Mary Landrieu

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, that is one of those remarkable things about this body. We can come to the floor and debate vigorously many different issues. In this case, we are making remarks about what I hope will soon be our secretary of the environment, our Secretary of the Department of the Interior, Gale Norton. I come to the floor to give some words of support for her appointment and with just the greatest amount of respect to my colleague who just spoke, Senator Barbara Boxer.

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, last year I had the honor of celebrating the fifty-sixth anniversary of D-Day with thousands of U.S. Veterans in my hometown of New Orleans. Listening to these men account their travails along the Normandy shores and honoring the memories of their fallen comrades, I was stirred with a sense of awe for our country's greatest patriots, America's military veterans. I joined historian Stephen Ambrose at the opening of our National D- Day museum, where we memorialized not only those fallen in World War II's European Theater, but in Pacific battles as well. As we recalled General Douglas MacArthur's fateful proclamation in 1942, I shuddered with the irony of it all-- MacArthur, forced to retreat off Corregidor in the Philippines for Australia, vowed, I shall return. He did, and led our Nation to the most decisive victory in modern history. MacArthur's promise was heralded as a testament to America's convictions. Our troops fulfilled their duty to our country, defeating the Axis powers resoundingly. But our country never fully fulfilled its obligations to its troops. Promised compensation for service related disabilities, U.S. veterans have been denied critical benefits owed to them. For over one hundred years, the Pentagon has cut into military retirees' incomes, acquiring non-appropriated funds off the backs of disabled veterans. This so-called concurrent receipt issue derives from an fiscal year 1892 appropriations bill. That's right, 1892. In the aftermath of the Mexican War, Congress had hoped to prevent veterans from burdening America's budget by acquiring more than one pension payment. At this time, some veterans were receiving retired pay, disability pension, active duty pay, and a pension based on a disability from the Mexican War of 1846-1848. Congress decided to forbid such dual compensation for either past or current service and a disability pension. The fiscal year 1892 appropriations legislation for veterans' benefits included the first prohibition of concurrent receipt. Since its inception, Members of Congress have tried to overturn concurrent receipt prohibitions, but have failed. Indeed, in the last Congress, we began to make substantial ground in our effort. I supported an amendment to the Senate's Defense Authorization Bill to permit retired members of the Armed Forces who have a service-connected disability to receive military retirement pay concurrently with veteran's disability compensation. House conferees over this bill rejected the provision. Instead, Congress was only able to secure $100 to $300 monthly special compensation for severely disabled retirees. I can only hope that this measure will be the first of several steps that the Federal government takes to meet its commitments to our disabled military retirees. U.S. soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines still put their lives and abilities on the line for our nation's defense. And yet, the government fails to meet its commitments in compensation. I predict that we will not overcome our services' recruiting and retention crises until we begin to restore such critical retiree benefits. In so doing, the United States will promote its national security and honor its guardians of liberty; our troops and our country deserve no less.

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, it is a privilege to take this opportunity to pay tribute to Colonel Marjorie A. Jackson, United States Army Medical Service Corps, on her retirement after 26 years of distinguished and dedicated service to the nation. Colonel Jackson is a native of Louisiana. She graduated from Walter L. Cohen High School in New Orleans, earned her bachelor's degree from Xavier University and earned her M.A. in Executive Development from Ball State University. In 1974, she enlisted in the Army as a Pharmacy Technician serving in Fort McPherson, Georgia. In 1975, she was commissioned as a Second Lieutenant and went on to serve in a variety of key operational and staff positions including Assistant Inspector General, U.S. Army Health Services Command and Clinical Pharmacist, Hematology/Oncology Service at Walter Reed Army Medical Center. The culmination of Colonel Jackson's career was assignment as Chief of Staff of the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology. Colonel Jackson has been at the forefront of military medicine, completing a one-year residency in Hematology-Oncology Pharmacy at Walter Reed Army Medical Center and a one-year assignment as a Pharmacy Consultant to the 18th Medical Command in Seoul, South Korea. She has been honored with the Meritorious Service Medal, Army Commendation Medal, the Order of Military Medical Merit by the Army and was selected as the College of Pharmacy Alumnus of the Year in 1996 by Xavier University for her achievements in the field. Colonel Jackson has been a ground breaker her entire career. She was the first woman to serve as Chief of Staff, Administrative Services at the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology, the first African-American woman promoted to the rank of Colonel in the U.S. Army Medical Service Corps, the first African-American female pharmacist in the history of the U.S. Army Pharmacy Service and the first woman to direct an Army major medical center pharmacy. For twenty-six years, seven months and eighteen days, Colonel Jackson has served her country on the forefront of military medical care. Her exemplary military career is ending, but her contributions and achievements will continue to be felt throughout the Army and the Department of Defense. Colonel Marjorie A. Jackson served her country with great ability, valor, loyalty and integrity. On the occasion of her retirement from the United States Army, I commend her for her outstanding service. She is one of Louisiana's finest, represents all that is special about our nation, and I wish her well in the years ahead.

