Mary Landrieu

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I am hoping there will not be opponents because we think this amendment makes a lot of sense. We are happy to agree to a time limit because we are interested in moving this debate along. I agree with our distinguished colleague from Ohio. I think his is a good amendment. I commend him for coming to the floor and bringing to the Senate an issue that is very important to Louisiana, to our educators, teachers, superintendents, and parents who are very interested in funding. I thank the Senator for continuing to advocate for us to fulfill our commitment and meet our promises to our special education students. I hope the leadership would consider accepting this amendment, which I offer in good faith, because it does not add money to the budget. It simply provides greater flexibility. I send my amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

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

Ms. LANDRIEU. I ask the Senator, is it not true that there is a $1.5 billion increase in title VI; yet there is a very small percentage or a $400 million increase for title I? If we are going to build schools or reduce class size, and this is a question, does the Senator think we should try to do it for the poorer communities first and then we can do it for everyone else? That is what my amendment attempts to do. I ask the Senator that. Is that in the interest of the Nation, to do it for the poor schools first and then worry about everyone else?

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, this amendment will not require 60 votes because it does not seek to waive the Budget Act. I am somewhat in agreement with what Senator Gramm said and our ranking member, Senator Harkin, about the fact that we do need to be concerned with the amount of spending. We need to be concerned about the amount of spending for education, for health, for our military. We want to make sure we are making smart and wise investments. We want to make sure we are not getting back into the era of big Government or irresponsible Government with irresponsible tax breaks. I am much inclined to support many of the comments that were made. This amendment fits that debate exactly. I am hoping the leadership on both sides will see it that way. Let me begin by telling my colleagues again what this amendment does not do. It does not ask to waive the Budget Act. It does not add any money to this budget. It does not reduce one penny of title I money to any State in the Nation. It simply attempts to redistribute the moneys within this budget to reflect a value about which we all speak on both sides of the aisle each day; that is, the value of trying to target the money in this budget to those children, families, and communities that need the most help. Many communities in Louisiana, California, New York, Michigan, and Mississippi are struggling to meet their obligations to provide a quality education for all children, regardless of their race, religion, or what side of the track they were born on, or whether they have a lot of money in their household or little money. We believe that in America every child deserves a quality education. We say that on this floor over and over and over again. We speak these words. We say this. But when it comes to writing our budget, which we are doing today, we don't do it. We don't do it. We have the power to do it. Fifty votes, right now, could do this. But, unfortunately, I don't think we may get more than maybe one or two or three or four because we are very good at talking about equality, fairness and justice, but when it comes to writing a budget, we don't do it. As a Democrat, it is hard for me to say, but I have to be honest and say I am not sure the President's budget reflects that value as closely as it should. I have to say the Republican budget doesn't reflect that value, and some of my own colleagues were not reflecting that value. This amendment, with all due respect to the committee and to everybody who tried to work on this, attempts to say that with some portion of this increase, we should increase title I because it is the only title that attempts to send money out in a way to this Nation where the poor children, the neediest children, get the help and attention, giving complete flexibility to the local government to decide whether it is additional teachers, additional resources. Title I has great flexibility. There are few limitations, but it says let's help the poorest children, whether it is in Louisiana or Arkansas or Mississippi or California, and there are many States that would benefit from this change. All of the increases Senator Gramm talked about, whether it is a 20- percent increase or an 8-percent increase, for the purpose of my amendment, are not really the issue because of all of the increase-- whether 20 percent or 8 percent--a small amount, a few tiny pennies, have been devoted to title I. The poorest children in this Nation, who have no lobbyists, no big and powerful agencies to represent them up here, have literally been left out. In addition, the accountability money that was placed in this budget in past years to make sure the money was going to the poor districts, the middle-income districts, and the wealthy districts has been totally taken out. So this bill we are debating, that has either a 20-percent or 8- percent increase, literally underfunds the poor children of the Nation, the moderate-income families, the lower income families, who are struggling to make the American dream possible for themselves. Yet we all come here every day and talk about widening the circle of opportunity, how we want to share the great wealth of this Nation. But when it comes to funding education for the kids who need it the most, so they can have a chance, we say no, no, and no. That ``no'' is being said on the Democratic side, the Republican side and, frankly, from the White House. This is one Senator who thinks it is wrong. If I am the only vote on the bill, let it be so. I think there will be a few others. I don't think this amendment will pass. I am sure it will be second degreed because when we can't agree, we offer a commission--I am sure someone is going to do that--to study the issue because we have to keep studying the issue of how poor children are affected when their education is at a disadvantage. I will vote against a study. I am going to vote for this amendment because it will simply move within the confines of this bill $750 million, which is still a reasonable amount of money, from one title into the title I. I ask unanimous consent that this document be printed in the Record.

