[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 148 (2002), Part 14]
[Senate]
[Pages 18878-18880]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




            HURRICANE ISADORE, WETLANDS, AND IRAQ RESOLUTION

  Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I rise to speak on three important 
matters. Let me begin with the most important matter to the people of 
Louisiana at this moment, which is the pending hurricane. Hurricane 
Lili is in the Gulf of Mexico, and she is headed Louisiana's way. 
Unfortunately, this will be the second major storm in less than a week 
we have had to protect ourselves against and prepare for the 
consequences of the aftermath.
  Let me begin by thanking the President and FEMA, and particularly all 
of the FEMA officials who are now down in Louisiana helping us prepare 
again. FEMA Director Joe Albaugh was with us in Louisiana last week, as 
we dodged a bullet with Isadore--a storm that was huge in its mass but 
short in its intensity. As a result, while there was some sporadic 
flooding and some very damaging flooding to approximately 1,000, homes 
and businesses, including some that were ruined completely, it wasn't 
the widespread damage we have become familiar with in the Gulf South 
from hurricanes.
  Hurricane Lili is packing winds of 140 miles per hour; barreling 
toward our coast and is likely to hit somewhere between New Orleans and 
Galveston. It could hit Lafayette or Lake Charles, somewhere on the 
coast of Louisiana.
  The reason I rise to speak about this storm is not because there is a 
whole lot we can do in Washington, today. We will be down there this 
weekend. We will get to assess the damage. We can't do anything today. 
But there is a great deal we can do from Washington in the future to 
help the Gulf Coast the coasts of Louisiana, Mississippi, Texas, 
Alabama, Georgia and Florida.
  From Washington, we can begin to focus on the kind of investments we 
should be making along the Gulf Coast that help protect us against the 
consequences of such storms--particularly as it comes to protecting the 
energy infrastructure in this Nation, which is so vital and crucial to 
the economic stability and well-being of the Nation.
  We produce about 80 percent of all of the offshore oil and gas in the 
Nation off the coast of Louisiana. Right now, as I speak, the Gulf of 
Mexico has been evacuated. I have been on the phone with officers of 
chemical companies, and oil and gas companies, and they are shutting 
down refineries and platforms in the Gulf of Mexico. Why? Because you 
cannot keep them running when you have storms such as this, or you 
could gravely endanger the lives of

[[Page 18879]]

