Mary Landrieu

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I thank the chairman and ranking member of the Senate Agriculture Appropriations Subcommittee for the opportunity to address several issues as the Agricultural Appropriations Bill for fiscal year 2004 is considered on the floor of the Senate as well as in a conference with House Agricultural Appropriations Bill for fiscal year 2004. It is my intention in this statement to express positions with respect to several areas of particular importance to me and my State of Louisiana that the chairman and ranking member will take during conference with the House. I would also like to thank both the chairman and ranking member for the number of my requests that were addressed in S. Rept. 108-107. There are several instances in the report where the committee expresses its desire that the agency give consideration to projects of interest and concern to entities in Louisiana. This reflects the committee's finding that these projects are worthy and deserve consideration by the agency. Therefore, I urge you and the chairman of the Appropriations Subcommittee on Agriculture, Senator Bennett, to join me in further announcing our desire that the Secretary of Agriculture give consideration to the following projects when granting any available funds through programs for which these projects may be eligible. First, the Union-Lincoln Parish Water Supply Initiative is a crucial project which has focused on the depletion of the Sparta Aquifer, a natural aquifer which is the primary source of drinking water for North Louisiana and Southern Arkansas. The Sparta Groundwater Conservation District recently released initial information from its analysis of the Sparta formation indicating that demand must be cut from a projected 72 million gallons per day to 54 million gallons per day over the next 10 years. To offset this gap between demand and available supply, alternative sources including river water, reservoir water, as well as possible other aquifers must be examined. The committee recognized this need on page 112 of S. Rept. 108-107. Second, the Bawcomville Flood Control Pumps, originally constructed in 1955, protect two residential communities against flooding from the Ouachita River. Additional pumping capacity is required to reduce interior flooding and accommodate urbanization. The committee recognized this need on p. 110 of S. Rept. 108-107. Third, the Southern Training and Social Service Complex is of vital importance to the communities and economy of central Louisiana. This facility will provide a sports program and after-school juvenile program for at-risk youths in the central Louisiana area. The committee recognized this need on p. 111 of S. Rept. 108-107. Fourth, the Town of Golden Meadow, LA, requires improvements to the drainage infrastructure on one of its main thoroughfares, Jefferson Street. The committee recognized this need on p. 110 of S. 108-107. Fifth, the Town of Golden Meadow, LA, requires a multi-purpose building that would serve as the center for emergency response during hurricanes and other catastrophic times. The committee recognized this need on p. 110 of S. 108-107. Sixth, Continental Structural Plastics in Spring Hill, LA, requires plastic extruding equipment to manufacture plastic railroad ties for the proposed new railroad line that would bring needed economic development in the area. The committee recognized this need on p. 111 of S. 108-107. Lastly, the Greater Ouachita Port Commission seeks to establish a facility that will provide for the operation of a river port and commercial park, comprehensively connecting Ouachita Parish and the surrounding area to international trade and commerce. The committee recognized this need on p. 111 of S. Rept. 108-107.