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, how much time do I have remaining?

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I will try to be brief as I conclude my remarks on this important amendment. I thank my colleague from Connecticut for his extraordinary leadership in the area of education. It is particularly wonderful and refreshing to note that there are some Members of this body who will take their time and give their energy to speak on an amendment on the principles because States benefit from this--and Connecticut most certainly benefits from this. Connecticut is not one of the poorer States in the Union. I thank my colleague for his extraordinary leadership and commitment, even though he doesn't come from a State where the per capita income is low. It is quite high. It makes his leadership on this issue all the more inspiring. I thank him for his help. Connecticut will do well under this formula, as will many other States. But it is the States that have poorer rural students and poorer urban students that will do the best because that is what the Federal Government should be doing with a portion of our education money, helping to level the playing field. We talk a lot about opportunities, and then we don't fund them. We talk a lot about fairness, but we don't fund it. We talk a lot about equality, but we don't fund it. Mr. President, talk is cheap. Whether it comes from this side, that side, or down Pennsylvania Avenue, that is what this amendment is about. That is why I am insisting on a vote. That is why, while a study may be helpful, what really would be helpful is a vote for the poor kids of this Nation. One of the great Presidents of one of our distinguished universities said: If you think education is expensive, try ignorance. I offer to this body that there is not any way in this world, not with any tax cut, not with any fancy new technology, not with any new program that anybody in this Chamber can think of, we can help sustain this economic miracle of growth if we don't fund a quality education for every child in this Nation. Mr. President, this budget doesn't do it. This amendment helps to target some money to the kids who need it the most. We need to put back our accountability money, put our money where we say our values are. I yield the floor, and I ask for a vote on my amendment.

Ms. LANDRIEU. I thank the distinguished leader. I have made my closing arguments. If there is no one else to speak, I am happy to receive a motion on the amendment so we can call for a vote.

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I was under the impression that perhaps the other amendment would go first on the vote, but I thank my colleagues for giving me a moment to get here. I want to object, of course, to the tabling of this amendment. As I described earlier, I believe very strongly, as do some others, that this money should be better targeted. That is what this amendment does. It does not add new money to this bill. It simply says, of the money that we are going to spend--whether it is a 20-percent increase that Senator Gramm earlier spoke about, or an 8-percent increase--whatever the increase, if we are going to increase funding in this bill, the money should go to help the poorer children first, the communities around this Nation that need the most help, whether they be in rural areas or urban areas. Every State will gain. Every State will leave with additional money for title I. The States that need the most help will get that help. That is simply what this amendment does. I object to the tabling. I thank the Senators for granting the time.

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I congratulate the Louisiana State University Tigers on winning the 2000 College World Series. The Tigers finished the 2000 season with a regular season record of 46 and 12 and a perfect post season record of 13 and 0. Even though the Tigers enjoyed great success in both the regular and post seasons, winning the national title was no easy feat. Despite their stunning success in earlier post season games, the Tigers found themselves trailing the Stanford Cardinal 5 to 2 in the eighth inning of the final game of the world series. Through sheer will and determination the Tigers were able to come from behind with a single by Tiger catcher Brad Cresse, which brought Ryan Theriot home for the game winning run. LSU's thrilling victory enraptured loving fans throughout Louisiana. This final victory was the culmination of a season's worth of persistence and hard work which has characterized their performance throughout the decade. To date, the Tigers have won five national titles but have refused to rest on their laurels. LSU's team batting average of .341 this season is a truly commendable achievement. Senior catcher Brad Cresse distinguished himself by hitting 30 home runs over the course of the season. Senior pitcher Trey Hodges earned the Most Outstanding Player Award of the College World Series by exhibiting the same discipline and skill that carried him through the year. The guiding hand for the Tiger's winning season, LSU coach Skip Bertman, continually instilled in his players a sense of dedication, teamwork, and sportsmanship. Coach Bertman's tireless efforts were recognized when he was awarded the National Coach of the Year Award by the Collegiate Baseball Newspaper. The accomplishments of these heroes of college baseball will certainly serve as the standard for generations to come. Louisiana State University's national championship spotlights one of the Nation's premier State universities, which is committed to academic and athletic excellence.

