Mary Landrieu

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. I yield myself 10 of those minutes.

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I see some of my colleagues coming to the Chamber to speak on this amendment. Let me follow up, if I can, some of the points Senator Kennedy made. He is absolutely right. We have made in the last several weeks in this debate a tremendous amount of progress, taking some of the best ideas offered by our colleagues on the Republican side, some of the best ideas offered on the Democratic side. The President himself has come forward with a number of good ideas that have now been weaved into this underlying bill. We are in the process of perfecting it. Some amendments offered on this floor have strengthened the underlying bill, including accountability, moving our money in a more targeted fashion. Hopefully, with this amendment, we will take a giant step toward that particular goal, encouraging our system to start rewarding success, to stop funding failure, expecting good things from our teachers and our schools, then providing resources. All of these elements are important to the underlying bill. Let me stress one thing I have said on the floor on many occasions: Investment without accountability is a waste of resources. Accountability without resources is a waste of time. We don't have a lot of time to waste. A childhood goes by so quickly. Those critical early years move quickly. These children cannot wait 3, 4, or 5 years to receive the training in reading and basic skills allowing for the foundation for an education that brings prosperity to themselves, wealth to their families, and hope to their children and to their grandchildren. We don't have a lot of time to waste. Adopting this amendment is one step. Whatever money is allocated can be targeted better, and these presentations have shown where the gaps are. Senator Kennedy is absolutely correct when he says this is just one step; without the funding to back up this targeting amendment, without the funding necessary so the Federal Government can live up to the responsibilities of funding special education, we will literally be passing a bill that might have a lot of fancy words, might even have a few wonderful quotes and thrilling lines; however, it will not have the power attached to change the lives of children if we do not match the resource to the rhetoric.

Ms. LANDRIEU. I yield.

Ms. LANDRIEU. Absolutely. To further illustrate this point, the critics of Federal aid to education say money doesn't matter; the children can't learn, or it will not help. Studies have proven them wrong. I have tried to show in my presentation when investments are made, coupled with accountability, fantastic results are achieved. Another argument is we have spent so much money in 30 years and nothing is improving. Let me give the real facts for the record: Title I has barely kept pace with inflation. When it was created, 26 percent of our children were in poverty. Senator Johnson said: This is a shame. The Federal Government has a special role to play. These children don't live in communities with Fortune 500 companies. They don't live in wonderful homes with paved streets and running water and parks in which to play. There are districts, schools, places in America, rural and urban, where schools are having a hard time fixing the roof and turning the water on, let alone getting computers and learning. President Johnson said: let's step up to the plate. We put up some money. It was not enough then, and it is not enough now. To fault the children for not learning or the teachers--because they cannot teach 35 children in their class, or they cannot teach if there is a rainstorm because they have to move to another class, and we wonder why they lose a few hours of instruction--is beyond comprehension. It has barely kept pace with inflation. It has been a 2.9-percent increase. When I care about something in my house in my budget, I spend more than 2 percent on it. I might invest 10 percent, 20 percent, or make investments. Barely 2 percent a year overall was spent on education. Some of the money we have added has been for education generally in many new programs but not targeted to those students in rural and urban areas who needed the most help. Let me close with one or two points. First, I commend President Bush for stating now on many occasions, in private meetings as well as publicly, that he supports targeting. He knows that in order to make his pledge real to not leave any child behind, the Federal Government must be a partner to those schools and to those children who desperately need someone to believe in them, to invest in them, and give hope. The second point: Not only does the President support targeting, and he should be commended for his leadership, but 5 years ago our own congressional commission said there was overwhelming evidence that while title I had proven to be effective, the title I resources were not being targeted to the children who needed it the most. There were too many gaps to be filled. The Federal Government was not filling those gaps because the original formula was not correct. So we crafted a new formula, but we never funded it. This amendment will, for the first time, help fund the formula we crafted, fund a formula the President supports. The only issue remaining, which I hope Senator Lieberman will address in his remarks, is the fact that the best formulas in the world, the best ideas in the world, aren't worth a hoot if you can't fund them and don't fund them to reach these children who want to learn, who can learn, and to help their parents and teachers help them meet their dreams. I yield back the remainder of my time.

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Maria Purdy be granted the privilege of the floor during the debate on amendment No. 475.