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I would like to thank the chairman and ranking member of the Senate Agriculture appropriations subcommittee for the opportunity to address several issues as the Agricultural appropriations bill for fiscal year 2004 is considered on the floor of the Senate as well as in a conference with House Agricultural Appropriations Subcommittee. It is my intention in this statement to express positions with respect to several areas of particular importance to me and my State of Louisiana that the chairman and ranking member will take during conference with the House. I would also like to thank both the chairman and ranking member for the number of my requests that have been addressed in S. Rept. 108-107. First, there are two instances where the House Committee report, 108- 193, included references to items that were not provided for in the Senate report. On page 28 of the House Report, $1.5 million was provided for planning and design in the establishment of a new facility at the ARS Sugarcane Research Laboratory in Houma, Louisiana. Also, on page 18 of the same report, language was included that referenced the Pennington Biomedical Research Center (PBRC). Although, neither item is included in Senate Report, 108-107, I request that the Senate defer to the House and provide for both items in a final conference report just exactly as they are referenced in the House Report. Second, during the fiscal year 2003 appropriation process, both the Senate Agricultural Appropriations Committee Report, 107-223, p. 55 and Senate Amendment 1 to the Consolidated Appropriations Resolution, H.J. Res. 2 or Omnibus Appropriations Bill for fiscal year 2003, provided $70,000 to be used to initiate a multi-year program to conduct clinical epidemiologic research on diseases associated with intensive reptile disease research in Louisiana. Unfortunately, this funding was not included in H.J. Res. 2 as signed into law on February 20, 2003, P.L. 108-7. Although I included this same request among my requests submitted to the Senate Agriculture Appropriations Subcommittee in fiscal year 2004, unfortunately there was no funding provided in either the Senate or House Bills. I am hopeful that during conference negotiations, the chairman and ranking member of the Senate Agriculture Subcommittee can provide some funding for this urgent research. Third, I am hopeful that during conference negotiations, the Chairman and Ranking Member can recognize the expertise of Grambling State University in Louisiana, one of 117 Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs) which for over 100 years has been providing African American farmers the education and skills to produce better crops. Specifically, Grambling's contribution in the area of aquaculture research has and would continue to spur economic development and sustainability within impoverished communities in North Central Louisiana and the Louisiana Delta Region. In addition, the significant impact of this research would be felt among farmers and businesses throughout the State. Furthermore, this research would accentuate the intent of the White House Initiatives on HBCUs regarding increasing both the capacity and capability for HBCUs to engage in research. Grambling State University would serve as the lead institution in a collaborative effort that will lend the expertise of institutional resources and technical support in assisting individuals and communities among the tri-State areas of Arkansas, Louisiana and Mississippi. Finally, I want to thank the chairman and ranking member for maintaining the funding at the same levels as fiscal year 2003 for four accounts that greatly impact the Nation's 18 historically black land- grant colleges and universities or the 1890s as they are often referred. Southern University of my State of Louisiana is among this group of very important and unique public universities. These four accounts include: Evans Allen--research formula funds; Extension formula funds; Capacity building Grants Program and Facilities Funding Grants. While I realize that the Subcommittee's spending cap for this year is significantly less than last year, I request that these four accounts be increased during conference negotiations with the House. With adequate funding the 1890 black land-grant colleges and universities could build and sustain new areas of specialization and, thus become more competitive in attracting public and private financing. Capacity Building is the model for eradicating historic inequities in State and Federal funding to the 1890 black land-grant colleges/universities, especially with regards to chronically under- funded faculty capacity. In fact, a recently released GAO study, 03- 541, May 2003, entitled ``USDA's Outreach to Minority Serving Institutions Could Improve Grant Competition'' highlights capacity building and facilities funding as two key areas necessary for successful competitive grant awards. The GAO study finds that many 1890s need to attract top faculty to perform research, and it is very difficult to do so when research facilities are underfunded. An increase in facilities funding is necessary to fund costs of badly needed facilities while not hindering the improvements today for research, extension, students and faculty on 1890s campuses. Increased Research and Extension formula funding means saving otherwise lost faculty positions at the Nation's historically black land-grant universities. Cash-strapped States are actually forcing cuts and substantial tuition increases on these institutions who served students from the lower economic scale. Formula funds constitute the core of 1890 land-grant programs and are critical to sustaining the 1890s land-grant mission of teaching, research and extension and public service. I am hopeful that we can find a way to increase the funding for some if not all of these four accounts.