those working out in the Gulf. I wish I could paint a more vivid 
picture, but over 20,000 miles of pipeline, many refineries, and 
thousands of platforms out in the gulf, all of which are critical to 
America's energy supply, will be directly threatened by Hurricane Lili. 
We take a lot of taxes out of the gulf region. There are a lot of taxes 
that the oil and gas industry pays, and that money leaves south 
Louisiana and Texas and goes right up to the Federal Treasury. Then it 
funds various projects all over the country.
  You would think some of that money might come back to Louisiana to 
invest in Louisiana to elevate and improve our highways and provide 
better security to this infrastructure. After all, its through these 
highways and this infrastructure that energy is carried and produced to 
support not just Louisiana, Mississippi, and Texas, but to turn the 
lights on in the entire country. Even when the winds are blowing down 
south, we keep the lights on up north. At the energy conference--my 
able partner, Senator Breaux, is going to be carrying this message as a 
member of the energy conference. Of course, Congressman Tauzin from 
Louisiana is chairing the conference. We are going to carry this 
message directly into the energy conference to see if there is 
something we can get the Congress to do in a bipartisan way that says, 
yes, Louisiana, Mississippi, and Texas--the oil and gas-producing 
States--should share in some of these revenues so we can invest on the 
front end in terms of what the Gulf South needs to secure these energy 
resources. Congress must be fair to people in Louisiana, who are happy 
to serve as hosts to this offshore oil and gas industry. We are proud 
of the way we are doing it in a much more environmentally sensitive 
way. But we need help to ensure we receive a fair share of the 
royalties that come from our rich natural resources.
  The country does not also realize the great loss of wetlands and the 
erosion Louisiana has experienced. Think about this. There is a 
hurricane coming off the Gulf of Mexico. The only thing between it and 
the cities or towns is the marsh. The bigger that marsh is, the greater 
the buffer is from the storm. It will break the wind, break the tides. 
As that marsh erodes away, there is nothing to break the wind or the 
tide, so the destruction becomes greater and greater, year after year 
after year.
  The reason the marsh is subsiding is that we have tamed the 
Mississippi River. We have levied it. We levied it not just for the 
people in Louisiana so we would not flood, but so the ships can take 
grain from Kansas and Iowa. This commerce then comes down the 
Mississippi and can go to any number of countries. Louisiana is an 
importing and exporting station for so many of the goods coming into 
and out of this country. This benefits everyone. We are telling you and 
begging this Senate and this Congress to recognize benefits Louisiana 
provides to the Nation. Louisiana is proud of that, but we need extra 
Federal help to secure this marshland, to help rebuild it, and protect 
us. If Louisiana does not receive help the wetlands will disappear, and 
the people of Louisiana will be sitting ducks for future floods and 
storms.
  I am sure Senator Breaux and I will be back on the Senate floor on 
Monday and Tuesday trying to explain to everybody the horrible damage 
that has occurred because of Hurricane Lili and the importance of 
trying to be smart and invest some of these monies on the front end in 
Louisiana. This is not only fair and the right thing to do, but for the 
taxpayers, we would just as soon pay a little now or we are going to 
pay a lot in claims when these homes and businesses are destroyed in 
the Gulf South.
  There is nothing we can do about keeping hurricanes from coming 
ashore. We cannot prevent them. People say: Senator, can't you do 
something? I say: If I could pass a resolution, I would. But, of 
course, there is nothing we can do about that. But we can be more 
prepared than we are.
  While we are making progress, we have a long way to go. So whether it 
is at the energy conference, where I hope we will have a positive 
outcome, or in the new transportation bill where we can talk about the 
highways and evacuation routes in south Louisiana and the Gulf South 
need our attention. Not only do they serve as economic highways that 
are really necessary for commerce to flourish, but, as you know, when 
the hurricanes come, it is the only way for people to flee the storm. 
We don't have trains, as people do in the Northeast, to get out of 
harm's way. All we have in Louisiana are highways dangerously crowded 
with automobiles and pickup trucks. We need to make sure people can get 
north to higher ground. Hundreds of thousands of people in my state are 
jamming the highways to escape Lili and head for higher ground in north 
Louisiana, Arkansas, Mississippi, and Texas. Hotel rooms are scarce, 
and people will have trouble finding safe-haven from Lili.
  So we will be back talking about it. There are opportunities in the 
transportation bill, and when we debate the Corps of Engineers bill, to 
try to make right this situation. The Senate will then debate whether 
to help Louisiana in a direct way--not just Louisiana, but the whole 
gulf coast region.
  The final point I want to share is a figure I came across a couple 
years ago that was startling to me. I think I spend a lot of my time 
worrying and thinking about coastal communities because I represent a 
large number of people on the coast. Two-thirds of the American people 
live within 50 miles of the coast. So our country is really a ring. So 
the coastal communities and their special needs and their special 
requirements deserve some more attention from Congress.
  I have to say that NOAA and the Department of Commerce are really 
doing some very good work. I think we need a little bit more attention 
to our coastal communities in this country than we are giving. There 
are ways we can do that.
  Let me turn my attention to another issue on a completely different 
subject. But, this a grave threat facing our Nation, and that is our 
potential conflict with Iraq.
  I support Joint Resolution No. 46, which was introduced this morning. 
I am proud to be a cosponsor with Senators Lieberman, Warner, McCain, 
and Bayh and to add my name to that resolution. I do so with the 
greatest of seriousness. I do so because I am convinced that this is 
the right course.
  I commend the President and the Members of Congress who have worked 
in a bipartisan way to fashion a resolution that does the job, that 
gives us what we need, which is a tool, a weapon, in some ways, that 
will try to force a regime that has been recalcitrant and reluctant to 
abide by international law and dismantle its weapons of mass 
destruction. In the international community, Iraq is a regime that is 
quite dangerous to the people it purports to serve--and of course it 
does not serve--the people of Iraq. It is dangerous also to the people 
of the United States and to Iraq's neighbors in the Middle East.
  I have the great privilege to serve on the Armed Services Committee 
and to chair the Emerging Threats Subcommittee. I want to stress that 
it is the Emerging Threats and Capabilities, because I don't want to 
mention only threats. We have so many great capabilities in this Nation 
that we do not have to cower in fear. We have the strongest military, 
the greatest brain power, and great technology. Most importantly, we 
are founded on freedom and liberty.
  We have tremendous capabilities. But, we are in a great and historic 
process in this Nation of restructuring our Armed Forces, both in the 
traditional sense that we know of our Navy, Army, Marines, and Air 
Force, and in a totally nontraditional way, which is standing up 
homeland defense to fight these new threats. The new threats are people 
just like Saddam Hussein--rogue leaders with no decency, who play by no 
normal rules, who govern by fear, and at the slightest provocation, for 
reasons we might not understand, could either themselves use weapons of 
mass destruction, or allow to be used by terrorists or nonstate actors. 
It is clear for all to see that Saddam Hussein possesses biological and 
chemical weapons, and he has designs to increase