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I speak today to honor an innovative and patriotic American, a logger-turned-boatbuilder, who single-handedly transformed the concept of amphibious ship design when our nation and her Allies needed it most. Despite some bureaucratic obstacles in America's massive World War II war-machine, Andrew Jackson Higgins skillfully designed and engineered landing craft, eventually winning contracts to build 92 percent of the Navy's war-time fleet of landing craft. Andrew Jackson Higgins' story exemplifies the American Dream, and merits this body's recognition for his ingenuity, assiduous work, and devotion to our country. In the late 1930's, Higgins was operating a small New Orleans work- boat company, with less than seventy-five employees. He quickly earned a reputation for fast, dependable work by turning out specialized vessels for the oil industry, Coast Guard, Army Corps of Engineers, and U.S. Biological Survey. Despite this reputation, when he presented his plans for swift amphibious landing crafts, he met hard resistance. The U.S. Navy had overestimated French and British abilities to secure France's ports from German encroachment, and overruled decisions to create landing boat crafts. When the U.S. Marine Corps finally identified the need for mass production of amphibious vessels for use in both the Pacific and European theaters, Marine leadership began to lobby the Navy to abandon its internal contracting, and procure ships from Higgins Industries, which boasted high performance quality and unprecedented speed in producing boats. In 1941, the Navy finally asked Higgins to begin designing a landing draft to carry tanks. Instead of a design, Higgins designed, built and delivered a complete working boat. It had only taken 61 hours to design and construct this first Landing Craft, Mechanized (LCM). The Navy was so impressed that they awarded the contract and the Higgins firm grew to seven plants, eventually turning out 700 boats a month, more than all other shipyards in the Nation combined. By war's end, Higgins had produced 20,000 boats, including the 46-foot LCVP, Landing Craft, Vehicle & Personnel, the fast-moving PT boats, the rocket-firing landing craft support boats, the 56-foot tank landing craft, the 170 foot freight supply ships and the 27-foot airborne lifeboats that could be dropped from B-17 bombers. Able to conceive various ship designs and mass-produce vessels quickly at affordable prices, Higgins not only transformed wartime shipbuilding acquisition, but also sustained the universal faith in American invention and global power projection. Higgins boats landed on the shores of Normandy on June 6, 1944, 57 years ago today, the key enablers in the greatest amphibious assault our world has ever seen. In addition to his contributions to Allied war efforts abroad, Higgins' manufacturing further changed the face of my own city of New Orleans, home to most of the firm's business. I urge my colleagues to support provisions to award Andrew Jackson Higgins the Gold Medal of Honor, in the tradition of our great institution. In 1964, President Dwight D. Eisenhower was reflecting on the success of the 1944 Normandy invasion to his biographer, Steven Ambrose. He remarked that Andrew Jackson Higgins ``is the man who won the war for us. If Higgins had not developed and produced those landing craft, we never could have gone in over an open beach. We would have had to change the entire strategy of the war.'' Mr. Higgins and his 20,000- member workforce embody American creativity, persistence, and patriotism; they deserve to be recognized for their distinguished place in history. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I speak today to honor an innovative and patriotic American, a logger-turned-boatbuilder, who single-handedly transformed the concept of amphibious ship design when our nation and her Allies needed it most. Despite some bureaucratic obstacles in America's massive World War II war-machine, Andrew Jackson Higgins skillfully designed and engineered landing craft, eventually winning contracts to build 92 percent of the Navy's war-time fleet of landing craft. Andrew Jackson Higgins' story exemplifies the American Dream, and merits this body's recognition for his ingenuity, assiduous work, and devotion to our country. In the late 1930's, Higgins was operating a small New Orleans work- boat company, with less than seventy-five employees. He quickly earned a reputation for fast, dependable work by turning out specialized vessels for the oil industry, Coast Guard, Army Corps of Engineers, and U.S. Biological Survey. Despite this reputation, when he presented his plans for swift amphibious landing crafts, he met hard resistance. The U.S. Navy had overestimated French and British abilities to secure France's ports from German encroachment, and overruled decisions to create landing boat crafts. When the U.S. Marine Corps finally identified the need for mass production of amphibious vessels for use in both the Pacific and European theaters, Marine leadership began to lobby the Navy to abandon its internal contracting, and procure ships from Higgins Industries, which boasted high performance quality and unprecedented speed in producing boats. In 1941, the Navy finally asked Higgins to begin designing a landing draft to carry tanks. Instead of a design, Higgins designed, built and delivered a complete working boat. It had only taken 61 hours to design and construct this first Landing Craft, Mechanized (LCM). The Navy was so impressed that they awarded the contract and the Higgins firm grew to seven plants, eventually turning out 700 boats a month, more than all other shipyards in the Nation combined. By war's end, Higgins had produced 20,000 boats, including the 46-foot LCVP, Landing Craft, Vehicle & Personnel, the fast-moving PT boats, the rocket-firing landing craft support boats, the 56-foot tank landing craft, the 170 foot freight supply ships and the 27-foot airborne lifeboats that could be dropped from B-17 bombers. Able to conceive various ship designs and mass-produce vessels quickly at affordable prices, Higgins not only transformed wartime shipbuilding acquisition, but also sustained the universal faith in American invention and global power projection. Higgins boats landed on the shores of Normandy on June 6, 1944, 57 years ago today, the key enablers in the greatest amphibious assault our world has ever seen. In addition to his contributions to Allied war efforts abroad, Higgins' manufacturing further changed the face of my own city of New Orleans, home to most of the firm's business. I urge my colleagues to support provisions to award Andrew Jackson Higgins the Gold Medal of Honor, in the tradition of our great institution. In 1964, President Dwight D. Eisenhower was reflecting on the success of the 1944 Normandy invasion to his biographer, Steven Ambrose. He remarked that Andrew Jackson Higgins ``is the man who won the war for us. If Higgins had not developed and produced those landing craft, we never could have gone in over an open beach. We would have had to change the entire strategy of the war.'' Mr. Higgins and his 20,000- member workforce embody American creativity, persistence, and patriotism; they deserve to be recognized for their distinguished place in history. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I would like to take this opportunity to thank the Chairman from Iowa, and the Ranking Member from Montana for their distinguished leadership on the tax cut bill. Their support of the adoption tax credit amendment made the crucial difference in its being accepted as part of the manager's package. Both are true friends to children and families and should be commended for their willingness to ensure that this bill reflects the needs of adoptive parents. I would also like to thank Senators Lincoln, Lieberman, Johnson, Mikulski, Boxer, Daschle, DeWine, Harkin, Santorum, Shelby, Stevens, Cochran, Dayton, Durbin, Hutchinson, Kohl, Sessions, Smith of New Hampshire, and Fitzgerald. This is not the first time that I have come to this floor to urge my colleagues to support efforts to strengthen and extend the adoption tax credit. In fact, each and every time that this body considered the issue of tax relief, the senior Senator from Idaho and I have come before the Senate to argue that the adoption tax credit should be included. And while this is not the first time that this important measure has been successfully adopted as part of a tax bill, I am hopeful that it will be the last. Because of our action here, 60,000 plus children will find their ``forever families'' in the year to come. Parents who have long dreamed about adopting will finally have the help necessary to make those dreams a reality. I could be wrong, but I would guess that few parts of the tax code can compare to the impact had by the adoption tax credit. Each time a child finds a loving home, we have not only saved children and strengthened a family, but we have also saved billions of taxpayer's dollars. I believe that there is no such thing as an unwanted child, merely unfound families. This tax credit will help to find more families for more children. I would like to commend my colleagues for their support in passing this important amendment. With it, we will be yet another step closer to the day when no child goes to bed feeling alone, unloved or unwanted.