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I come to the floor today just to add a couple of other points to this very important debate. I thank my colleagues from Washington and Maine for sponsoring this amendment. I will join with them in voting for this amendment. I simply point out to our colleagues that while emotions and passions may run quite high on this issue, as has been expressed by various Members, I do not necessarily consider this an abortion vote one way or the other. This is about our military. This is about equal rights and equal protection for men and women who serve in the military. It is a pro-military vote. It is a health care vote. We can debate, as we do regularly, and as the Senator from Oklahoma just pointed out, our differences of opinion on abortion. We have differences of opinion about whether we should be pro-choice, anti- choice, or pro-abortion. But this is an amendment concerning women who have signed up in the military, at some sacrifice to themselves and to their families, to serve our country in uniform. As a member of the Armed Services Committee, it is so hard for me to understand how this Congress could take a constitutional right away from a woman in uniform by denying her health care she may need, and in some instances may be in desperate need of, while serving our country overseas. It is for no good reason that I can understand, nor can many of us understand. We can debate the abortion issue on other bills, in other venues. We have resolutions. This is on our military bill. This is a readiness issue. We have reached out to women to serve in our Armed Forces. We have asked them to serve. Ten or fifteen percent of our Armed Forces are female. Just recently I read, with great pride--and I hope many of our Members here have read this--that in our academies, the Army, the Air Force, and the Navy academies, 5 out of the top 10 graduates this year are women. We are opening the doors of our military academies. Some of our best trained people are female, getting ready to defend our Nation's principles for which so many died. If, in fact, they are overseas and injured in the line of duty, and the woman happens to be pregnant and needs to terminate that pregnancy, they will have to go to their commanding officer, ask for permission, and be transported back on a cargo plane, if and when one is available, putting their health in jeopardy. It is not right. It is not fair. I would like to correct the record. Secretary Cohen does support giving this health benefit to women who are in our military. I would like to correct something else for the record. The Murray- Snowe amendment requires that women in uniform pay out of their own pockets for the procedure that they believe they need because of their health or that their doctor might recommend they need. In addition to paying out of their pocket, let me remind my colleagues, they are taxpayers. Their money does in fact build the hospitals and pay for the doctors. The last time I checked the Tax Code, both men and women pay taxes, not just the men of this Nation. So for the readiness issue, for the military issue, I ask my colleagues, even those who are opposed to abortion on constitutional grounds, since it is a constitutional right, let us please have consideration for the women who are in uniform, who serve our country valiantly, and who may indeed find themselves in a foreign and strange land, in some instances, fighting for the principles we represent here. For them to not be able to get the health care they need because some Members of this body voted to take that right away from them, I do not want to be in that number. Mr. President, I am proud to support this amendment. I urge all of my colleagues to join with us in supporting this important amendment. I yield back the remainder of my time.

