. I know Democrats aren't completely innocent of these tactics, but it has gotten to the point where it has basically shut down the work here. I want to be clear. My dad is a Catholic judge; my sister is a Catholic judge. I am not against Catholic judges. But we are against ads like that, and until they are repudiated we will not allow this nominee to go forward. I don't even know if I want to go into Judge Pickering from Mississippi because I know he is from a fine family. But I will say this about that. I know his son well. He is a wonderful man. He is in Congress. I know he has beautiful grandchildren, and he has a wonderful family. But I will tell you this: The Senator from Tennessee should know this better than anyone because I think he is part of the new South. I think his whole life has been spent helping us in the South deal with the terrible issue of discrimination, to the point where it breaks your heart to think about what the laws did to people, crushed their spirits, crushed their lives, robbed them of the opportunity for anything. I grew up in that kind of place. I spent my whole life trying to change it, and I know he has, too. One of the reasons we have stopped the Pickering nomination is that many of us--and I don't think it is just Democrats, it is Republicans and Independents in the South--want the nominees on that Fifth Circuit to be about the new South, not the old South. To many of us, many of the moderate, middle, mainstream civil rights organizations, this Pickering nomination is about the old South. He was not one of the strongest civil rights leaders in Mississippi. There are hundreds of qualified judges, White and Black, who really sacrificed for civil rights. Why couldn't we have somebody like that on our bench? They don't have to be liberal. They could be moderate or conservative. Why do we have to reach back and find someone from the past? Why not reach forward? When Judge Pickering got out of law school, he asked his law partner to join him. His law partner belonged to the Mississippi Sovereignty Commission. My father got out of law school a few years before he did, in 1954. Judge Pickering got out in 1961. My father never, in 100 years, would have asked a member of the Mississippi Sovereignty Commission to be his law partner. It just wouldn't have happened, because our family was a civil rights family. We rejected everything the Mississippi Sovereignty Commission or the Louisiana Sovereignty Commission or the Alabama Sovereignty Commission did, which was to basically intimidate African Americans. No matter how good they were, no matter how hard they worked, no matter how talented they were, no matter how many times they went to church or loved their children, because they were Black, they couldn't get a job, they couldn't live in the neighborhoods. That is what the sovereignty commissions did. So you are asking me, after spending 40 years of my life fighting against this, to stand here and say it is OK to appoint someone like this to the bench? And then get upset when I say I have a problem with that? Well, I am sorry about it. I do have a problem with it. Most of the people in my State have problems with it because, believe me, there are lots of people in Mississippi who were in the civil rights movement on the right side of the movement, not the wrong side; the forward side, not the back side. And I will tell this President or any President, we are looking for people in the future, not the past. We are looking for a new South. We reject the old South. In conclusion, let me just say that my time has expired. Senator Harkin is in the Chamber. I thank him for his great patience. I am sorry I got a little exercised. But I guess coming from the part of the country I do and being Catholic, it has been very hard, especially for us, to have to hear some of the rhetoric that is thrown around on the Senate floor. Again, to my friend from Tennessee, I have the utmost respect for him. He has been a real leader in this effort. I yield the floor and acknowledge Senator Harkin who is here to speak.

Ms. LANDRIEU. Will the Senator from Virginia yield for a question?

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. The efforts some Members made to get this issue dealt with were rejected because we did not have enough money to help this reservist or the thousands and hundreds of thousands who are fighting for us, taking the cut in pay and losing their companies in the process. Also I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record an article printed regarding 120,000 Federal employees who serve in the National Guard and Reserve. Nearly 14,000 have been called to active duty to help fight the war in Iraq. Senator Durbin and I wanted to get in the tax bill that was passed a provision that would allow them to maintain their salaries, their Federal salaries, so as not to fall down, basically, to receive the lower salary they receive in the Guard and Reserve. The sad thing is it would not have cost the Government anything because we had already budgeted to pay them their full salaries. This was rejected.

Ms. LANDRIEU. I say for the benefit of the people in Louisiana, we do not understand how we can give our tax credits to everybody but the Guard and Reserve. We can give out help to everybody except those Federal employees who take off one uniform and put on another, leave their homes for 6 months to a year, sometimes longer, and we expect them to take a cut in pay when we are giving tax credits to people who are not fighting. If I could conclude on this one issue which really pours salt into the wound, when people say, Senator, we could not afford it, we actually found a way to pay for it. We said we should pay for it by making people who are right now evading U.S. taxes because they have made so much money in America because our troops have put their life on the line to protect the way of life which allows business people to make a lot of money in America, these business people who have made a lot of money because of what these men and women are doing in the Armed Forces, these business people are now deciding they are paying too much in tax, so they go to another country. They do not want to pay their taxes. So we said let's make those folks pay their taxes and use those proceeds to pay for tax relief for the men and women in the military. We were told we cannot do that. We cannot possibly make people who owe taxes to America pay their taxes so that we can pay the men and women in uniform and give them a tax cut. I hope we will change our policy because it is wrong. We have missed an opportunity to help these families. I conclude by thanking Senator Mikulski and Senator Bond for their hard work on behalf of veterans. They have restored a lot of the cuts that were proposed by this administration. I am proud to be part of helping to pass a veterans bill. But let's not forget it is not just about appropriations bills where we can help our men and women in uniform. Tax bills can help them. Other direct spending bills can help them. No one deserves our help more than people who put on a uniform every day and actually put their life on the line. This Senator does not think we are doing enough and can afford to do more when we found an offset to make regular people pay the taxes they owe. If they do not want to put on a uniform and fight, that is fine, but at least give the benefits to the people who are protecting their ability to make a living. I yield the floor.

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. I will not yield for a question. Another number is 63. I want the public who is watching this--and I think a lot of people are watching this, and I am glad because this is what the next election is going to be about, and I am very excited to help lead this fight. Sixty-three nominees were blocked. It wasn't an open filibuster. It wasn't debated in the open, like tonight where there are no secrets and we can all speak about what we believe. This was done in secret, and not by many Senators who represent millions of people, but maybe by one Senator who just decided he or she didn't like the nominee, and so they would not sign the slip. The chairman of the committee reigns over this. He understands this number 63. They didn't even have the decency of getting a vote or a hearing in committee because the chairman from Utah had a system in place that blocked them.