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I rise today to support the Restoring Earnings to Lift Individuals and Empower Families Act of 2001. This tax package provides some needed tax relief to the people of Louisiana. In addition, it represents a bipartisan compromise by the committee members. I would like to thank the chairman of the committee, the distinguished Senator from Iowa, and the ranking member, from Montana, for their hard work in developing a tax relief package that tries to address the concerns and priorities of the people of our Nation. While there is not a consensus on how to provide tax relief, there is consensus that the American people deserve a tax cut in the face of large projected surpluses. This package provides marginal income tax rate reductions, marriage penalty and estate tax relief, expands provisions for the child tax credit, encourages savings, and rewards adoption. The benefits of these provisions are not balanced in the way that I would like to see, but, of course, that is the nature of compromise. However, some of the tax cut initiatives included provide real relief to people who really need it, working families, struggling to make ends meet. Louisianians work hard to provide for their families. Our State has an average income of $30,000 a year. In addition, 90 percent of all Louisiana households earn less than $75,000. I believe that the proposal before us now, the Senate RELIEF package, distributes benefits more fairly to the average taxpayer and middle-income families than the tax plan initially proposed by President Bush, and far better than the bills supported by the House Leadership. This bill has many of the elements that will make a real difference to many Americans and Louisianians. Among these compromise elements are marriage penalty relief, and reform and eventual repeal of the estate tax, which I have voted for in the past and continue to support. In addition, this package provides necessary broad-based income rate reductions including the creation of a new 10 percent rate, and a doubling of the child tax credit to $1,000, to strengthen families. When fully phased-in, the average Louisianian can expect to receive a tax cut anywhere from $300 to $500 a year. But more importantly, the effect of the new refundable child credit could offset much of the payroll and excise taxes that affect many Louisiana families. For example, a married couple with two children earning $20,000 could receive a tax benefit of as much as $2,000. That is a real saving that could make a substantial difference for many families. In representing the people of Louisiana, my commitment has been to fiscal discipline, tax code fairness, debt reduction, and tax relief. Louisianians and Americans of all income levels deserve the significant tax relief included in the $1.35 trillion tax cut package now being considered by Congress. So, while I support tax cuts, I also support an amendment that provides an insurance policy against returning to deficit spending, a trigger mechanism. Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan repeatedly has stated in recent months his support for a trigger mechanism. Through this trigger mechanism, the goal is to enact tax relief in a fiscally responsible way that protects against the depletion of the Social Security and Medicare surpluses, and allows for true debt reduction. The trigger creates a safety mechanism to address the possibility of either fiscally irresponsible tax cuts or ``budget busting'' Federal spending increases that would lead the nation back to a period of budget deficits and mounting public debt. Under such a trigger, tax relief would continue to be phased-in while specified debt reduction targets are met. If Congress falls short of those targets, the trigger would delay the implementation of new spending and tax reduction proposals until those debt reduction targets are back on schedule. The trigger mechanism will not cancel out or hamper the $1.35 trillion tax cut package. It will instead strengthen and increase the certainty of the tax relief by ensuring fiscal discipline. I have also offered an amendment on behalf of myself and Senator Craig. The adoption tax credit amendment will truly encourage parenthood through adoption, and in the long run, reduce the costs to taxpayers. It provides a permanent expansion of the credit to $10,000 for both special needs and non-special needs adoptions for families with incomes up to $190,000. Removing children from long term foster care is a great benefit to society because it reduces the possibility that these children will develop costly social problems; such as drug dependence or criminal involvement. This delinquency comes at a high cost to the taxpayer. Our amendment enjoys wide bipartisan support, and should be included in the final package passed by the Senate. While I support many of the measures in this tax relief package, I should add that there are provisions that I find very troubling. This tax cut is back loaded, with many of the costs exploding after the 10- year budget window. The repeal of the estate tax, only one provision of this tax bill, has been estimated to cost at least $145 billion in the eleventh year alone. In the long run, over the next 15 to 20 years, the revenue cost of the total tax package could be as high as $5 trillion. This is an enormous drain on Federal revenues, greatly reducing our ability to pay down our debt and provide strategic investments necessary for our economic growth. Another concern is the lack of immediate marriage penalty relief, a provision that would benefit many families in Louisiana. This is unfortunate, because married couples treated unfairly by the tax code deserve a speedy remedy. In addition, Education Savings Accounts established in the tax bill are costly and, in my opinion, are an inefficient use of these funds given the great need of new investments necessary to support essential education reform efforts underway in Louisiana and across the Nation. We need to target more of our federal revenue to poorer, moderate-income, and disadvantaged school districts to the level the playing field of opportunity and to truly ensure that no child is left behind. Despite these concerns, the package does provide tax relief that is warranted due to the large projected surplus. That is why I rise to support this compromise tax relief package.

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. Could the majority leader clarify the order for us tonight?

Ms. LANDRIEU. I thank the Senator very much.

Ms. LANDRIEU. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, the amendment I propose has to do with the adoption tax credit. Before I get into the specifics of that amendment, I will make some general remarks about the previous amendment briefly, about the overall bill, and a few other points before I get into specifics of this amendment. Let me congratulate my colleagues from Maine, Indiana, and Michigan, Senators Snowe, Bayh, and Stabenow, for offering their amendment, which I am proud to be a cosponsor of, the trigger mechanism just presented to this body and explained so beautifully. I want to add my voice to say that I intend to support that amendment. I think it will bring discipline to this process, it will bring some more certainty, and it will help us to stay the course of fiscal discipline which has served this country and this economy so well over the last 8 years. To reiterate, it is not just giving us a caution about the tax cuts, but it is cautioning us about spending too much. I think that is a very good balance. The mechanisms have been worked out. Chairman Greenspan has indicated support of this concept. That debate will be left for another day, with more debate on Monday. I express my support. Second, I express my compliments to the Senator from Iowa and the Senator from Montana for the way they have handled the debate. I especially appreciate the way the chairman has been open to listening to different ideas, to considering all as thoughtfully and as seriously as he could, given there would literally be 100 ways to write this bill. But we can only have one bill and all 100 Members have to have some input into shaping it. We could all write it our special way, but the fact is this body and our democracy mandates we do this together. It is not a simple process. I thank the chairman for his patience and the ranking member for his graciousness in listening to me on many issues, particularly this amendment. Since I am not going to speak very long, I make a public comment and compliment also my colleague from North Dakota, Senator Conrad, a member of the Finance Committee. He has been a tremendous leader in this whole debate. Although Members may disagree with some of his positions, I think he has gained such respect in this debate, explaining these very complicated matters in ways people in my State, most certainly, have expressed to me, and I appreciate his efforts. I thank him publicly tonight for his hard work and dedication. The amendment I send to the desk tonight is a very important amendment. This underlying tax reduction bill has some very good provisions in it. I mention a few. The refundability of the child tax credit and the doubling of the child tax credit is very important to the people of Louisiana and to many working families around the Nation. Marriage penalty relief is something I have supported, along with Members on both sides of the aisle. It is time that we make adjustments to this particular problem in the Tax Code. I also am pleased to see the estate tax reform and repeal as a part of this tax package. And particularly for Louisiana and for so many States, the college savings plan withdrawals, making them tax free, gives a lot of hope and encouragement to help people in Louisiana and all through this Nation begin early to set aside money for their children's education. A good, solid education through college is an excellent way to give the foundation for someone's success in life. In this new global economy with new technologies and the importance of skills, having a good, solid education is important. We have been debating many different aspects of education. I think the college savings plan is a very good feature in this bill. There are some serious problems with it. It is backloaded. I wish the 15-percent tax bracket could have been reduced and addressed. There is a smaller amount of stimulus than I think is wise, given the slowdown in the economy. I will make a decision about how I am going to vote on this bill, based on the pros and cons, on Monday when we have the final vote. But I want to suggest tonight that there is one amendment that really should be added. It should be included. It is somewhat glaring that it is not. The chairman knows this, and the ranking member. The amendment I am speaking about is the renewal and doubling extension and fixing of the adoption tax credit, a tax credit that has been so broadly accepted and enthusiastically supported by many Members of this body. Just today, in fact, over 300 Members of the House of Representatives voted affirmatively for the Hope for Children tax credit relief. I offer this amendment on behalf of myself and the Senator from Idaho, Mr. Craig. There are a number of other cosponsors. I would like to mention Mrs. Clinton, the Senator from New York, and others who have supported this particular provision. This amendment would extend the $5,000 tax credit, doubling it to $10,000. One of the things we must remember is, if we do not fix this tax credit now, it expires, not next year, not 2 years from now, as some of the other tax measures we are speaking about, but it expires in December of this year. So in 7 months this tax credit that has done so much good for people in this country is set to expire. The other reason to support it is there is overwhelmingly enthusiastic bipartisan support for it. The third really good reason is that it is so cost effective. It is such a small amount of money relative to the overall package that I am certain we can find a way, if we find the will to include this in this package. There were over 125,000 children adopted last year; 15,000 children came to this country from another place in the world. Those places were quite grim. I have been to many of them. Some of these children were taken off hospital floors. Some of these children were found starving. Some of these children were found sick. Some of these children were found with an inability to walk, some could not see, some could not hear. But a family, a mother, a father in this country said: I will take that child, at great expense, and I will raise that child and do something good for the world and do something good for our family and do something wonderful for this child. There were over 100,000 children who were adopted by American families. Some of these children were healthy. All of these children were beautiful. All children are beautiful and should be loved and cared for and nurtured. Some of these children have great and special needs. I have seen children who have been adopted who have no limbs, who cannot see. Children have been adopted who have a very short lifespan. But because the heart of people is so great and their generosity so tremendous, homes and hearts have been opened, families have been built, children have been given hope, and parents who were desperate for children and could not have them have had their dreams come to reality. The least we can do in this body, as we debate this $1.35 trillion tax cut, is to add one-third of 1 percent to make this tax credit real, to extend it so it does not just go away, and to double it so it really can help as these expenses rise, and to fix it so it works for children who are being adopted out of foster care. I know my time is coming to an end. I say in closing, there are today 500,000 children--a half a million children--who have been removed from their homes because of abuse and neglect. There are 100,000 of those 500,000 whose parental rights have been terminated. If we don't work a little harder and a little better to fix our court system, to support our social workers, to give our judges the support they need, and to help where we can--and this is one way to build in our Tax Code an incentive to help some of these children get adopted and to help parents bear the tremendous expenses associated--I think we will be making a grave mistake and missing a wonderful opportunity. I urge Members of this body to consider this carefully. It doesn't cost a lot. It will bring a great deal of joy and hope and happiness to children and families everywhere. It is something we can do, and as Mr. Gramm, the Senator from Texas, said when we discussed this last year, it really is a shame that this tax cut is scored in a way that costs us, because if you think about it, this is a great savings to the taxpayer, because when children are adopted out of foster care, or when children are adopted who are for some reason not wanted, or their families want them but they cannot raise them so someone else takes that child and raises that child and nurtures that child, I promise you there is $100,000 or more savings to the taxpayer by the little $10,000 we give in the credit. We save hundreds of thousands of dollars because these children do not end up in special education or in the hospital or in jail or in a mental health ward. Why? Because they have parents to love them and care for them. So while the committee has given me a score on my tax credit, I have argued, and I think I could be supported in a court of law, this tax credit is a great savings to this Government. For every child we can get adopted, we don't have to pick up the expenses for them. I think it is what God wants us to do. I am positive it is the right thing to do. I thank my colleagues for giving me this time to offer it. I hope we can find a way to do this. I yield my time.