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, today the Senate passed the Military Tax Fairness Act of 2003, about $1.1 billion in tax relief for our military families. I support this bill. We all support this bill. In fact, we passed this unanimously or near unanimously on a coupe of previous occasions. We are visiting this bill again today because the House of Representatives does not like the offset we used to pay for the bill. We paid for it by taxing individuals who renounce their United States citizenship in order to avoid paying U.S. taxes. It is astounding to me that this bill keeps getting bounced back and forth between the Senate and the other body over this issue. We are talking about tax relief for military families and we want Americans who are exploiting tax loop holes to step up and make that relief possible. Most of these people have known great financial success. They were blessed by the economic opportunity that our nation's liberty gives us and the free enterprise system which make those fortunes possible. Those blessings were secured by our military personnel. Every year, the United States Treasury loses about $80 million on individuals who decide that they would prefer to have their cake and eat it too. They want American markets, they want American prestige, they want American stability, but they do not want the obligations that accrue to American citizenship. All the Senate was saying is if you benefited from this nation's security, you should be willing to pay for it. When the Senate first considered this legislation, I had hoped to include a tax credit for the private sector employers of our National Guard and Reserve. When our Guard and Reserves answer the call to serve they leave jobs, homes, and most of all, their families behind. Many employers continue to pay all or part of the salaries of those employees who get called up. My legislation would provide those patriotic employers with a tax credit for paying up to 50 percent of the salaries for their Guard and Reserve employees. I understand that my legislation cannot be included in this bill. So I am introducing a sense of the Senate resolution to put us on record as supporting these employers. The resolution states that we should pay for this tax credit by closing the expatriation loophole. The facts are simple, and they are laid out in this resolution. Since 2001, the President has signed tax cuts amounting to $1.75 trillion. Today, military families will get their first taste at direct relief. Yet, this bill amounts to less than .1 percent of the tax relief that the Government has doled out. No one could justify this to voters. So it's been happening behind closed doors--in conference reports, and parliamentary maneuvering. This resolution is a first step to putting a bright, hot spotlight on the truth. The leadership of the House Ways and Means Committee is more interested in protecting expatriate corporations, than it is in providing meaningful tax benefits to the men and women of our Armed Forces. I am glad for what we are doing in this bill, but there is so much more that can be done and should be done. Personally, I believe that a military tax vehicle should be used to discuss military tax issues. However, the Senate cannot stand in the way of immediate relief to the families of those who have given the ultimate sacrifice in battle. For that reason, we are passing this resolution today to send a signal that this imbalance must come to an end. I appreciate the chairman and ranking member of the Finance Committee for agreeing to this resolution in conjunction with the underlying bill. I look forward to working with them in the future on giving this tax relief to America's employers.

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk----

Ms. LANDRIEU. 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 ask the Senator if he wouldn't mind if I presented this for 5 minutes. That is all the time I need.

Ms. LANDRIEU. I thank the Senator.

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I thank the Senator for his courtesy because he was involved in a very important conference earlier today and he is anxious to proceed on his amendment. I will offer this amendment in the hope that my friends on the other side will support it. There is very good support on this side for this amendment. It has to do with women and children in armed conflict. I send the amendment to the desk.