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I rise today to bring the attention of the Senate to legislation vitally important to the success of the Microloan Program of the Small Business Administration. Congress created the Microloan Program to reach small businesses not being served by traditional lenders or other credit programs within the SBA. This program has successfully helped micro entrepreneurs, many of whom are minorities, women and low-income individuals, who otherwise would have been unable to achieve their goal of owning their own business. Due to weak or, merely, non-existent credit histories and limited borrowing experience, they were often labeled as unreliable or risky borrowers by traditional credit markets and, hence, unable to obtain loans to start businesses. To address this need and to fill the gap in micro enterprise lending, the Microloan Program was created to provide loans to non-profit intermediary lenders who, in turn, provide loans under $35,000 to very small businesses. In addition to financial resources, intermediary lenders provide technical assistance to these business owners, teaching them how to manage and run a successful business. Industry experts and micro borrowers have testified that supplementing financing with technical assistance is critical to the success of the micro enterprise and the likelihood of loan repayment. Not only crucial to the development of the business of the micro borrower, micro loans also serve to strengthen and build communities, both growing and those in need of resurgence. To date, lending intermediaries have made 10,230 loans, worth in the range of $105 million. This money and business activity is stimulating many communities. As importantly, loans made by this Program have created new jobs. The Small Business Administration reports that for every loan made, 1.7 jobs have been created. Given the number of loans, this calculates to approximately 17,391 new jobs to strengthen the vitality of our communities. The legislation I am cosponsoring today makes programmatic and technical changes to the Small Business Administration's Microloan Program, making it more flexible. This flexibility will help the Program meet more credit needs, be more accessible to micro entrepreneurs across the country, and streamline procedures which increase lenders' ability to make loans and provide technical assistance to micro entrepreneurs. The Microloan Program has had substantial achievements. In South Carolina, a small retail establishment's owner wished to sell his outlet to an employee, but traditional lenders balked. The Microloan Program gave the employee the helping hand he needed with a micro loan. He paid that initial loan back early, and a second micro loan, as well. The banks now knock on his door. In Virginia, a woman, whose husband became disabled and unable to support the family, used a micro loan to start a used car dealership. That business has succeeded. So much so that she has established a program in her community that helps other women get off welfare by providing the automobile transportation to get to and from work. I want to be able to cite similar examples in my own State of Louisiana. In Louisiana, currently, we do not have any micro lenders enrolled in the Program. However, I have fought for increased funding to make sure the Program is adequately funded so that nationwide we can provide more micro loans and technical assistance. In the last Congress, I voted for legislation that increased the number of intermediaries authorized from 200 to 300 so that we can reach more micro entrepreneurs across the country. And today, the proposed legislation will make the necessary changes to increase the attractiveness of the Program to prospective micro lenders in Louisiana and elsewhere around the country. The legislation being introduced today would broaden the eligibility criteria for intermediaries in an effort to bring lenders into the Program. This legislation would allow for intermediaries to have equivalent lending experience, rather than requiring exact micro lending experience. In addition, this legislation increases the amounts intermediaries can use to subcontract technical assistance, thus easing the burden on lenders in providing technical assistance. This legislation should encourage intermediaries to get involved in the SBA's Microloan Program in Louisiana. I urge lenders in my State to take note of the need for their future involvement in this Program. They could make big differences in their communities by making very small loans. I have consistently supported this Program since joining the Committee on Small Business, and will continue to do so because of the many benefits that the Microloan Program can provide to micro entrepreneurs and our communities. Passage of this legislation can continue the successes of the Microloan Program and extend its reach into many other communities, such as those in Louisiana. I thank Senator Kerry and Senator Snowe for their leadership on this legislation and encourage the Committee to act on this bill as soon as practicable.

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I rise today to bring the attention of the Senate to legislation vitally important to the success of the Microloan Program of the Small Business Administration. Congress created the Microloan Program to reach small businesses not being served by traditional lenders or other credit programs within the SBA. This program has successfully helped micro entrepreneurs, many of whom are minorities, women and low-income individuals, who otherwise would have been unable to achieve their goal of owning their own business. Due to weak or, merely, non-existent credit histories and limited borrowing experience, they were often labeled as unreliable or risky borrowers by traditional credit markets and, hence, unable to obtain loans to start businesses. To address this need and to fill the gap in micro enterprise lending, the Microloan Program was created to provide loans to non-profit intermediary lenders who, in turn, provide loans under $35,000 to very small businesses. In addition to financial resources, intermediary lenders provide technical assistance to these business owners, teaching them how to manage and run a successful business. Industry experts and micro borrowers have testified that supplementing financing with technical assistance is critical to the success of the micro enterprise and the likelihood of loan repayment. Not only crucial to the development of the business of the micro borrower, micro loans also serve to strengthen and build communities, both growing and those in need of resurgence. To date, lending intermediaries have made 10,230 loans, worth in the range of $105 million. This money and business activity is stimulating many communities. As importantly, loans made by this Program have created new jobs. The Small Business Administration reports that for every loan made, 1.7 jobs have been created. Given the number of loans, this calculates to approximately 17,391 new jobs to strengthen the vitality of our communities. The legislation I am cosponsoring today makes programmatic and technical changes to the Small Business Administration's Microloan Program, making it more flexible. This flexibility will help the Program meet more credit needs, be more accessible to micro entrepreneurs across the country, and streamline procedures which increase lenders' ability to make loans and provide technical assistance to micro entrepreneurs. The Microloan Program has had substantial achievements. In South Carolina, a small retail establishment's owner wished to sell his outlet to an employee, but traditional lenders balked. The Microloan Program gave the employee the helping hand he needed with a micro loan. He paid that initial loan back early, and a second micro loan, as well. The banks now knock on his door. In Virginia, a woman, whose husband became disabled and unable to support the family, used a micro loan to start a used car dealership. That business has succeeded. So much so that she has established a program in her community that helps other women get off welfare by providing the automobile transportation to get to and from work. I want to be able to cite similar examples in my own State of Louisiana. In Louisiana, currently, we do not have any micro lenders enrolled in the Program. However, I have fought for increased funding to make sure the Program is adequately funded so that nationwide we can provide more micro loans and technical assistance. In the last Congress, I voted for legislation that increased the number of intermediaries authorized from 200 to 300 so that we can reach more micro entrepreneurs across the country. And today, the proposed legislation will make the necessary changes to increase the attractiveness of the Program to prospective micro lenders in Louisiana and elsewhere around the country. The legislation being introduced today would broaden the eligibility criteria for intermediaries in an effort to bring lenders into the Program. This legislation would allow for intermediaries to have equivalent lending experience, rather than requiring exact micro lending experience. In addition, this legislation increases the amounts intermediaries can use to subcontract technical assistance, thus easing the burden on lenders in providing technical assistance. This legislation should encourage intermediaries to get involved in the SBA's Microloan Program in Louisiana. I urge lenders in my State to take note of the need for their future involvement in this Program. They could make big differences in their communities by making very small loans. I have consistently supported this Program since joining the Committee on Small Business, and will continue to do so because of the many benefits that the Microloan Program can provide to micro entrepreneurs and our communities. Passage of this legislation can continue the successes of the Microloan Program and extend its reach into many other communities, such as those in Louisiana. I thank Senator Kerry and Senator Snowe for their leadership on this legislation and encourage the Committee to act on this bill as soon as practicable.