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

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, let me begin by sending an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I do intend to offer my amendment, but I will be happy to wait for a few moments, so I have no objection.

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I thank my colleagues, Senators Dodd and Collins, for their great leadership in this area. In committee on many days, in many meetings, in many different forums, these two have been just tremendously powerful voices for a very important piece of our education reform efforts, and that is, in fact, title I. The title, the block grant, if you will, is the money that goes to all of our school systems and our districts to help turn around poor performing schools, to help reach those children who are in the greatest need, to help reach those counties--in Louisiana's instance, our Parishes--where the tax base is minimal or weak, where even well-intentioned individuals who want to give more revenues for schools cannot because of their limited capacities. Title I was intended, when it was created, to be the answer to that, to help equalize the playing field. It was intended to make real what we say about giving equal opportunity for children. I thank them because they were very forceful in committee and now bringing this amendment to the floor, in which it seems many of our colleagues are going to join. I also thank Senator Kennedy for his outstanding work in the whole area of education, for working so diligently to bring us to the underlying compromise which Senator Jeffords' amendment represents, which is a strong accountability component. The Federal Government now really enters into a partnership with States to not just throw more money at education but to improve every school. It will give them the resources to help frame the goals. It will give them the tools they need to set their own standards of performance and to increase testing and accountability in addition to adding investments through title I to meet those goals. Senator Kennedy and Senator Jeffords, Senator Lieberman, Senator Bayh, and so many others have been engaged in this compromise. I am proud to be here to support it and to speak for just a moment on what the title I amendment will do for Louisiana. Mr. President, for your State, Alabama, which is similar to Louisiana, it will be a tremendous victory for our schools and our schoolchildren, particularly in the South, particularly in areas where there are high concentrations of the poor. If this amendment we are advocating is adopted and the authorization for title I is increased as substantially as this amendment calls for and the underlying agreement allows, it is going to mean, for Louisiana, an additional $161 million. That is going to help add resources to one of the strong accountability systems we have in the Nation. I commend our Governor and our legislature, our BESE board, for stepping out years ago, introducing rigorous tests and accountability, trying to identify failing schools. If we are successful in not only passing this amendment and authorizing this increase in title I but ultimately successful and can lean hard on the appropriators--and I am a new member of that committee--to actually get this money appropriated, it will be a tremendous help to Louisiana, to Alabama, to California, to New York, to Maine, to Connecticut--to all of our States, to give those administrators the resources they need to help these schools turn around and improve. In addition, on a separate amendment which is not what we are discussing but was already adopted, we have now made a commitment and a statement in the Senate that we want to live up to full funding for special education. If we will do those two things--get the full funding for special education and, in fact, adopt this title I amendment, and get the money actually funded through the appropriations process--I would say we have done more to really improve, enhance, and strengthen public education than we perhaps have done in the last 30, 40, or 50 years. I mean that. Let me tell you why. Some Senators have made statements that would lead people to believe that in the years past we have really funded title I and that the problem is we just kept funding it but we didn't ask for results. I would like to take issue with that in the few minutes I have. Title I was created under President Johnson's administration with the idea that for the first time in America the Federal Government would step up to the plate and recognize there were some areas of our country that needed extra help and tried to provide extra money for these schools. We have really barely kept pace with inflation. While the amount of money has gone up, when you look at it, it has barely kept pace with inflation. This amendment would significantly increase our investments in title I so we can live up to that promise we made 35 years ago. Whether children live in the rural part of Maine or Louisiana, or Massachusetts, whether they are in a poor pocket of a large urban area; whether their community can afford to pay high property taxes or whether there is property of value to tax, these children could get qualified teachers; they could get computers; they could get technological training; they could have access to wonderful libraries, not only physically but on the Internet; they could have courses in science and literature to help build the kind of education they need to break out of the cycle of poverty. We know schools can't do all of it. We know parents, families, and the community have a role to play. But I can tell you, as a great beneficiary of an education system, that every single Senator in this room has benefitted. Some Senators came from very wealthy families, but many Senators came from poor families with very limited opportunities. If it wasn't for strong parents and a good sense of community and a good education, none of us would have made our way to the Senate. That is why I believe so strongly in title I and why I thank Senators Dodd and Collins for putting forth this amendment while we have a projected surplus to make a real commitment in moving these dollars to title I. Lets add another word about title I. Title I is not just one part. There are four parts to it. There is a basic grant that is distributed to all the States based on the number of poor children. Then there are three other parts laid on top of that to make sure the money we send actually reaches to the poorest districts that need the most help. While this amendment doesn't specifically direct those dollars in that way, the underlying amendment and the underlying bill basically say if this amendment is adopted, the new money--we are talking about a significant amount of new money, $6.4 billion--will not only be added to title I but it will be appropriated through those targeted concentration formulas so that States such as Louisiana that have high rates of poverty can be well served, and so that in the field Federal Government will, in fact, step up and be a real partner to these States and these local communities that are trying their very best to make the kind of real reforms that we are advocating. It will enable them to provide this new testing--not just fake tests, not just the easy tests, not testing on the cheap, but good tests and good accountability measures so we can identify what schools need help and then give them the help they need so we don't leave any child behind. That is what is exciting about this amendment. I am so proud to be working on it with Senator Dodd and Senator Collins. I believe it is most appropriate, while we are in this debate about the budget and setting parameters for how we are going to spend our money--we are going to give significant tax relief, and we can most certainly do that--that we set aside the right kind of investments for our schools. It has been said, and it was repeated to me over the weekend by one of the outstanding authors on the subject of education in the Nation, and I think it is worth repeating at this time, our schools don't just serve the public; our schools create the public. In a nation that prides itself as being the longest living democracy in the world, a nation, while not perfect--we most certainly have many flaws and we have much to improve--that is really a model of democracy for the world, our education system becomes more than just learning facts about what was and what is. Students learn about the possibilities of what can be. They learn to think. They learn to believe in themselves. They learn to put things in perspective. An education system literally becomes a place where we create a public that is educated enough to sustain a democracy that not only brings hope to every person that lives in America but brings hope to millions of people around the world. This is a big issue. I don't mean to overemphasize how important title I is. But it really becomes imperative that this National Government, our Federal Government, give the resources necessary to strengthen the schools that create the foundations and the bedrock of our Nation. Again, I am proud to be part of it. I most certainly hope we have a strong vote on this amendment tonight. I thank my distinguished colleagues from Connecticut and Maine for bringing this amendment to the floor, and I urge passage of the Dodd- Collins amendment. I yield the remainder of my time.