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

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, recent reports indicate that the percentage of civilians killed and wounded as a result of armed conflict has risen from 5 percent at the turn of the century to almost 90 percent today, which means that in war it is not just the soldiers who are being killed, the men and women in uniform, but also civilians. That is a new occurrence in this century. It is something that this amendment attempts to address by directing our resources--not adding money, not authorizing new language, but simply directing, within the context of this bill, some attention to be given to this fact. War is not what it used to be. Its horrors are experienced by more than just the soldiers fighting on far-off battlefields. It is experienced by women and children. It is taking a brutal toll on these civilians, most of them women and children. Over 30 wars are now being waged around the world. One in four of the world's children live in war zones. In the past decade, more than 2 million children were killed during wartime, more than 4 million were wounded, and 1 million have been orphaned or separated from their families as a result of war. It is estimated that over 300,000 children have been forced to serve as soldiers. These are children as young as 7, 8, and 9 years old serving as soldiers, including an alarming number of girls serving as combatants, cooks, and, unfortunately, sex slaves. In Sierra Leone, 94 percent of displaced families surveyed had experienced sexual assaults, including rape, torture, and sexual slavery. After the genocide in Rwanda, 70 percent of the remaining population was female and more than half of the mothers were widows. Despite these statistics, a survey of current Government-sponsored foreign aid programs reveals that there are but a few coordinated programs targeted at the protection of women and children in conflict and after. Senator Biden and I offered legislation to address the shortfall. S. 1001 would authorize the new women and children armed conflict fund, similar to the displaced children's fund. In addition, it would require several other efforts to be undertaken by our Government to make sure that this issue was addressed appropriately. It would require that the U.S. Government develop and implement a strategy to ensure that its humanitarian programs respond to and reduce the risks of exploitation, violence and abuse of women and children in places like Uganda, Liberia, and Iraq; prevent future crises by creating a list of early warning signs to alert policymakers of possible risks to women and children; foster stability in conflict-prone environments by focusing on reducing threats to innocent civilians in crises around the world. What my amendment does is provide a bridge for us to stand on until this bill can be passed and this fund can be established. It says: Here is what we can do not, within our existing programs with our existing funds. The Landrieu amendment ensures that organizations and programs currently serving refugees and displaced persons incorporate protections against violence; encourages the Secretary of State and Administrator of USAID to incorporate into their current agenda specific policies and programs that identify the specific needs of, and particular threats to, women and children; asks for the Secretary to report to Congress on their progress in this area to date and provide recommendations for improving U.S. and international systems for the protection of women and children. Protecting women and children is not only the right thing to do, but it is also the smart thing to do. Women are a critical part of rebuilding war torn countries. In March 2003, UN Secretary General Kofi Annan made the following observation: Study after study has shown that there is no effective development strategy in which women do not play a central role. When women are fully involved, the benefits can be seen immediately: families are healthier and better fed; their income, savings and reinvestment go up. And what is true of families is also true of communities and, in the long run, of whole countries. A focus on safety and protection directly impacts the overall well being of women and children. This year's Mothers Index, published by Save the Children, reports that there is a direct correlation between under education and poor health and conflict. Seven of the bottom ten countries in the area of health and education are in conflict and post- conflict situations. This amendment does not call for us to break the budget caps or create a new program. It merely ensures that every dollar that we are spending to secure the peace is spent in the most effective way possible. Again, this amendment provides a bridge for us to stand on until the bill I just described can be passed in its complete authorized form. So this fund can be established, and then the authorizing bill would come forward with more of the details. But it is important that we take this step today to recognize the fact that there are so many women and children brutalized in war. It is not just about the soldiers in uniform any longer, unfortunately. This amendment asks the Secretary to report to Congress on their progress in this area, and it encourages the Secretary of State and the Administrator of USAID to incorporate into their current agenda specific policies and programs that identify the specific needs of and particular threats to women and children. In conclusion, I submit that study after study has shown the necessity of our effort to direct funds in this way. I ask unanimous consent that specific quotes from individual young women and girls, particularly, be printed in the Record. The language is pretty graphic so I will not read it in the Chamber, but I want it printed in the Record to say how serious this issue is in terms of the United States and all of the aid we are giving, and directing a portion of that, and to be cognizant of the tremendous torture, humiliation, and pain inflicted upon innocent women and children.

Ms. LANDRIEU. That is the essence of my amendment. I hope it can be accepted. I hope there won't be a necessity for a vote on such a commonsense and much-needed amendment. I ask for the Senate's consideration at the appropriate time. I yield the floor.