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I want to speak for a few moments this morning and introduce a bill that I am calling the Savings Are Valuable for Everyone Act, the SAVE Act of 2000. Mr. President, as of February 1, 2000, the United States officially entered into the longest period of economic expansion in our history. This means we have had nine years of continuous growth--a hard-earned achievement. During this time, we have had the first back-to-back federal budget surpluses in 43 years, the smallest welfare rolls in 30 years, and 20 million new jobs for people across America. Clearly we are doing something right. However, that does not mean our work is done. In order for this economic prosperity to reach its full potential, we must continue to provide more opportunities (not guarantees) to widen the ``winners' circle'' and allow all Americans to participate in our economic expansion. According to the U.S. Department of Labor, the latest unemployment figures show that most Americans do have jobs. The unemployment average is 4.1 percent and many states have even lower rates, such as Iowa with 2.5 percent, New Hampshire with 2.7 percent, and Virginia with 2.8 percent. In some places across the country, there are some even higher spots, such as Howard County, Maryland, where the unemployment rate is a remarkable 1.4 percent. However, because of the high cost of living, many working families still struggle to make ends meet and are being forced to live from paycheck to paycheck, without any hope of saving for the future or building the tangible assets which are so important to upward mobility. I recently finished reading the book, ``The Millionaire Next Door,'' and discovered that when the authors of this book began interviewing millionaires as part of their research, they were surprised to find most of the wealthy people they spoke with didn't drive fancy sports cars, or have $5,000 gold watches or even live in fabulous mansions. They were first-generation business people who, through aggressive saving, sensible investing and frugal spending, had managed to accumulate a significant amount of assets. While not everyone's goal in life is to become a millionaire, this book does carefully outline the road to fiscal security and clearly documents the importance of saving. I know that you will be as shocked as I was to learn that, while the net worth of the typical American family has increased dramatically recently, the net worth of families under $25,000 has actually been decreasing. The Federal Reserve Board recently released a study which showed that families earning under $10,000 a year had a medium net worth of $1,900 in 1989. This figure rose to $4,800 in 1995 but slipped to $3,600 by 1998. The net worth of families who earn less than $25,000 annually was $31,000 in 1995 but then dropped to $24,800 in 1998. During this same time period, while the number of families who owned a home or business rose overall, this figure among lower income families has actually decreased. In 1995, 36.1 percent of families who earned less than $10,000 a year owned a home, however by 1998 this number had decreased to 34.5 percent. In 1995, 54.9 percent of families who earn less than $25,000 annually owned their home but in 1998 this percentage was reduced to 51.7 percent. Mr. President, I rise today to address this problem by introducing the Savings Are Valuable for Everyone Act of 2000, or SAVE, which will help all families save for the future. The goal of SAVE is simple: help the working poor build assets for themselves and to expand the IRA limit to ensure retirement savings. The goal is not income redistribution, but instead it is to find ways that allow opportunities for everyone, regardless of income, to build the productive assets that lead to economic security. In order to help the working poor break the discouraging cycle of living from paycheck to paycheck and to help the lower-middle class move up the income ladder and save for the future, this measure provides incentives for the accumulation of assets through the use of Individual Development Accounts, or IDAs, while, at the same time, making it easier for the rest of America to save for retirement. IDAs are matched savings accounts which are restricted to three uses: (1) post-secondary education/training; (2) small business start-up costs; and (3) purchasing a first home. Private as well as state and local public sector funds can also be contributed to the account with a special tax credit of up to $500 a year attached to the private contribution. Usually it takes two to four years for the account holder to accumulate enough funds to purchase the asset they were saving for and, before the money is released, they must complete an approved financial education course which is provided by the qualified financial institution or non-profit which holds the account. All IDAs must be held at a ``qualified financial institutions,'' meaning, any financial institution qualified to hold an IRA. IDAs are available to all citizens or legal residents of the United States who are at least 18 years old and whose household income does not exceed 80 percent of the area median income, or AMI. At least 33 percent of the IDAs will be targeted to households which are at 50 percent or below the AMI. Contributions made by a participant into an IDA are limited to $2,000 per year. While the individuals who open these accounts are encouraged to use the money for their own benefit, they may withdraw it to help a spouse or dependent open a business, buy a house, or further their education. For example, one such program was started in March of 1999, by Hibernia Bank Louisiana. They began pilot IDA programs in New Orleans, with another one operating in Shreveport, to help low-income families save for a house. So far, 11 families are participating in the New Orleans program, with seven already placed in homes of their own and four shopping for one. The program administrator said these 11 families ``absolutely would not be in a position to buy a home at this time'' without this program. Hibernia matches the account holders funds two-to-one up to a set amount. The funds then can be used for home-buying costs, such as a down payment or closing costs--lump sums that often can be prohibitive to working families on a tight budget. In order to encourage the establishment of IDAs, two tax credits are offered. The first is available to participating financial institutions. For every dollar saved in an IDA, the qualified financial institution will provide a one to one match, limited to $500 per person per year. The financial institution would then be eligible for a 90 percent federal tax credit for matching funds provided. The second tax credit is known as the IDA Investment Tax Credit. In order to leverage private sector investments and encourage broader community involvement in this program, a 50 percent tax credit will be available for investments in qualified non-profits, 501(c)(3)s or credit unions, which can