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I would like to take a moment out of this morning's business to commemorate a very special occasion in the life of a dear friend and a valued advisor, Lillie Petit Gallagher. This Friday, May 4, 2001, marks the last day of a long and distinguished career in public service for Lillie. As the Executive Director of St. Elizabeth Foundation in Baton Rouge, she has not only counseled hundreds of birth mothers but also helped in placing their children with loving families. In the thirteen years she has served as executive director of this fine organization, she has been a trusted friend, a surrogate mother, a guardian angel and a wise counsel to hundreds of parents and families. The US Census Bureau estimates that in one year 500,000 teenagers will choose to parent their babies; 450,000 will have abortions. Because of people like Lillie, these young adults have the confidence and support they need to choose adoption for their child. To demonstrate for you the kind of impact Lillie has had in shaping St. Elizabeth's, let me read an excerpt from a letter from one of her birth mothers, ``I was eighteen and fresh out of a bad relationship when I found out I was pregnant. I can remember not knowing what I was going to do. I guess in a lot of ways I just acted as if there was nothing wrong. For about three months no one knew of my pregnancy but me and a friend. Then we just really started talking about what to do one day and that's when it happened, just like a sign from God, a billboard sign saying: ``Pregnant and alone call . . .'' so we rode back to her house and called. A soft sweet voice answered the phone, ``St. Elizabeth Foundation.'' That is how I started my friendship and love for the people at St. Elizabeth's.'' This is just one of many examples of the special interventions that bring strength, hope and comfort to hundreds of families. A native of Cut Off, LA, Lillie's work on behalf of the children of Louisiana is not limited to her outstanding work at St. Elizabeth's. After graduating from St. Mary's Dominican College in New Orleans, she returned to LSU to obtain a graduate degree in child development and social services. She used those skills to teach early childhood at the college level, found a Montessori pre-school and served as the founding director of the statewide Gifted/Talented Program in the Louisiana State Department of Education. As if that is not enough, she also spent several years as host of a popular TV education program. Anyone who meets Lillie knows they have met someone very special. Her loving heart and determined spirit make her a tenacious advocate for children and their families and Louisiana and the Nation have been the great beneficiary. Her 36 year marriage to her husband, George, serves as a loving example, not only to her four beautiful children and precious grandchild, but to the young people she serves. My best wishes to you, Lillie, your husband, George, and your beautiful family.