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, On November 10th, we honored the 225th birthday of the United States Marine Corps. For more than two centuries, the United States Marine Corps has exemplified the highest virtues of loyalty, service, and sacrifice. From the Barbary coast to the far reaches of the Pacific, in the jungles of Vietnam and across the vast expanse of the Arabian desert, America's Marines have shown the world the meaning of ``Semper Fi.'' Through the long march of our history, few military organizations have been held in such high esteem as the United States Marine Corps. Our Marine Corps are men and women of great character. They are smart, tough, dedicated, and faithful, truly the best America has to offer. For 225 years, they have stood for all that is great about this nation: honor, courage, and commitment. Their values, sense of courage, and quiet, steadfast character remain timeless and valuable commodities for an age in which our Nation's interests face considerable new threats. Throughout their great history, Marines protected America's interests, struggled against foes who attempted to do our country harm, and remained at the forefront of our Nation's efforts to maintain global peace and stability. In hundreds of distant lands, from Nicaragua to Lebanon to Somalia, Marines restored and maintained order, aided people in distress, provided protection for the weak, and upheld the values that have come to define our country on the world stage. Many made the ultimate sacrifice in the service of their country, and we honor their memory. In my hometown of New Orleans, we are fortunate enough to be rich in Marine Corps history and tradition. We are the proud home of the Marine Forces Reserve Headquarters where Major General Mize commands more than 104,000 Reserve Marines all across the United States. We are also the home of the last Medal of Honor winner in the Vietnam War, General James E. Livingston. Despite the fact that then-Captain Livingston was wounded a third time and unable to walk, he steadfastly remained in a dangerously exposed area, supervising the evacuation of casualties. Only when assured of the safety of his men did he allow himself to be evacuated. His valor on the battlefield epitomizes the spirit of the Marine Corps. As we set out in this new century, the importance of our Marine Corps has never been more clear. Tomorrow, as today and for generations past, the razor sharp readiness of the United States Marine Corps serves as a beacon to America's friends and a warning to our enemies, promising swift action, great victories and richer traditions yet to come. On this day, I offer warmest regards to all who have worn the eagle, globe and anchor, and to the families who also serve by supporting them. You represent all that is wonderful about our Nation.

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, how much time is remaining on our side?

Ms. LANDRIEU. I thank the Chair.

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I associate myself with the remarks of the good Senator from Iowa and acknowledge his great work in the area of education. As he has pointed out--and the Senator from Illinois earlier this evening, and our leader from Nevada--we believe in bipartisanship. We believe in working together. But we do believe there are certain principles worth fighting for: The principle of fairness, the principle of equality, the principle that if we are going to help people, then let's try to help everyone, not just those in the upper- income levels. In my State--I represent Louisiana--it is very important that we try to spread some of these tax benefits, health benefits, and education benefits to households that earn under $75,000. That is not to say that people above those income levels do not also need help. I am not saying that household incomes of $75,000 and greater or ``wealthy'' or ``rich'' or ``well off'' or those who ``don't have difficulties'' don't also need help. But it is important, when we do tax cuts, to try to do it as much as we can for people at all income levels. That is why I am here today to note one provision in the underlying bill in relation to savings and pensions and 401(k)s and IRAs--a wonderful tool for people to save, if it could be designed properly and the rules drafted correctly. I rise today, however, to note a hard-to-miss opportunity for this Congress to make real tax cuts for America's working families. It is hard to miss, but it looks as if we missed it because the tax bill before us does not target help to middle-class families or give them additional savings tools. Let me take a few minutes to explain. Throughout this year, many of us have advocated meaningful, responsible, and targeted tax cuts. I had hoped we would come up with a tax reduction bill which distributed benefits equally among all income groups, recognizing that some families have had more help through our Tax Code than others. But all families, whether they are at $10,000, $20,000, $40,000, $60,000, $75,000, or $100,000, should be helped fairly. This bill fails to do that. We have before us a bill that fails to even meet this simple test of common sense. I had hoped this Congress would produce tax cuts designed to encourage family savings, not just additional consumption because while incomes have risen dramatically over the past several years, savings rates have actually declined. Savings should be made more attractive for all Americans, not just those who are already saving but those who need help or incentives to save. It not only helps them and their families but strengthens our whole economy. While the net worth of a typical American family has increased recently, the net worth of families under $25,000 has declined. According to the most recent numbers from the Commerce Department, the national savings rate in August of 2000 dropped to a negative 4 percent, meaning people are spending more than they save. This is a dramatic drop from the mid-1970s, when Americans saved about 10 percent of their income, or even the 1980s, when it fluctuated between 5 and 7 percent. I think we should do something about that. The bill before us, which expands IRAs and 401(k)s, doesn't hit the bull's-eye. It doesn't hit the target. It is helping families that are already saving to potentially save more--I argue it doesn't really accomplish that--and it doesn't help those families trying to get into the savings habit. I introduced a bill earlier that is called SAVE, Savings Accounts are Valuable for Everyone, which is to help middle- and moderate-income families build assets for themselves through IDAs, while also expanding IRA contributions. The Senator from Louisiana, Russell Long, former chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, once said: The problem with capitalism is there aren't enough capitalists. I agree with him. If we created and expanded IDAs, individual development accounts, and IRAs, and 401(k)s in the right way, we could, in fact, create more capitalists, create more pools of capital, help people to build assets and strengthen the economy for everyone. We need to expand economic opportunities for more families, not just help those already on the right track. According to another study, nearly one-third of all U.S. households hold traditional IRAs. The average income of these families is $62,500. Average assets are about $200,000. Just 10 percent hold Roth IRAs. That means 43 percent of households have chosen to use individual retirement accounts. But this is the point: Only 4 percent of those households save at the maximum rate. So by doubling an IRA from $2,000 to $5,000 or from $2,500 to $5,000, one has to question are we trying to help the top 4 percent who are saving at the maximum rate? Couldn't we spread that money out in a better way to encourage more people to save? I know I only have a minute or two remaining. Let me address one other point. I support a 401(k) savings plan. I think it is very effective. Many employers are moving to that in addition to or in lieu of their traditional pension plans. But why increase the limit of 401(k)s when the idea would be to try to use our money to entice more employers and more workers to use the 401(k) model? This tax bill does nothing to help low- and moderate-income families save for the future.