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. Madam President, I am pleased to join my colleagues from Maryland to oppose this rule change. Let me say quickly, because I know the time is short, we have tried this in Louisiana at Fort Polk, in Leesville, to be exact--1,500 Federal jobs, people not overly paid, but well paid with good health benefits, and others. Needless to say, the base plays a vital role in the economy of central Louisiana and is by far the single largest employer in the area. The secondary employment impact on the State is even more significant with Fort Polk accounting for millions of dollars in payroll annually. The workers at Fort Polk are patriots. They work hard, they stay longer, they get the job done. I heard that not from the unions, not from the workers, not from some local politician--I heard that from the military commanders at Fort Polk who just did not want to see their workforce contracted out. They already had experience with contractors at Fort Polk, and, frankly, they didn't like it. Base operations were bogged down by the refusal of contractors to take the little steps that improve quality of life, improve the aesthetics at the base, and go that extra mile when troops were deploying or coming home. It is not that the contractors were not willing to take the work, it is that they wanted to charge the Government more to do it. Despite these objections, the workforce at Fort Polk was subject to the A-76 process. It has been an embarrassment and totally unworthy of the way this Government should treat it workers. To boil the controversy down to its bare essentials, contractors bidding on the Fort Polk work were made aware of what the DoD civilian bid would be. Now the OMB wants to take this process even further. Now the OMB says contractors don't have to prove they would save any money. They only have to show they would provide some ``financial benefit.'' Now the OMB says that workers can't include in their bids proposed reorganizations to make themselves more efficient. Now outside contractors will not have to figure in any health care benefits to their workers into these packages. Good jobs are simply too hard to come by in Louisiana for me to allow this to go forward without a fight. We know what A-76 really means in Louisiana. It means that workers that are paid a reasonable wage, including real health benefits and a pension, will be replaced. They will be replaced, frequently by the same people, but this time, they won't have health benefits or pensions. The difference will be the profit that corporations will pocket. Our Armed Forces deserve better than to be supported by civilians who are underpaid, understaffed, and overstretched so that contractors can pocket a few extra dollars per hour. That is not a savings to the American people. It is pennywise and pound foolish. With this experience, I simply cannot endorse broadening a system that I consider already broken.

Ms. LANDRIEU. I thank the Senator from Maryland for her fight and strong advocacy on this issue.

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I ask for 2 minutes of personal privilege to add a few remarks to the Record. I, too, remain firmly committed to class action reform and have stated so publicly many times and will continue to state publicly that intention. There are two or three reasons I could not vote to move to debate on this bill because there were not clear indications given that certain language in this underlying bill would be removed. I understand the legislative process. I am clear about the legislative process, but I am also clear about the way that arrangements can be made in this Chamber, arrangements with this White House and the House so that we can come out with a bill that is fair to the American public, that helps us to increase jobs, to remove the forum shopping, and to eliminate the abuses that are in this system, without undermining people's rights to get their day in court. So as one of the votes that obviously could have made a difference in the outcome today, I most certainly remain open. The language, however, regarding mass torts must be removed. The coupon settlement language must be addressed. The jurisdictional question somewhere between the Feinstein and Breaux language would be acceptable, and the bounty provisions, which are very important to civil rights legislation, must be addressed. These are four issues that I am going to be discussing, and if the side that is for reform is really interested in real reform and not just a political issue, these discussions can be had with this Senator.

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, with all due respect to the chairman, who is doing a good job of leading us through this bill, I say emphatically this amendment is in line with Security Council Resolution 1483, which was drafted in large measure by this administration when we lifted the sanctions on Iraq. Resolution 1483 passed by the Security Council was a U.S.-led effort. This resolution says we should use the oil reserves in Iraq for Iraq's reconstruction. This resolution says we should ask Iraq to be a partner, not a begger. This resolution says we should not create a welfare state in Iraq but we should create a strong and vibrant democracy. Iraq, at conservative estimates, can generate $40 billion a year, and it could go up to $100 billion a year.

Ms. LANDRIEU. Senator Levin, Senator Dorgan, and Senator Stabenow offer this amendment for the Senate's consideration.