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from West Virginia for his heartfelt and wonderful remarks. I thank him for yielding just a few minutes this afternoon to me to speak about the subject of education to follow up on many of the things our colleague from Connecticut, Senator Dodd, said so eloquently just a few minutes ago. I appreciate the Senator from West Virginia yielding. I could actually spend over an hour speaking about this subject because it is so important to our Nation, and it is so important to the State I represent, Louisiana. I will come back often during this debate to try to help focus our attention on some of the aspects of this educational debate that is so important. Let me begin by simply saying that we are spending a good amount of money on education today. We are spending about $18 billion. That is a lot of money. It is a lot of money to the people of Louisiana. And title I is $8.6 billion with a ``b''--not a million but a billion. That is a huge amount of money, but, unfortunately, I am here to say today that it is not enough to do the things we know we need to do to help reform and improve our schools and to truly give every child in this country a chance to succeed. As the Senator from West Virginia knows, there are no guarantees in this life. The Government cannot guarantee every citizen a good life. But our Constitution, the formation of this country, and the reason we come to work I think every day as Senators and Members of this body is to try to provide at least equal opportunity and an equal chance to succeed, to be a part of this great Nation. There are many ways we can try to do that. But one fundamental way is through the process of formal education--providing excellence in education to every child, whether they be born into a wealthy family, or a poor family, a black family, or a white family, whether they are born in California or New York or Louisiana or Minnesota. Today, as a nation, we believe we have an obligation. We did not always believe that because prior to 1965 education was a very local enterprise. But since 1965, this Government has recognized that the Federal Government does, in fact, have a role to play, not only in helping States with dollars but, hopefully, now helping them with direction, and moving them to reforms into excellence because while some of our public schools are working, too many of them are failing. So as we speak about this education debate, yes, we are spending a significant amount of money, but it is not nearly enough. In fact, you can look at how our money has really not increased. For the record, let me share with you that the title I portion, which is $8.6 billion of the $18 billion total, since 1965, has barely kept pace with inflation. So while every year we come to Washington and say education is our No. 1 priority--the polls most certainly indicate that on the Republican side and Democratic side--our budgets have not reflected that because when items are a No. 1 priority, they get greater than an inflationary increase. They get significant increases in the budget to reflect that No. 1 status. That is simply not happening in the area of education, particularly in title I. So we want to fight for reform. We want to fight for accountability. But we must have those investments to make those reforms real or it is an empty promise and we are going to be leaving many children behind-- millions of children, as Senator Dodd said. Let me just share with you, first, a chart that shows that money does matter. There have been hundreds of studies done, but let me just share one with you. This is a New York study that was recently done that links the rises in school financing to test scores. In New York, 39 low-performing schools were targeted. These are schools that were failing to meet academic standards. These schools were targeted, and they were given a set of reforms: higher standards, testing, all of the things that we want to do; and, in addition, money, anywhere from $500,000 to $1 million was invested, for smaller class sizes, longer school days, and teacher training. Do you know what happened. Children began to learn because the reforms were matched with the dollars. In this particular study, we saw an increase of 7 percent in reading, and 3.5 percent in math, based on the reforms and the investment. I could share with you hundreds of studies and case examples in Louisiana, New York, and California where it proves the point that money matters. Will money correct the problem by itself? Absolutely not. We could triple the amount of money in education under the current system, and we probably would not see much in the way of results. But we are on the threshold of mandating rigorous tests, very high standards, and real consequences for failure. I believe passionately that if we do not match that historic commitment to excellence and accountability with an historic increase in funding, we are going to leave many millions of our children behind, disappoint communities around this Nation, with unfunded mandates and broken hearts and broken promises. We simply cannot do that. We need to increase funding substantially. Let me share another number for the record. The proposed tax cut will return $69 billion this year. The current education budget provides only $2 billion extra. Mr. President, with $69 billion for investments in tax cuts, $2 billion for investments in education, it is not nearly enough. The three R's bill that I have been supporting and promoting asks for an $8 billion increase in education. That would be a significant start--more than the rate of inflation. Not only would the increase help to match our commitment to reform and accountability, but the targeting aspect is also important. Let me share one other chart today. One of the problems, as I have tried to outline, is the lack of adequate funding and the real need to match these new accountability standards--new testing standards and new standards of excellence--with real dollars to help our schools to meet these new targets. But equally important as the amount of the funding is the way the funding is distributed. Right now, we are missing the mark. We are missing our targets. The Federal Government provides a portion of education dollars to the State, and all of us agree--Republicans and Democrats alike--that the primary role of the Federal Government is to help level the playing field so that whether you are in a poor community or a poor State, you have an equal opportunity for an excellent education. Regardless of the fact that he or she might live in a district where there is no capacity for raising taxes, that student should still have a chance for a good education. Our targets are missing the mark. Depicted in the center of this chart are the schools that are up to 100 percent of poverty. After 35 years, we are still not funding 100 percent of the poorest children in our Nation. We have not reached them. We have tried for 35 years, but we are not reaching the target. When you move out to those schools that are between 50 and 75 percent of poverty, we are only reaching 80 percent of our children. When you move out further, to those schools that are between 35 to 50 percent of poverty, we are reaching less than 50 percent of our children. We need 100 percent for the poorest of our children. We need 100 percent for those schools between 50 and 75 percent of poverty. And we need at least 75 to 100 percent for those schools at 35 to 50 percent of poverty. If we do not, the promise that we make to help the poor children in this country, many of whom live in States such as Louisiana, West Virginia, California, and New York--and they exist in every part of this Nation--will simply be empty. It is not fair. As I conclude, let me just say that not only is it not fair; it is not smart because our Nation will not function at its highest capacity. We cannot remain the supereconomic power that we are. We cannot provide our industries with workers who have had skilled training if we do not make a commitment at the national level to not only increase the amount of funding for education significantly, over and above the inflation rate, but that we also target those extra dollars to the communities that need the most help, hoping that wealthier communities and affluent communities could step up to the plate and do the job, but communities that are poor and disadvantaged, the Federal Government would help. In conclusion, let me be clear that we want to help every child in every district in every State. In our formula that we are recommending--and I am going to be offering an amendment that will certainly do that--every child, every community, and every school district will get help from the Federal Government. But we will give special help to those districts that need it the most. This is not just about taking temperatures; it is about having the medicine to give to our children to help get them well and to give to our schools to help make them excellent. If we raise the standards and do not help our children meet the standards, we are going to have a high level of frustration, anxiety, and pain across this Nation. So I commend the President for wanting to move to a system of greater accountability. I have supported that. My State of Louisiana is leading that effort. But if we do not couple that new accountability with increased targeting and increased investment, we will be making a very bad mistake that our Nation will pay for dearly in the decades ahead. Let us start this new century with a renewed commitment, with renewed vigor, with a commonsense approach; yes, with more accountability and reform, with real dollars to match, targeted in a way that will really bring the promise of this great Nation to each child, whether they live in West Virginia or Louisiana. We can do it. We have the money to do it. The question is, Do we have the will? I believe we do. With the President's leadership, with bipartisan support, we can find the will to do right by our children in their schools and in their communities.

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. I could probably use 5 minutes, if the Senator could be so gracious to allow that, for comments on education.

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, the Senator from West Virginia should note what for all of us is a special day on Capitol Hill. It is Take Your Daughter to Work Day. While my own precious little 3\1/2\-year-old daughter is not with me today because she is not quite old enough to appreciate the significance of this day, I do have nine beautiful little girls from Louisiana whom I have adopted for the day and a whole Girl Scout troop here from Capitol Hill, Troop 4062. I will submit their names for the Record. I want the Record to reflect that they were here today working with us to help make this Senate and this country a better place. I wish them all much success. I am glad that so many of our Senators and staff invited the young girls today to share this experience with us. I thank the Senator for yielding the time and ask unanimous consent to print the names in the Record.