Ms. LANDRIEU. I ask unanimous consent for 30 more seconds to wrap up.

Ms. LANDRIEU. This tax bill does nothing to help low- and moderate- income families save for their future. That is where IDAs would come in. If we took the opportunity to institute a new savings vehicle called IDAs, expanded IRAs in the right way, and gave additional benefits for 401(k)s, we could use our money more wisely, spread it out among many more families in America. My message is, there is a better way to do it. I hope when this bill is vetoed by the President, there will be ample consideration to make these modifications. It would not cost more--as this chart shows, $58 billion to $44 billion. It would only require common sense, compassion, and the will to do so. I yield the floor.

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. Would that allow enough time? I am not sure how many want to speak.

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, will Senators be allowed a few minutes to speak on an unrelated matter?

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I would like to begin by commending the Senator from Nevada for his remarks, and to say that I agree with him and urge the President to veto the upcoming tax package. As written, the tax bill allocates tax breaks and tax benefits to many different interests and entities throughout America. While there are some good provisions in this bill, it could be more fair, more just and could give greater tax relief to those who need it the most. As it stands know, the package fails to demonstrate our commitment to many of the principles that we claim to stand for here on this floor. That is why I have come to this floor a number of times over the last couple of days, to just raise awareness about one small, but I think very important, part of the tax bill. I am happy to note that yesterday our majority leader, the Senator from Mississippi, Mr. Lott, and one of the leaders on this issue, our colleague from Idaho, Senator Craig, came to the floor and recognized that there had been, perhaps, a mistake made or a phrase not included, that if left out, could have some dire consequences for some of the children in this Nation--quite a large group, I might add, about 100,000 of them and potentially several hundred thousand more--who are really the most vulnerable among us. These are children who no longer have parents. They are the orphans of living, if you will. They are the children who are in foster care. These are the children who have already been abandoned once by an adult who was supposed to be taking care of them. I say to the Members on this floor--I see my good friend, Senator Grassley, who has been an outspoken advocate on this issue--that we have the opportunity because when this bill is presented to the President, he has said he will veto it because it is not distributing these benefits as equally across the board as they should be. I am hoping we can come to a bipartisan agreement, with Republicans and Democrats and the President himself, to fix what is missing in this tax credit. Let me explain a little bit about that. In 1996, there was for the first time a credit put in our Tax Code to advance adoption. I am the proud mother of two adopted children. They have brought my husband and me the greatest joy. In fact, when he was 5 years old my husband was adopted from an orphanage in Ireland. We talk publicly about the great joy of adoption. We want people to know it is a wonderful way to build a family. There are Members in this Senate, Republicans and Democrats, who have adopted children and who speak regularly about the choice of building families through adoption. The benefits to a birth mother, the benefits to the adoptive family, and most certainly the benefits to children, young and old. Some people think you don't need a family when you are 18, you just sort of age out of the system and with a good education and diploma in your hand you can go on. I am 45. I am looking forward to going home to Thanksgiving dinner with my mother and father. My husband is 50. He is looking forward to going home for Christmas with his family. You are never too old to need a mother and father, and that is what this is about, changing attitudes in America to say every child deserves a family. We have a provision in this bill that is a good provision in that it proposes to increase and extend this very important adoption tax credit. It is now $5,000. In this bill, it would be doubled from $5,000 to $10,000 for adoptions because, as we all know, the expense associated with adoption can be high. There are legal expenses. There are expenses associated with home study, agency fees. In fact, those expenses can range anywhere from a low of $2,000 to a high of $30,000, depending on what agencies you use or whether you are going through a domestic or an international adoption. So far all is good because we have a tax credit in place and we are about ready to double it. It could not be at a better time because the number of adoptions are up in America. Last year we had 130,000 adoptions, 130,000 families. That is a lot of people affected, if you think about happy grandmothers and grandfathers and aunts and uncles and siblings. It is quite a number of happy Americans whose lives were made better through adoption. But there is a problem. I have tried to keep raising this issue until it is fixed. In the current bill, although the special needs adoption is being doubled to $12,000, this Treasury report which was issued this month and other letters and reports that have been written over the last several years, have indicated that the credit is not working for the special needs children. Because of the language in the law, not-- let me underline ``not'' because of a wrong interpretation by IRS--but because of our inability to write the proper phrase in the law--either our inability or our unwillingness--the tax credit is related to adoption-related expenses. We need to remove that phrase so the act of adoption itself of special needs children can get the credit. I wish to show you pictures of a couple of the children who are going to be left out if we do not make this fix. There are 100,000 children in foster care. Jennifer is one of them. Because Jennifer has