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, as usual the Senator from Maryland has put his finger on one of the most important aspects of this amendment. It is one of the reasons I rise to support the Bayh-Nelson-Ensign- Collins-Snowe amendment. It is a very sound proposal. It establishes several important principles relative to the steadfast commitment of this Congress to finish a job that has already been started. As the chief sponsor of this amendment stated in his opening remarks, whether you voted to use force to overthrow this regime or not, the fact is, we are there now. We have an important job to complete. This is one of the most challenging tasks ever undertaken by the people of the United States. The Bayh amendment outlines a roadmap that might actually get us to where we want to go. Words such as freedom, education, prosperity, democracy, vibrancy, a free enterprise economy, I have heard my colleagues speak with passion. This amendment is an attempt not to undermine those principles but to ensure that we will actually get there, to the goal of this whole effort. I am afraid without this amendment, the plan before the Senate, which we are well aware of, will not get us where we want to go. It establishes a couple of important priorities. It says Iraqi security is important. It says the Congress, by good faith, will put up the $5 billion which, by the way, dwarfs the contributions of all other countries. And it sets up an incentive, a very important incentive, for the other nations to forgive the debts. It highlights the strength of the resources in Iraq and opens the opportunity to perhaps expand on that by rebuilding with the Iraqi-owned resources, once this plan is laid down. The Bush-Bremer plan of billion-dollar grants only, often, and alone will simply not work. Let me repeat: The plan we have before us--not this amendment--the plan that has been presented of billion-dollar grants only, often, and alone will not work. It can't be sustained. The American people don't support it now. They will not support it in 30 days. They will not support it in 4 months. They will not support it in 4 years. The little girl the Senator from Montana spoke so passionately about is in school today. This amendment is about keeping her in school 2 years from now and 3 years from now and seeing that she graduates from college. This amendment lays a sustainable roadmap to get us where we want to go. That is why I support it. That is why it is important. The RAND, World Bank, and Institutes of International Finance have estimated the cost will exceed $36 billion, $75 billion over the next not 30 days but 5 to 7 years. We need this amendment to get us on the right roadmap, laying down the right plan so we can sustain it to complete the task ahead of us which is very important, very complex and, as I said, one of the most challenging. I support the amendment and urge my colleagues to do so as well.

Ms. LANDRIEU. Is there a possibility for some time in the morning?

Ms. LANDRIEU. I thank the Senator.

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, reserving right to object, could I add by unanimous consent that after those two votes I be allowed 30 minutes equally divided?