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. Let me follow up by making a few points. The President is right about one thing. That is, simply throwing more money at the problems facing our educational system in America will do little to create the type of reform necessary to move America forward in the new global economy. However, conversely what is true, passing new mandates and new accountability and new standards and new goals for our students and our teachers and our communities, without that important and strategic and significant new investment in education, is a hollow and an empty promise. I call attention to a wonderful ad that caught my attention a couple of weeks ago. It was put out by the Business Leader Council. We do a lot of talking in this Chamber about budgets, taxes, futures trading, commodities trading, and economic issues. With my compliments to the Business Roundtable, this is the ad they ran. It said under the picture of the bright-eyed optimistic and hopeful children: Our Nation's classrooms are America's true futures market, where a commitment today will yield individual and national prosperity tomorrow. Let me repeat that: Our Nation's classrooms are America's true futures market, where a commitment today-- Not next year, not 5 years from now, but a commitment today-- will yield individual and national prosperity tomorrow. I hope my colleagues can see the faces of these children. What jumped out at me from the picture is the hopefulness in these children's eyes. They look like children in every classroom in Louisiana, with smiles on their faces, with hands in the air, anxious to answer questions presented by their teachers, with hope and optimism for the future. The debate we will have in this Chamber and with our colleagues in the House will determine whether these children walk away with supplies or whether they walk away with heads hung, shoulders stooped down, opportunities taken from them because we have made the wrong decisions on this floor. That is what this debate is about. This budget is not just about numbers. It is not just about hard, cold facts. It is not just about statistics. It is about hearts, minds, souls, and opportunities for our children and for our families and for this country. I am afraid if we don't come to terms and make the best decisions we can, and good decisions this week, these children and millions and millions like them, and their parents, are going to be sorely disappointed. Let me try to explain. One of the major debates we are preparing for is what kind of investment in education should we be making. The President has recommended what might seem to be a lot of money. When we talk about billions and hundreds of millions of dollars, those are large figures and people's eyes tend to glaze over because that sounds like a lot of money. We are debating an underlying bill, a reauthorization of elementary and secondary education, that is going to fundamentally change the way the Federal Government helps local and State government. We are saying, instead of just sending you money and crossing our fingers and hoping for results, we are now going to tie the resources in a real and meaningful way. When we give you these moneys, we are going to expect real performance, real excellence, and there are going to be real consequences for failure. Schools may have to be reconstructed, reorganized; principals and teachers may need to be removed and we may need to have a new leadership team come in. Students are to be tested not once every few years but every year. Teachers are going to be held to higher standards because we believe in excellence. We do not want to leave any child behind, and we want to make sure that, whether you are in a poor rural area or a poor urban area or in a wealthy urban area or wealthy rural area, that you have a chance, as a child, to get an excellent education. We are also going to give local officials more flexibility. We are not going to micromanage from Washington any longer. We are not going to specifically mandate that you have to cross every t and dot every i. We are going to be less focused on compliance and more focused on performance. I agree with the President that all of those things are important and that we should change the way Washington funds our elementary and secondary education system. But doing that and yet not providing the money at a high level for our schools to be able to do that is an empty, hollow promise to our children and an unfunded mandate of gigantic proportions to our local governments and to our States. It would not be right. It is not what the American people want. It is not what we should do. That is what this debate is about. Yes, we want reform, but we must have the significant, historic, huge investments necessary to make those reforms work. Let me say to those who might say money doesn't matter--yes, it does. Testing costs money. Improving teacher quality costs money. Fixing leaky roofs costs money. Buying textbooks and computers and training teachers and students costs money. You cannot just wish it. We can be more efficient. We can spend our money more wisely. But in this year, in 2001, as we begin this new century, it has to be a combination of new reforms and new investments. Let me share some interesting poll numbers that came out because people might say: Senator, you feel this way, but does anybody else feel this way? Senator Dodd feels this way, but does anyone else? This is a Washington Post poll issued today. The question was very basic. It says, Is the Federal Government spending too much, about right, or too little for education? Mr. President, 60 percent of the public says we are spending too little; 60 percent of Americans are saying we are spending too little at the Federal level for education. Only about 24 percent say ``about right'' and 8 percent say ``too much.'' So 60 percent of Americans. When we talk about at the State level, Is your State government spending enough on education? Mr. President, 61 percent say the State governments are spending too little on education. At the local level you can see that number drops fairly significantly because we are paying a greater portion at the local level. This chart indicates to me that at the State level, but particularly at the Federal level, people across the board--and I think this was across regions and economic income levels--suggest our current investment level is not sufficient to meet the challenges. Let me also share with you, from the same poll, a question: Which is more important to you, holding down the size of government, providing needed services, or both? Mr. President, 31 percent said ``holding down the size of government,'' 62 percent, ``providing needed services.'' Does that mean the American public supports sort of a runaway government? Obviously not. But do they support a government that has efficient programs and effective programs and also makes investments in areas that matter to them--education being one of them? Absolutely. Let me show you the second chart that shows what their priorities are. This is what the American people said in the same poll. If given the chance, how would you spend your money and what are some of your most important concerns? Education is at the top of the chart, 47 percent. The next closest is 34 percent, Social Security and Medicare, making sure the resources are there to provide for Social Security and strengthen it, and provide, hopefully, for reforms in the Medicare system, and an expansion for prescription drugs. Health care is important also, at 29 percent. I want to focus on this area--education. The President, when he was running for President, said it over and over again: Let's not leave any child behind. I agree with him. Many, many people in this Chamber, both on the Republican and Democratic side, do. But that is just a slogan unless it is backed up with real dollars that actually move children forward, that give them hope, that fulfill a promise for life to help them develop their skills and their abilities. Again the Business Roundtable said: Our Nation's classrooms are America's true futures market-- where a commitment today will yield individual and national prosperity tomorrow. Let me share, for the record, a specific example from one of Louisiana's industries, Avondale Industries. It is one of the largest employers in Louisiana, an industry that I certainly try to help and support, that is building some of the finest ships for our commercial shippers as well as our national defense. It does a magnificent job, let me add. They are now part of the Northrop Grumman Corporation, which is one of the five remaining facilities left in this whole country capable of building large combat vessels. My staff called them and asked them if they could send us some applications for jobs that they might periodically put out to try to hire some of the individuals necessary for this work. These positions range from electrical engineer to data entry clerk. But the one requirement that comes through in all of these applications is that a high school diploma is necessary. What that translates to is really an 11th grade or 12th grade proficiency in math. Many of these jobs are related to calculations, to making analytical decisions based on plans and graphs, as you can imagine. Right now in our Nation, according to the latest data, only 30 percent of our eighth graders are functioning at the proficient level in math. Here is an industry in my State that could employ thousands of individuals, that puts out applications daily for a variety of different jobs. The minimum requirement is a high school education. Part of that is functioning just at the proficient level--not outstanding, not the top 1 percent in the Nation, just at the proficiency level for math. I have to stand here as a Senator and look these industry people in the eye and tell them that we can only create a school system that can, at best, give them 30 percent of the eighth graders who can fill out the application. This is not going to work. It is not going to work for Louisiana. It is not going to work for Connecticut. It is not going to work for New York. It is simply not going to work. And a budget that does not fund more science teachers, more math teachers, makes a real investment to give those kids an opportunity, is not going to help them, their families, or Avondale. I know the last administration asked me--it was a hard vote and I did it--to vote for 50,000 H-1B visas to bring in people from outside this Nation to fill jobs because we were not able to find people in America to take these jobs. I cast that vote, but I will tell you I thought about that vote, because when I cast that vote it allowed high-tech industries and some industries such as Louisiana's shipbuilders to be able to hire people from other nations. I go home and drive through neighborhoods, walk through communities, sit and talk to young people who have been left out because we have not provided them the kind of education they need. They have to step aside and watch someone from another country walk past their door, fill out the application, and take the job that they could have had if we had had a school system that could have given them the education necessary for the job. That is a tough thing for a Senator to have to do because I do not represent any other country; I represent the United States, and I represent Louisiana. I represent cities and communities where there are thousands of people who cannot pass 11th grade math because we will not put the resources and the money where they need to be to give them the chance. Are they willing? Yes. But we have not done what we need to do. So my message to the President and to my colleagues is, let's do it while we can. Perhaps when we were running terrible deficits and running up large, large bills, you could say: Look, we would love to do it but we simply can't afford it. We are running huge deficits. We can't keep spending money we don't have. Money doesn't grow on trees. We can't tax people any more. So I am all for that and when we have to cut back, let's do it. But now that we have a historic and significant surplus, now I am listening to people say: We have the surplus; we have the money; it is sitting there in the bank, but we don't want to spend it on these children. We don't want to spend it on them. They are not our future. We want to give a huge tax cut, and we don't want to make any investments in education. I am not talking about the same kind of investments for the same mediocre results. We can't keep doing it 3 percent a year or 4 percent a year or 5 percent a year, which is what the President is recommending, and think we are going to get a 50-percent increase in results. It doesn't work that way. We have to make an extraordinary commitment now and put our money where our mouth is to reach the children that we need to reach through our schools. Yes, reform our schools with strong accountability standards matched with a true investment and targeted to the kids who need it the most. We do a great job sometimes in Washington inventing new programs, and everything sounds great. And every year we invent about five, six, or seven more programs. We need to get back to the basics and fund through elementary and secondary education a significant amount, if not tripling the amount of money, for title I--flexible grants that go to places in Louisiana, New York, Connecticut, Alabama, New Mexico, or where the communities can't raise the tax dollars because they are relatively poor or have a limited capacity. The Federal Government can honestly stand up and say, whether you are little girls in Oregon or you were born into a poor, rural area or a poor urban area, it doesn't matter because we have a system at the Federal level that ensures, because of the way we fund education, that the school you go to will help you pass and exceed that proficiency in math so that you can get a job and we don't have to import someone from another country to take the job while you collect welfare or while you have to live on food stamps or while you tell your children they cannot ever live in a home of their own because you can't bring home a paycheck enough for you to be able to live in a home of your own. I am not going to say that as a Senator because the money is in the bank. The question is, Are we going to write the check for the kids who need it or to our schools, or are we going to squander the surplus and not make the investments that we need? I will come to the floor every single day this week and next week, as long as it takes, because I know as a Senator from Louisiana, particularly, my State's future rests in large measure on how our schools can function so that every child in every part of our State can get the quality education that in some small way perhaps will make up for what they do not always get in their homes. I don't know what kind of miracle schools can achieve. I know schools can't do it without the parents. I know there is a limit to what schools can contribute to a child if they are not getting that support at home. But I am tired of making excuses and hearing excuses such as this kid can't learn because this child only has one parent or this child can't learn because this child is poor or this child can't learn because this child is a special education student. I am here to tell you that every child can learn, but it takes a good system and good investments from the Federal Government, the State government, and the local government working in partnership with parents. I am about fed up with the excuses because I want to support trade and globalization, and I want our businesses to have the workers they need. I have to fight for children to have the opportunity. I urge our President to please work with us. Work with the Democrats. We don't want to waste money. We want to make a significant investment in education, coupled with accountability, new standards and exciting possibilities for our Nation. I most certainly want to work with him. I believe we can make a real difference in Louisiana and Texas and many places throughout our Nation. In conclusion, I refer to the vision of Lyndon Baines Johnson when we created the Elementary and Secondary Education Act--a vision that would make the dream of a quality education a reality for all children regardless of their race, their socioeconomic status, or their gender. This is what America is about. It is about opportunities. In many ways, while education begins at home, it is most certainly enhanced at the school level. We are shortchanging ourselves, shortchanging our children, and shortchanging our future to do anything less. I will end saying, again, I am going to be down here every day until we complete this debate, urging my colleagues to push hard for a significant investment and targeting that investment to the schools and communities that need the most help, and also helping all of our districts to achieve success in educational excellence. I yield any remaining time.