been in foster care for some time, her adoption will not be handled by a private agency. Her adoption, if a family would come forward to adopt her--and as you can see she is a beautiful and lovely child--if someone would come forward to adopt Jennifer, they would probably go through a public agency. There would be minimum home study expenses. The agency might actually pay for those. There would really be no ``qualified adoption expenses'' because the public agency, wanting to have Jennifer adopted, would minimize the expenses to the adopting family. So this adoption could potentially go through with less than $1,000 of direct expenses to the family. Therefore, if a family adopted Jennifer, the expenses they had would not qualify for a $5,000 tax credit or for a $10,000 tax credit because they do not fit into the bill's definition. Yet adopting a child such as Jennifer can bring much added expense to a family, particularly a working family, a middle-class family, perhaps having children already of their own but thinking God would like them to make room in their homes for another child. It is a tremendous financial responsibility, as all of us with children know, to raise a child. Much less, a child with special needs. A family who adopts a child with special needs does have additional expenses, they just are not covered under the very narrow definition of the code. Unless we change the law, they will not be able to get the tax credit. That is not what we intended. They say Jennifer is very sweet and has a great sense of humor. She likes to play outside, ride bikes, and swim. She is a very active child. She has some emotional disorders. Anyone would have emotional disorders if they were abandoned as a baby, abused, and grossly neglected. These children need healing, and we need to do everything we can to support that. This is Joshua and Jonathan. They are 5-year-old twins. As a sibling group, the hope is that they will be placed together. Therefore, a family who adopts them must have room in their hearts and homes for two children. Joshua is described as well-mannered, sneaky, and babyish. He enjoys school and its challenges. He has a nice smile and likes to cuddle. Jonathan is described as eager and easygoing. He likes to be helpful around the house. He likes talking about his feelings and explaining himself. Both are in excellent physical and mental condition. These are children we hope a family will identify and bring into their home and love. There are many examples. If we do not fix the tax credit, the families who adopt Jennifer, Joshua, and Jonathan will not get the full benefit of the tax credit. Some people have been critical about my passion with regard to this issue. They say: Senator, you shouldn't speak about it; at least the adoption credit is working for children from China, Honduras, and Guatemala. You know the desperate situation in those countries. Since this is the only form of financial assistance for families who want to adopt these kids, if it expires, they will be left with nothing. Yes, I want this tax credit to work when families choose to adopt internationally, when families choose to adopt a domestic healthy infant, and when they choose to adopt perhaps an older child, a sibling group, and give these kids who have already been let down once a chance to come into a family. I am here today because I want the tax credit to be available for all families regardless of what type of adoption they pursue. Mr. President, as I am sure you are aware, their are many different types of adoptions, each with different costs, different processes, and different children. All I ask, is that we have a tax code that recognizes and appreciates those differences. I believe there is consensus. There is an easy and relatively inexpensive way to fix this problem once and for all. That is why I am taking this time now to bring it to the attention of those who have the power to fix it at this late date, and hopefully we can. Some say we should wait until next year to fix it. If we can fix it now, why take another year out of the lives of some of these children? Why not help parents now? I will make one final point. The Senator from Iowa may be interested to know this. Yesterday, as I was on the floor speaking about this issue, the New York Times ran a full-length story about the problems with our foster care system. For the first time in our Nation's history, two girls in the foster care system and their attorneys successfully sued the Department of Social Services of Florida and received a judgment of $4.4 million. The case was brought by an attorney who believed that the children had been shortchanged. These two beautiful little girls had been abandoned by their mother. They were left in a Miami park or public place when they were 2 or 3 years old. Instead of determining whether these children could ever be reunited with their mother, father, or some relative to make them safe, the Department of Social Services put them in foster care. Those little girls spent the next 14 years of their lives going from home to home, with 30 different placements. They were sexually molested and physically abused. The court rightfully said the State of Florida now owes these two little girls 4.4 million dollars. There is a happy ending. They have subsequently been adopted by a wonderful family. I am here to say we had better fix this tax credit because if this case goes forward--and I think it will--the taxpayers of the United States are going to pick up a far greater expense than perhaps providing a few thousand dollars to families willing to adopt these children. Even if it is not the money, it is the justice and morality of this Nation, which is the strongest nation in the world. We do not have our strength represented by how high our stock market goes up. Our strength is represented by our willingness and ability to help kids and families, and if we cannot do this, then I do not know what we are doing here. I yield back the remainder of my time. I thank Senator Lott, Senator Craig, and Senator Grassley for their great leadership in this area. I look forward to working with them on this project. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to print the New York Times article in the Record.