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, this is a modified amendment based on a concept that Senator Dorgan, Senator Levin, and others have been working on now for several weeks. It is a very important amendment to consider in terms of shaping a sustainable aid package for Iraq. It does not address or take any money away from the $20 billion. It simply establishes a framework whereby future reconstruction efforts in Iraq could be financed through a financing mechanism using the great oil wealth of that nation. It does not, in any way, affect the immediate $20 billion which the Chair and others and I were proud to cosponsor and which was shaped and crafted over an hour ago on the Bayh amendment. This is about the future, not the present. It does not have an effect on the $20 billion. Within an hour or two of this time, the Senate rose to the occasion. We had a very vigorous and enlightening, at times tough, but very good debate on the way we should put out our reconstruction efforts for Iraq. The Senate is fulfilling its role, shaping foreign policy, being a partner with the executive branch, and, in my opinion, since that amendment passed, improving the original plan. As I said when I supported the Bayh amendment, the administration's original plan, which seems to people in Louisiana and to the American people to be billions of dollars of grants often, only, and alone will not work. Not only is it not popular, it is not sustainable in our democracy. Iraq doesn't have a democracy yet, but we do. In a democracy, we have to lay down plans that not only will the leadership support but the people support. Because without the people's support, no plan that we lay down, either at the White House or in Congress, in the House or the Senate, is sustainable over a long period of time. Why is that important? It is important because every study that has been conducted by independent think tanks and authorities has said that the task we have undertaken in Iraq is not going to be completed in the next 6 months or 1 year or 2 years. As the Presiding Officer knows, this is at a minimum a 5 to 7-year effort. Does that mean our troops will be there for 5 to 7 years? We hope not. Does it mean all the troops there now will have to be there in that number even 2 or 3 years? The effort itself of reconstruction--helping take a country that was cruelly administered by a dictator, taking it to a vibrant democracy with democratic institutions in place, based on the history and the region we are talking about--is not going to be easy. Yes, I think the Iraqi people want that. Yes, we will be good partners. But it is not going to be easy. It is going to take time. The amendment we spoke about earlier tonight, and voted on by a 52 or 53-vote margin, helps to take the original plan, which was not sustainable, and turn it into something that can be sustainable over time. It targeted the grants. It was strategic. It had strong incentives for debt forgiveness, which is a crucial aspect and principle of a strong reconstruction plan. And most importantly, it put up the $20 billion right now so we can get started and build a strong foundation for a successful reconstruction plan. This amendment I am offering tonight, and hopefully we will vote on tomorrow, is a complementary piece. It says that because Iraq has some of the richest oil reserves in the world, most people think they are the second largest resource of oil in the world, they could be the first because not all of the fields have been explored and developed. In fact, it has in some instances been barely touched. Let me show a picture of the country. As you can see, these are the oil fields that are outlined right here in the north, in the center, right outside of Baghdad, and in the southern portion of the country. But the geologists, the industry publications believe that there is as much oil in this section of Iraq, in the southwestern section, as there is here. As you can see, there is not one designation on this map because it has been totally unexplored. The reserves we are calculating--and they are in the hundreds of millions, billions of barrels of oil, and not even counting the gas-- are well underestimated. The point of this is that when these oil fields come back on line-- and they are coming back on rather quickly with the support of the communities and with the support of American ingenuity and technology and know-how, and, by the way, that technology is improving and has improved substantially--there is going to be even more oil and gas found, thus making the possibility of future construction and renovation and reconstruction definitely possible to be refinanced with these resources. This amendment will help to ensure that the Iraqi people themselves are benefiting from their own oil reserves. It seeks to make that point in no uncertain terms. The reconstruction of Iraq for the benefit of the people of Iraq can be done and accomplished through a financing mechanism, allowing the oil reserves, which are plentiful and quite substantial, to be used in that way. This is not Senator Landrieu's idea. I didn't come up with this idea. I heard about it. I heard administration officials speaking about it. In fact, Secretary Wolfowitz said just a year ago in an interview on this subject: On a rough recollection, the oil revenues of that country could bring between $50 and $100 billion over the course of the next two or three years. . . . We're dealing with a country that can really finance its own reconstruction, and relatively soon. This is what our own Secretary said. This Senate voted a few minutes ago to decide that, no, we were not going to move to this system right now. We were going to vote for this amendment that Senator Bayh and others offered. We said we would not move to the reconstruction based on the oil reserves at this time. Let's lay down the $20 billion in the way that we did it, part in a loan that could be forgiven if other debts are forgiven, part immediately for the construction. But, in the future, my amendment says that establishing this financing mechanism could match what the administration originally said they wanted to do, which, of course, makes sense not only to me but to the American people. The American people want us to be successful in Iraq. This is their challenge. It is not something that belongs only to the leaders here in Washington or the President or the White House. The American people are giving their own sons and daughters to the effort. They are sending their own family members to the effort. They want us to come up with a plan that can make sure they are not sending them in vain. It is not just a matter of getting the troops home. As a mother, as a parent, I can appreciate and understand that if we lost a child, I would want to make sure the death was not in vain, that we actually accomplished what we set out to do. We have to get a plan that will work. The American people know one thing that won't work, and that is asking the American people to foot the bill, 100 percent of it, with limited help, with us carrying