[[Page 18880]]

his stockpile. To our knowledge, he does not have nuclear capabilities. 
However, evidence most certainly suggests Saddam Hussein is actively 
trying to develop nuclear weapons. Weapons he could use against the 
United States and our allies. I think a resolution such as this is 
important for us to express our unity, as an elected institution, that 
we are prepared to use force, if necessary, to dismantle weapons of 
mass destruction, to disarm this regime, to change this regime and try 
to establish for the benefit of the United States, our allies, the 
people of Iraq, and the world, a more worthy regime for Iraq.
  What I support specifically about the resolution, and helped in some 
ways to craft with words, comments, and suggestions, is that this 
bipartisan resolution has stressed at least three important principles. 
The resolution requires--and I think this is very important--all 
diplomatic means be exhausted. This is critically important and 
necessary because we never want to rush to war. We do not want to be 
trigger happy. We want to use all diplomatic means to meet our ends.
  For 10 years, we have tried many things with Iraq--economic 
sanctions, back channel diplomacy, meetings and conventions, and other 
diplomatic means to compel Saddam Hussein to comply with international 
law. Nothing yet has worked. But let's hope that something will work, 
and let's exhaust those means. Once we reach that point, this 
resolution authorizes the President to use all necessary force to 
enforce what we know is right.
  I am pleased we have the diplomatic requirement in the resolution. 
But we know all too well that Saddam only respects force. With the 
threat of force, diplomacy may yet win out.
  The second principle outlined in this resolution, which I greatly 
support, is that it is limited in scope to Iraq. The original language 
I thought, and many of us expressed, was somewhat vague and called for 
language to establish stability in the region. Such language created a 
lot of unanswered questions. This resolution is more clear in its 
language that the scope is limited to Iraq and greatly strengthens this 
resolution.
  This resolution thoroughly makes clear that our goal is not a war 
against the people of Iraq, but a war against a leader who has 
discredited himself, thumbing his nose at 16 resolutions, and not 
playing by the rules of a civilized government. Should we go to war, 
this war will be waged to disarm Saddam Hussein, to dismantle his 
weapons, and to use force to change his regime.
  This is not without risk. I am mindful of the risks, and I am mindful 
of the price that may need to be paid in terms of treasure and lives. I 
am also confident that it is the right resolution at the right time in 
the right spirit to give the President the authorization to use force 
to do what needs to be done, which is to dismantle this dictator's 
ability to wreak havoc on the civilized world.
  The timing of the attack, of course, and all the military strategies 
should be carried out with great care and the consultation of our best 
military minds. It could be this year, it could be next month, it could 
be a year from now--whenever our military believes it is the time and 
everything is in place. We must be mindful not to second-guess or try 
to use any political influence to sway the military in terms of their 
strategy to accomplish this end. What Congress can do is authorize the 
Commander in Chief to use force, if necessary, with this specific 
resolution which I think is a very good document for how we should 
approach this possible war.
  Furthermore, this resolution places a necessary vital requirement on 
the President to report to Congress on a periodic basis on the progress 
of the war. Because we, under the Constitution, of course, have a 
responsibility to determine if this effort should receive funding. War 
comes with so many great costs, and we must regularly re-evaluate the 
need to pay those costs of war.
  I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Dayton). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.

                          ____________________