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, would it be appropriate to inquire now if I could be placed on the list to speak as if in morning business for approximately 10 minutes?

Ms. LANDRIEU. Following Senator Kennedy's time, which I understand would be about 20 more minutes, and then we go into morning business. I understand Senator Allard also wants to speak. I would be happy to follow Senator Allard.

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I was on the floor yesterday and said that I would be back every day speaking about this issue, I think one of the more important issues that we need to address before we leave town. Nobody is too sure when that is actually going to happen. Some of us were expecting to be back home, having finished the people's work, weeks ago. Even as I inquire on both sides of the aisle, there is not any sense of when we will get home. I will stay here as long as it takes to get the job done, and I am not complaining. One of the things I hope we can get done in some way, somehow, through some rule, some procedure, or some bill before we leave is to fix something so we will not be embarrassed about what we have not done. I will explain. A few years ago, 5 years to be exact, a wonderful new provision was put in the law called the adoption tax credit. I am the cochair, along with Senator Craig, my wonderful colleague from Idaho. This is a wonderful coalition of Democrats, Republicans, conservatives, liberals, but we have all come together on the issue of adoption, promoting it as a wonderful way to build families, to strengthen communities, to give children hope, to put parents together with children whom they have always wanted to have, dreamed, and worked for, who will love them and raise them because governments do not do a very good job of that. The fact is, there are literally millions and millions of children in this world who are desperate for someone to love them and provide a home. Congress, in a bipartisan expression, overwhelmingly put into effect a wonderful tax credit because adoptions, unlike pregnancy, are not covered by insurance. There are not the same benefits, unfortunately, in the labor market or in business for pregnancies and adoption. Recognizing the somewhat disadvantage on families who build their families through adoption, the Congress rightfully put in place a $5,000 credit for families. There is a recent Treasury report that says the credit is being used by thousands of families. This report, which was filed in the last 2 weeks, goes into some very clear and interesting detail about who is using this credit, how much the expenses related to adoption are. For those who are not familiar, since our children are adopted, I can say from personal experience that there are expenses associated not only with the legal act itself but with agency expenses. In the United States, that can range anywhere from a low of $2,000 to a high of $15,000 or $20,000. For international adoptions--and there are many Members and staffers who have adopted who can give personal testimony-- that can range anywhere from a low of $5,000 to $30,000. It is an expense with which many moderate- and middle-income families have difficulty. Despite those difficulties, there are families all over this Nation who have adopted not one not two children. I met a family recently from Philadelphia that has adopted 20 children, some of them with special needs. This is not a family that inherited a fortune or is heir to a great fortune. This is a working family struggling to put food on the table, but because they felt compelled to give hope and prayer to some children, they have opened their home to 20. I do not expect there will be many people who will adopt 20. I am one of nine, and my mother did a pretty terrific job of raising nine of us. I have two children, which is what I can handle at this time. This adoption tax credit is working to a certain extent. We are ready to extend it because it runs out this year. We want to do that, and we want to increase it. Right now, it is $5,000 for a regular adoption and $6,000 for a special needs child. The problem is--and I urge my colleagues and those who are interested in this issue to hear me--that under the current Tax Code, special needs children--special needs children are defined as those who are in foster care. There are 100,000 of them whose parental rights--the rights of their parents--have been terminated. These children are freed for adoption. There are another 400,000 children of all ages, races, and background in foster care, either on their way to being reunited with their family, which is always our hope if that is possible, or on their way to an adoptive family. If we do not make a change in the bill on which we will be asked to vote sometime in the next few days, or if we do not make a change in the phraseology about this tax credit, we are going to leave behind 100,000 children. If the train is leaving the station, it is as if you are waving goodbye to 100,000 children in this Nation, some of the most vulnerable children, children the system has failed, children whose parents abandoned them, abused them, or grossly neglected them. The system has already failed them once, Mr. President. I do not have the heart and I do not think we have the heart to fail them again. I know there are many issues, big bills and important issues, but for 100,000 kids in America, Serina being one of them, if we do not fix this problem, which I think is the intention of this body, then we are going to leave children like Serina behind. Let me tell you a little about Serina. Serina was taken into foster care immediately upon her birth. Her mother was a 16-year-old foster child herself who was addicted to crack cocaine. Because of her mother's drug addiction, one might say we could blame the mother, but since the system failed her and left her in foster care without a real mother and real father, then I am not sure who is to blame, but this child was born with cerebral palsy because babies do not take crack cocaine very well, as well as other multiple problems, including addiction, a history of herpes, encephalitis, seizure disorders, including epilepsy. She has two biological siblings, one of whom was also adopted by her adoptive parents. The family that adopted Serina, knowing full well these conditions, knowing full well the difficulties involved in raising this child--the doctors said she could never walk; she could never hear; she could never function. She is doing all of these things beautifully. She, under our current Tax Code, gets nothing. Her parents get nothing for the adoption because she is a special needs child, as is obvious. There are no expenses necessarily associated with her adoption. These are not the kind of children that agencies regularly place. There were no legal fees. There are no adoption agency fees. We are about to pass a bill that is going to leave behind 100,000 of the most vulnerable, most needy children and their families who are doing God's work. I am happy these other children--a little girl from Guatemala and a little boy from the United States--are able to use the current adoption system. Their parents, too, have done a wonderful job giving these children an opportunity for life, love, and success. The adoption credit is working for them. I say hooray and let's continue it. But, please, let us not leave behind the special needs children of our own country, American citizens, children born in the United States. We say in the adoption caucus--and I am proud to be one of the leaders--that there are no unwanted children; there are just unfound families. If our Tax Code can help people build homes, can help businesses start up, and can help very wealthy people support their products internationally, if we can give millions and hundreds of tax credits to special interests, I most certainly think the Members of this body--the House and Senate; Republicans and Democrats--can find the will to add not one dollar but to change a phrase in the law so all children and all families can benefit from this adoption credit. Mr. President, I yield back the remainder of my time. But I will be back on the floor later today and every day, if not today, until we leave here. If I have to read the names of every one of the 100,000 children waiting, I am going to try to do that, until I get some response that this tax credit we are about to pass is going to include the children who need the help the most and their families. If I have to read all 100,000 names--this I hold in my hand is just a few--I am prepared to do it. I thank the Chair and yield back the remainder of my time. Mr. BOND addressed the Chair.

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. I know we are discussing the underlying bill. I ask unanimous consent to be yielded 7 minutes.