administer qualified IDA programs. However, in order qualify for this tax credit, at least 70 percent of the funds received must be used for financial education, program monitoring, and/ or program administration. Any taxpayer can participate can participate as a donor. It is important to remember that each IDA consists of two parallel accounts--one that the participants make his deposits into and one that the donor makes their deposits of matching funds into. The interest on the money in the participant's account would be taxed while all funds in the matching account (including interest) would be tax free. One could say that the participant's account is treated in a similar fashion to the way that the IRS treats IRAs and 401(k)s. Already an estimated 3,000 people nationwide are taking advantage of available pilot programs, which are run in partnership with more than 100 nonprofit organizations and authorized financial institutions. This fact shows the strength of this plan: it serves as a catalyst for the rapid creation of public-private partnerships--between accountholders, banks, foundations, policymakers and providers of financial education-- that are the hallmark of successful IDA programs. As you can see, IDAs are not only good for individuals and their families, they also are good for the future of our country. Russell Long once said, ``The problem with Capitalism is that there are not enough Capitalists.'' IDAs provide a tool with which our country can address this age-old problem and help create more Capitalists. When capitalism is combined with the proper social safety nets and incentives for asset development for those at all income levels, we create incentives for saving at all levels while you create a capitalist system that works for everybody. These accounts are a sure- fire mechanism that will build assets and create wealth among the families and communities who need help the most. Economic analyses of the impact of a national IDA investment show that for every dollar invested, a $5 return to the national economy would result in the form of new businesses, new jobs, increased earnings, higher tax receipts and reduced welfare expenditures. However, it is important to realize that the Savings Accounts Are Valuable for Everyone Act does not simply focus on the working poor. It also provides savings incentives for the middle class by expanding the current Individual Retirement Account limits from $2,000 a year to $3,500. Currently, our tax code allows individuals to save up to $2,000 a year in IRAs with income earned on the deposits either being tax deferred until withdrawal, which can begin at age 59\1/2\, or, through the use of the Roth IRA, the taxes can be paid up front on the money deposited into the accounts. SAVE will make these accounts an even better tool for retirement saving by expanding the annual contribution limits. I firmly believe that we must find ways to shift our nation's policy from one of consumption to one of savings and wealth accumulation for all American households. To understand why, one need only consider these facts which were calculated by the Corporation for Enterprise Development in Washington, D.C.: One-half of all American households have less than $1,000 in net financial assets; One-third of all American households and 60 percent of African- American households have zero or negative net financial assets; Forty percent of all white children and 73 percent of all black children grow up in households with zero or negative financial assets; By some estimates, 13-20 percent of all American households do not even have a checking or savings account; and Ten percent of all American households control two-thirds of the wealth. We already have a tax code that provides over $300 billion in federal tax expenditures which are dedicated to asset building for middle- and upper-income wage earners and businesses, but tax-based incentives are still out of reach for most lower- and middle-income families. In this time of wealth and prosperity, why can't we offer tools that will assist in asset building for the families who need them the most--the working poor and moderate-income families who make up the backbone of our economic system. Benjamin Franklin once said, ``The wealth of an individual is measured not by what a person earns but by what he saves.'' Take the example of Oseola McCarty of Mississippi. Oseola toiled in obscurity for most of her life, taking in other people's laundry for $2 a bundle and amassing a small fortune by socking away every extra cent in a savings account. At the age of 87, she donated $150,000 of her life savings to the University of Southern Mississippi, establishing a scholarship fund to give African-American youths a chance for the education she never received. What Oseola accomplished is a great example of the power of savings. Savings, investing and assets--not necessarily income--determine wealth. Just think what Oseola could have accomplished, not only for herself but for others, with the benefit of a program like IDAs to add matching funds and additional interest to her hard-earned savings. IDAs are partnerships between the government, the community and the individual to build stronger families and a stronger economy. For not only do Americans improve their economic security through the building of assets, this also stimulates the development of capital for the entire nation. As our nation continues to build on our recent economic successes, we in Congress must continue to look for innovative ways to give working families the tools they need to plan for the future. Passage of the Savings Accounts are Valuable for Everyone Act is one way we can do this. Mr. President, to summarize my comments, I will share a story about what this act, if passed and adopted, will do. There is a family in Washington, the Darden family. Selena and Dwayne Darden thought they were doing the best they could do. They were both working, earning about 150 percent of the poverty rate. They had four children and were doing a very good job of raising their children, but basically living paycheck to paycheck. They never thought they could save for the future or, for that matter, own a home. There just wasn't anything extra. Then just about 2 years ago, according to this article, Selena, who is a beautician, heard about something called Individual Development Accounts, a program that was offered here in Washington with the Capital Area Asset Building Corporation. They inquired and were told basically that this was a pilot program that Congress had established a few years earlier that would allow her and her husband to put up some savings, which would be matched by the Federal Government through an appropriate financial institution and a community agency that would provide some education and support for the effort. If she was a consistent and good saver, she and her husband could save enough for a downpayment. The end of the story is that they did; they saved enough. They are now proud homeowners right