the burden of the troops and the finances over a long period of time. What the American people think would work, and I agree with them, is to jump-start it with some grants, do everything we can to make other nations relieve the debt, and then, over the long run, establish a financing mechanism that the country of Iraq can themselves begin the reconstruction. And let me just say that it is not often that the administration agrees with the U.N. or that the U.N. agrees with the administration. We have been trying to find common ground now for months. The U.N. thinks one way and this administration thinks a different way, so they cannot get together. Let me tell you one thing they agree on. This is U.N. Security Council Resolution 1483 that lifted sanctions on Iraq right after we were successful in the war. Summarizing, it says the U.N. itself says the oil resources in Iraq should not be used to pay down debt owed to other countries. It should not be, basically, given away to anyone. But what should it be used for? The U.N. said it should be used for the reconstruction of Iraq. So the U.N. and members of the administration, including the Vice President--and I will show you what the Vice President said just a few months ago, in March. He said in answer to Tim Russert on one of the talk shows: In Iraq you've got a nation that's got the second largest oil reserves in the world, second only to Saudi Arabia. It will generate billions of dollars a year in cash flow if they get back to their production of roughly 3 million barrels of oil a day, and in the relatively near future. He is saying, no, we are not going to have to pick up the $100 billion, which is estimated; the Iraqis have that ability to do so themselves. Mr. President, this is something the U.N. supports. It is something the administration told the American people would be part of the reconstruction effort. Now we are finding, for some reason, a tremendous amount of resistance to this. It is hard to understand, and so that is why I am putting forth this amendment, which has been modified. It doesn't try to substitute the financing mechanisms for any part of the $20 billion. It says in the future, after we have allocated this $20 billion, it is the sense of the Senate that the future reconstruction could be paid for using the Iraqi resources, which are plentiful--oil and gas. Let me make one other point. I know my time is almost up. A lot has been said about the Marshall plan. One of the principles of the Marshall plan, one of the foundations on which the Marshall plan rested was the fact that Germany had more coal reserves than any country in Europe, and that because Germany was rich in coal, in natural resources, the U.S. plan that was fashioned in a way that was sustainable over a long period of time and could be based on the riches and resources of that coal was not to take it from Germany but to help Germany use its resources to rebuild itself, to establish peace and prosperity for itself and its neighbors. So I don't have any reason to understand or know why the same administration that would say this is the way we should proceed is now objecting to even outlining a possibility to use these resources, not for the people of the United States, not for the people of Europe, but for the Iraqis themselves. So that is the essence of the amendment that Senator Dorgan and Senator Levin and I have sent to the desk and asked for the Senate to consider. Hopefully, we will have a vote tomorrow. To summarize briefly, the most important thing that we need to do is to, together with the President and the Congress and in partnership with the American people, right now, today, tonight, tomorrow, fashion a reconstruction plan that brings our troops home safely, minimizes the loss of life, and actually achieves our objectives. A tremendous amount is riding on America's reputation, our position in the world, our pride, our word. It is resting on how well we do this. We have to have a plan that will work. What will work in the long run is unleashing the tremendous wealth of that nation, not for anybody else but for themselves, to fashion a plan that is good for the people of Iraq and for the American taxpayers who have already sacrificed a great deal in terms of treasure, life, and American blood--to come up with a plan that works for both countries and actually has a chance of working, so that this long-range strategy of peace in the Mideast we could actually accomplish. So we offer this in good faith. I am sorry the other side has not yet accepted this amendment, so we are going to have to vote on it tomorrow. I hope that perhaps overnight, through the early hours of the morning, we can consider the great benefit of establishing such a financing mechanism and, that way, we will send the right signal to the Iraqi people that America is there to stay; that we have a plan that we can sustain in partnership with them using our strength and our technology and our ingenuity, their natural resources, to accomplish what their leaders have not been able to accomplish for them and which they tried to take from them. Saddam Hussein took the oil revenues and used it for himself and his family, to build palaces. I know a little bit about this because I come from a State where the oil revenues are not always used on behalf of the people. I am very familiar with what happens when leaders take the public's resources and use it for their own benefit and not the people's: Children don't read, they don't go to college, hospitals are not built, roads stay gravel, highways don't get built, and jobs are not created. I know about that. I am saying this as passionately as I can to try to explain this. The people of Iraq need help with unleashig these resources for themselves, and setting up this financing mechanism is one of the best things we can do for them. It sends the right signal, and I am positive the American people would think that this makes a lot of sense, it makes common sense. Instead of asking us to bring the troops home, or we cannot sustain it, they might say: Senator, we can do this, we can help and be there for as long as it takes because it is important for America to be successful. That is the essence of the amendment. I thank my colleagues. The hour is late. I know others have to offer amendments. I thank the leader from Nevada. This will be in line for a vote tomorrow.

Ms. LANDRIEU. Thank you, Mr. President. I appreciate the courtesies. The children have been long in bed and are sound asleep before this hour. But I appreciate the courtesies extended to allow me to take a few minutes to explain this amendment. Amendment No. 1859 Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendments be temporarily laid aside and call up amendment No. 1859, which is at the desk, on behalf of myself, Senator Dorgan, and Senator Levin.

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. Then I will take those 2 minutes.

Ms. LANDRIEU. That is acceptable. The next 10 minutes will be for Senator McConnell, and I will then take the 2\1/2\ minutes that is remaining.