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I know we have been discussing a variety of subjects in the last few hours. The matter before the Senate is the Foreign Operations Appropriations bill. One of the difficulties all Members are having, is trying to get some accurate information about what is actually in these bills, as they come to us rather quickly. That is one of the things we have been talking about today. I think Senator Leahy raised an excellent point. There are provisions in foreign ops about which I also have some serious concerns. But right now, I just wanted to take a few minutes to discuss the Adoption Tax Credit. Adoption Tax Credit Mr. President, the adoption tax credit is broadly supported in this Chamber by Democrats and Republicans. It is one of the issues we seem to be able to come together on to say, yes, we believe in adoption. Adoption affirms life. It affirms families. It helps us to build families in very special ways. It provides an opportunity for children who don't have parents, and for parents who desperately want children, to get together. Over the last couple of years, together, Democrats and Republicans, the White House, President Clinton and the First Lady, have been aggressive advocates of adoption. We have made great progress. Just last week, under the tremendous leadership of Chairman Helms, we passed the first ever International Treaty on Adoption. This treaty is going to reduce corruption, minimize the costs of international adoptions, and expedite this process so the children all around the world can find homes. We believe there are no unwanted children, just unfound families. We passed historic legislation a few years ago to help break down racial barriers to allow people of all different races to adopt children in need, in order to build families. We all know that love knows no color lines. We are doing a wonderful job. I am on the floor today to encourage my colleagues to just try to do a little bit better. I am concerned that we are not going to expand this adoption tax credit and increase it in ways that are meaningful, in ways that will make a difference. Just two months ago, many members of this body gathered in Philadelphia and vowed that under their leadership, no child would be left behind. This is a laudable goal, and one I think that every member of this body embraced. Here is our opportunity to prove it. Let me briefly explain what I mean. Right now, as many people know-- particularly those who have adopted children, or who have been touched in a positive way in their life through adoption, either as an adoptee, as a birth mother who is happy with the choice she made, or an adoptive couple--there is in place a $5,000 tax credit for adoption. We adopted this tax credit in 1996, in an effort to provide assistance to families wishing to adopt. It allows parents who adopt a child to receive a maximum of $5,000 in credit on their taxes. If that child is what we call a special needs child, the amount of the credit is raised by $1,000. In addition, reimbursements for adoption expenses from a private employer are also excluded from an adoptive parent's gross annual income. The National Adoption Clearinghouse estimates that a private adoption costs anywhere from $4,000 to $30,000. International adoptions are reported at between $10,000 and $30,000. About six months ago, I was at a citizenship ceremony for newly adopted children. One mother came up to me and told me that, without the tax credit, she could not have even thought about adopting a second child. So this is an important tax credit. It helps waiting children find homes. It helps working couples who want to be parents experience the sheer joy parenting brings. But it is not working for everyone. Unfortunately, the way the credit is currently structured, it is not helping all adoptive families, just some. Let me show you why. As you can see, I have pictures of three children here, all of whom were adopted. The first Elena, a child from Guatemala, who was adopted when she was one year old. She has no known health conditions. This second child is Jack, a little boy from the United States, who was given up for adoption when he was born. Jack was immediately placed through a private adoption agency. Jack also has no known health conditions. And this is Serina, a little girl, also from the United States who was also recently adopted. Serina was taken into foster care immediately upon her birth. She was born with prenatal cocaine addiction. She is small, in a wheelchair, and has difficulty seeing and hearing. She suffers from Cerebral Palsy, as well as multiple other problems. As I mentioned, these two children, Elena and Jack, are relatively healthy. The third child, Serina, has multiple challenges. Under our current system, one would think all of these children and their families would deserve some help with adoption. But right now under our system, Elena and Jack have received help. Elena's parents received $9,786, while Jack's family claimed $5,890. Serina's parents, on the other hand, received nothing. Under the current tax code, only expenses which are incurred in the act of adoption are eligible. Although adopting Serina meant that her adoptive parents had to renovate their car and make their home wheelchair accessible, such costs are not ``qualified adoption expenses.'' As I mentioned, the difficulty lies in the tax code. One can be reimbursed for expenses related to the adoption. But, as is widely known in the adoption community, when you adopt a special needs child, perhaps one who is not physically handicapped, or one who has emotional or mental difficulties or has been in foster care, there are little or no expenses related to the active adoption. Serina is a special needs child, just like the 100,000 special needs children who are freed for adoption in the United States and yet are still waiting for a home. These are all children like Serina, waiting for a family to love and care for them. We want that adoption tax credit to work for these children, as well. The Department of Treasury estimates that, not including step parents, there were 77,000 adoptions in 1998, 31,000 of which were special needs. That is almost half. Therefore, under our current system, the very children and families we are trying to help, encourage, and reward for opening up their homes and hearts to these children are actually being left out. Here is a report to Congress from our own Department of Treasury, a report we received just in the last week. I brought this to the attention of our ranking member on the Finance Committee, Senator Moynihan. This has also been transmitted to Chairman Roth from Delaware, to help my colleagues understand that, according to this report, special needs children are being left out. I know that in the final days of the session, negotiators have been trying to reach a final agreement on a tax package. However, I am told that, while this package does include a provision to extend the non-special needs tax credit for two additional years, it does not include any relief for special needs children. I know some people might say: Senator Landrieu is not right. She couldn't possibly be right. This can not be happening. We are not giving a tax credit for healthy kids and no tax credit for special needs kids. That wasn't our intention. At least I believe it wasn't our intention. Let me conclude by saying, when people stand up on this floor, or in Philadelphia, or in California, giving speeches all over America, and say they don't want to leave children behind, that ``no child will be left behind'', we are about to leave 100,000 children behind, because we will not take the time and the energy to fix this adoption tax credit. Children such as Serina, children in my State and a number of others, all of these beautiful children from different States--these are the kids who are about to be left behind. If I have to come to this floor every day until we are finished--and Lord only knows how long we will be here--I will continue to do so, to speak for the children who are being left behind. We can fix the tax credit; it costs very little to fix it. If we are truly a body which vows to leave no child behind, then we must do something to help both special needs and non special needs children. Mr. President, I will come to the floor every day if necessary to ensure that these children are not left behind. I thank the Chair. I yield back my remaining time.

Ms. LANDRIEU. I have requested time. I understand under a previous unanimous consent request, Senator Graham of Florida was granted 30 minutes. He is yielding me a part of his time.

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I wish to join with my colleague, Senator Breaux, in recognizing the great civic contributions of my dear friend, Virginia Shehee. It is so appropriate that the Biomedical Research Foundation of Northwest Louisiana should be gathering to honor this amazing woman, whose vision and energy led to the creation of the Foundation and the many benefits that it has produced for the citizens of Shreveport--Bossier and Northwest Louisiana. I have known Virginia Shehee and come to treasure her example and her friendship in my service as a State official in Louisiana and in my first term as a U.S. Senator. To those of us who believe that Louisiana must move aggressively to be part of the knowledge-based economy, the evolution of Biomed and the opportunities it has come to represent stand as a model of civic leadership and foresight. It is the story of a community that dared to dream big dreams at a time in its history when those dreams seemed most remote. But those dreams are coming true, and young people who once had to leave home to participate in the new economy are now finding significant career opportunities in Northwest Louisiana. Of all the community leaders who can share in the credit for this remarkable achievement, none has played a larger role than Virginia Shehee. Her grit and unyielding persistence led to millions of dollars in state and federal construction and program dollars for a Biomedical Research Institute. And her salesmanship and gentle charm have opened doors to a world of promising cooperative relationships and new corporate citizens for Shreveport. Some years ago, not too long after the Institute opened its doors, Virginia led a blue-ribbon group of Shreveporters, some half her age, on an industry-hunting trip through the mid-Atlantic and New England. Nothing could capture the indefatigable energy of the leader of the trip more than the words of a lapel button, which someone distributed to participants after the trip: ``I Survived Shehee's March!'' As the CEO of one of Louisiana's largest companies and as a leader in the insurance industry, as one of the earliest women members of the Louisiana Legislature, as a caring steward of our great state university, as a devoted wife and mother and as someone who gives utterly selflessly and endlessly to her community, Virginia Shehee has earned the love and admiration of all of us who are privileged to know her and work with her. It will be a great moment for me on the evening of Friday, November 3, when I get to be part of the evening in which the Shreveport community says, ``Thanks, Virginia. Let Shehee's March continue.''