here in Marshall Heights. I share that story because that is exactly what this bill does. In my State, in the last few years, I have come to learn about these pilot programs that we initiated through the work of Senator Coats, and Senator Santorum has been on this issue for some time, and Senator Lieberman has been advocating this proposal. I want to add my voice by introducing this bill to say how much I support this effort, and to take these pilot programs that have been successful and expand them nationwide. In Louisiana, I have come across many families from New Orleans to Shreveport, and elsewhere, who are coming into partnership with the Hibernia Bank and community action organizations, such as the Providence House in Louisiana, that help families get back on their feet when they go through a crisis. The idea is to help create these accounts. People can begin saving money. The bill allows for them to either use the funds for home ownership, because we know how important that is, or building a person's confidence and self-esteem--how important it is for children to live in a home that actually belongs to them, as opposed to renting and perhaps having to move, and to be able to put down roots. We know how important that is. This bill will allow people to save to start up a business. We spend a lot of time in Washington talking about business. Sometimes I think we focus on businesses that are actually quite large, which is wonderful; but we need to focus on the great strength of America, which is small business--that entrepreneur out there who takes a risk to start a business. He employs himself and one, two, or three other people. That is the backbone of the American economy and the great system we have enjoyed. We are really the envy of the world. This bill will allow for people to save a few thousand dollars to start a successful business and employ members of their family, or friends, or other workers in their area. I am hoping we can potentially consider, as this bill moves through the process, that it may allow savings for a transportation vehicle. If you can get a good job, sometimes the jobs are not necessarily where people live. Mass transit is not as dependable as it should be. Perhaps we should consider this matched savings plan to give people the ability to get a vehicle and to be able to drive to work. Some of these pilots allow that. This bill will allow for these savings accounts. It is limited to households of 80 percent of the median income, based on regions, and 150 percent of the national poverty rate. While that might work for Louisiana, it doesn't work very well for poor families in Connecticut or California, where the standard of living is high. We have designed this bill to reach to the low-income working poor. But we are sensitive to the different regions in this Nation. We believe if we can help people accumulate assets and encourage them to save, that not only is it good for individual families but it is good for our Nation to encourage savings rates. Let me share a few statistics about this which are of very great concern to me and of which I would like my colleagues to be more aware. According to a recent report by the Corporation for Enterprise Development in Washington, DC, one-half of all American households have less than $1,000 in financial assets; one-third of all American households and 60 percent of African American households have zero, or negative financial assets; 40 percent of all white children and 73 percent of all African American children grow up in households with zero or negative financial assets; by some estimates, 13 to 20 percent of all American households do not have a checking or a savings account; and 10 percent of all American households control currently two-thirds of the wealth. If we want to address an income gap, if we want to try to increase prosperity, if we want to try to eliminate poverty, I suggest that our efforts have to be more than just income, more than just about full employment or a job. It is about income, frugal spending, and aggressive savings. And we should be partnering with the American people to do just that, to encourage wealth and assets creation and development. Not everyone wants to be a millionaire. Some people are better at that than others. But I don't know of a family that doesn't want to have financial security--not one. Whether they work at a relatively modest job from 9 to 5, or whether they work two jobs, or three, or whether they are quite aggressive and well educated enough to make large sums of money, in every case I think it is about security. It is about choices. But I don't know any family that doesn't want to be secure. We can be better partners in this Government by encouraging policies such as this that enable people to be part of that American dream, to widen the winners circle, because we have the greatest economic expansion underway and there is a cost-effective way to do it. Let me just make a couple of other points as I close. According to some documents that are supporting this policy, let me read for the Record a couple of things: No. 1, assets matter and have largely been ignored in poverty policy debates. No. 2, individual development accounts address the wealth gap and bring people into the financial mainstream. No. 3, public policy plays a large role in determining levels of household wealth. People say, We can't afford to do this. They ask, Why would we want to do this for a certain group of people, low- and moderate-income people? One reason is we already do it to the tune of $300 billion for middle-income and wealthy individuals and businesses. It is called tax incentives. All throughout our Tax Code and public policy, we are already putting up $300 billion to help create and maintain assets for the wealthy and for businesses. Let's do the same for the working poor and lower and middle class so they can be more able to join this extraordinary economic expansion. We do that through IRAs and 401(k)s and IDAs, which are good national investments and they improve the national savings rate. In conclusion, let me say that this SAVE Act will expand IDA. It also raises the income limits for IRAs for all families in America to encourage them to save. By expanding the opportunities for IRAs, which many of us have supported in a bipartisan way, and by implementing IDAs from pilots to a national model, I believe we could go a long way in eliminating poverty, expanding the middle class, and expanding and widening the winners circle in this great economic expansion. I share this with my colleagues. I thank again Senator Lieberman for his great work. Senator Santorum has also been leading this effort. Senator Dan Coats, who is no longer serving with us, I understand was one of the original sponsors of this pilot program. It is now time. We know it works to take it national. That is what we do with this bill. I yield whatever time I may have. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to insert additional material into the Record.