Ms. LANDRIEU. I rise to add my voice to my distinguished colleague from Connecticut and to thank him for his outstanding leadership. Senator Dodd and my staff have been enthusiastically involved in this particular debate. As a member of the committee, he has been a tremendous voice for education reform. I acknowledge the work Senator Dodd has done with many of our colleagues on this issue and to say how much I agree with all of the points he has raised. I will join with him in as many hours as it takes through this week and the next week to try to bring some of these points home to our constituents and to the country at large. I thank the Senator again for continuing to keep Senators focused on not only the increases in investments that we need in education but the targets of those investments to reach the children who need the most help, whether in Connecticut, Louisiana, Oklahoma, or other States, for whom we are fighting. I thank the Senator for that.

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. I thank the Chair and the Senator from North Dakota. Mr. President, I commend the Senators from New Mexico and North Dakota for their extraordinary management skills in helping to bring us to the final point of this week-long debate. I appreciate their patience in working with each Member on issues that are so important to us and to our States. While the staff is working on some details of some of the last few amendments that need to be offered, I thought I would make mention of one particular tax cut that is so widely supported on both sides of this aisle and something on which a group of us have worked now for about 2 years. I am hoping the language will be included in the final negotiations and that has to do with the tax credit for adoption. It is a tax credit that is really one of the smallest calls on the tax cut, on the budget in terms of the dollar amount. It is small, but it goes a long way because it helps families who are trying to open up their homes, and have opened up their hearts, to adopt a child--either an infant or a toddler or an older child; either a child through a traditional adoption through an agency in the United States or the adoption of a child from another country--and we have seen that number increase substantially, which is really wonderful--or it helps us find homes for the more than 100,000 children in foster care who deserve so much to have a home and a family to call their own. I want to take a moment while we have some time to congratulate the leaders of the House. I understand there are 275 cosponsors in the House of Representatives for this particular tax cut or tax relief. There are many good ways to give Americans tax relief. We have heard that debate now on this floor--from the marriage penalty relief, to marginal tax relief, which I support, to estate tax relief or reform-- but I want to take a moment to thank Senators and House Members who continue to speak out for this adoption tax credit--to extend it, to double it, and to fix it so that it works for foster care children and so that we give families a broad choice, if they have made that terrific decision to adopt children, to help them with those initial expenses, which can be quite high. In fact, there are families who, as you know, travel to many parts of the world, and not only are there expenses associated with the agencies or the attorneys or facilitators with whom they are working but also there are the travel expenses. So this $10,000 tax credit we are proposing--it is $5,000 now, and we propose to double it, extend it, and make it work, which was the original intent of the law--for children being adopted out of foster care. It is something we have debated this week and will continue to debate. I know Senator Grassley, the chairman of the committee, Senator Baucus, our ranking member, Senator Breaux, and others have expressed an interest in being able to include this particular item in the tax package that is finally passed. I know there are many families in Louisiana, in Georgia, the State of the Presiding Officer, and in all of our States who would welcome our fixing, extending, and doubling this tax credit because it can make the difference in finding a child a home who perhaps would never otherwise be able to find one and helping those parents with at least some of the expenses associated with the cost of raising children today. So I am really very hopeful. There is no amendment pending, but there is language that hopefully will be included in this final package. I thank the managers for giving me time to talk about this important issue. Again, I want to recognize the great support in the House of Representatives--by both Republicans and Democrats--for this particular tax credit. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. I withdraw my reservation.