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I am deeply saddened by the loss of the brave men and women of the U.S.S. Cole. October 12, 2000 will long be remembered as a day of heavy emotions for our armed forces and all American people. All of our hearts have been consumed with anger and sorrow at the senseless act of terrorism that, on that day, left seventeen United States sailors dead, and thirty-nine injured. All young, all promising, all dedicated to defending America's values and way of life. But my heart is also filled with pride in these men and women. Our sailors served in the finest traditions of the Navy, selflessly dedicating themselves to serving our country with bravery and integrity. And I rise today to honor those who gave their lives in the line of duty. We will not forget your superb service and ultimate sacrifice. As I extend my heartfelt sympathy to the families of the Cole Sailors, let me also say to the world that the United States will not rest until those responsible for this attack are held accountable for this atrocious destruction of innocent American life. Let there be no mistake. We will use every tool in our arsenal to track down and charge our adversaries for this cowardly act. The British poet A.E. Housman wrote, ``The troubles of our proud and angry dust are from eternity and shall not fail. Bear them we can, and if we can, we must.'' Housman's poem speaks to our strong tradition of persistence and moral courage to stand up for our values. Let our resilience signal to the world that no terrorist attack can encroach our resolve. We will not shrink to defeat, but grow stronger in our commitment to securing peace and stability throughout this nation's areas of interest. Seventeen U.S.S. Cole sailors did not suffer tragic deaths in vain. They died protecting freedom, and defending the greatest nation on Earth. So now, I join my colleagues and the families of the U.S.S. Cole crew in solemn prayer for these brave sailors, the protectors of America's great democracy. God bless you and God bless America.

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. I thank the Senator. Mr. President, let me read some recent headlines from our national newspapers because the Senator was making an earlier point that I agree with, that this isn't just in poor neighborhoods; this isn't just in neighborhoods of people who have recently come to this Nation; this isn't about people who have not had a good education; this affects everyone in all walks of life. ``Popular Romance Novelist Shot and Killed by Estranged Husband,'' an AP story from June 1999. ``Tommy Lee goes to jail for Wife Abuse,'' from USA Today, in May 1998. ``Colorado Rockies Pitcher Arrested on Suspicion of Punching Pregnant Wife in Face,'' from the Washington Post, August 1999. ``Number of Women Dying from Domestic Violence Holding Steady Despite Drastic Drop in Overall Homicide Rates,'' San Francisco, February 1998. Mr. President, we have to do a better job. We have to continue on this track. Violence has no place in our society--on our streets, on our playgrounds, or in back alleys. But it most certainly has no place in our homes where children grow up. If a home can't be safe, if a home can't provide peace for a child or a woman, as a person, where can they find peace, Mr. President? That is what this bill is about. I think it is appropriate that the Violence Against Women Act will be passed with the Trafficking Victims Protection Act. It says that we understand that violence against women is a world wide problem. In passing the Violence Against Women Act in 1994 we seized the opportunity to be a world leader--to take the stand that in the greatest democracy in the world it is unacceptable that such violence occurs. We have spent $16 billion on programs on education, assistance and prosecution. We must continue. Every 5 minutes a woman is raped. Every day four women die as a result of domestic violence. More women are injured by domestic violence than by automobile accidents and cancer deaths combined. We have made progress but there is more to be done. Here are some of the other statistics from that Tulane study: More than eight of ten knew someone who had been murdered; More than half had witnessed a shooting; 43% said they had seen a dead body in their neighborhood; and 37% of them were themselves victims of physical violence. If we think that violence is something that only affects other countries we must think again. If we think that a bill like the violence against women's act only affects women we are wrong. Studies show that a child's exposure to the father abusing the mother is the strongest risk factor for transmitting violent behavior from one generation to the next. A significant number of young males in the juvenile justice system were from homes where violence was the order of the day. Family violence costs the nation from $5 to $10 billion annually in medical expenses, police and court costs, shelters and foster care, sick leave, absenteeism, and non-productivity. Last week I told you about a woman from my State, Jacqulene Gersfeld, who was gunned down by her husband outside a courthouse just moments after she filed for divorce. The VAWA reauthorization includes a provision to expand the investigation and prosecution of crimes of violence against women. The need for this is great 85% of all reported rapes end up with no conviction. Almost 90% result in no jail time. In Baltimore, MD, a 44 year old man was convicted of raping an 18 year old girl who was unconscious from drinking. The judge in the case said the following on the record: ``Finding an unconscious woman is a dream come true for a lot of men.'' And so he sentenced him only to probation.

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, ten years ago this October, a wall came down in Eastern Europe which marked a renaissance for democracy in that region of the world. I believe we all remember the dramatic pictures from Berlin, with crowds in celebration, and Beethoven's ``Ode to Joy'' booming in the background. On the 10th Anniversary of that celebration, I believe we have seen that promise of democracy spread to one of the last tyrannies in Europe. Last Thursday, we bore witness to similarly dramatic images of the Serbian people united in the cause of freedom. Earlier in the week, I think we all realized something dramatic had happened in Serbia. I joined with my friend and colleague, the junior Senator from Ohio to introduce a resolution commending the People of Yugoslavia for the brave step they took in their elections. It showed the kind of courage that a people must demonstrate if they are truly determined to establish the rule of law and the rule of the people. We woke up to the wonderful news that the whole world acknowledges the new Yugoslav President, Vojislav Kostunica. As in the Phillipines, Indonesia, Romania and even our nation, the will of an aroused people, determined to secure their freedom, proved irresistible. We will not soon forget the sight of ordinary men and women storming the Yugoslav parliament--the people's house--to restore that symbol of democracy to its rightful owners. While we congratulate and appreciate these dramatic developments in Serbia, it is important to reflect a little on our own democracy. This Presidential election marks the 54th time in our nation's history that executive power will change hands peacefully, and according to the will of the people. In many respects, the amazing success of our industry, our science and even our military might all rests on this simple fact. Without a foundation of freedom, Americans could never have achieved the boundless success we have known. We owe a great debt to men and women who founded our nation for their foresight and their sacrifice. The Balkans are a land of tragic history. It provided the spark for the First World War, and has been in turmoil ever since. I am reminded that on the eve of the start of World War I, the British Foreign Minister looked out his window upon a worker putting out the street lights, and remarked: The lamps are going out all over Europe; we shall not see them lit again in our lifetime. For the first time in a very long time, the lamps of European freedom are lit across the entire continent. It is a vindication of the sacrifice of two generations of Americans who risked their lives in war. It is a vindication of this nation's principles, and most of all, it is a vindication of the aspirations of the Yugoslavian people. I hope that this body, when we return next year, will act quickly and generously to welcome Serbia back to the community of nations. I also hope that we will take all necessary steps to secure a lasting peace in the Balkans. I believe it is important that we place a particular focus on the children of this region. Like so many other conflicts, the wounds of the Balkans will take time to heal. Our best hope for that healing comes from the children. I look forward to working with my colleagues so that our best hopes might be realized.