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, let me say to my colleague from New Jersey how much we are going to miss his service and his leadership. I know several of my colleagues spoke earlier today on naming the train station after him. It was very appropriate; he has been such a leader in the area of transportation, particularly mass transportation, particularly in regard to how those transportation methods affect our environment. I was happy to join my colleagues today in doing that. I have really enjoyed working with him in my time here. I thank the Senator for the great service he has rendered to Louisiana. He has been a good friend to us when we have come to this floor and to meetings about things important to our State and our region of the country.

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I want to speak for a few moments this morning and introduce a bill that I am calling the Savings Are Valuable for Everyone Act, the SAVE Act of 2000. Mr. President, as of February 1, 2000, the United States officially entered into the longest period of economic expansion in our history. This means we have had nine years of continuous growth--a hard-earned achievement. During this time, we have had the first back-to-back federal budget surpluses in 43 years, the smallest welfare rolls in 30 years, and 20 million new jobs for people across America. Clearly we are doing something right. However, that does not mean our work is done. In order for this economic prosperity to reach its full potential, we must continue to provide more opportunities (not guarantees) to widen the ``winners' circle'' and allow all Americans to participate in our economic expansion. According to the U.S. Department of Labor, the latest unemployment figures show that most Americans do have jobs. The unemployment average is 4.1 percent and many states have even lower rates, such as Iowa with 2.5 percent, New Hampshire with 2.7 percent, and Virginia with 2.8 percent. In some places across the country, there are some even higher spots, such as Howard County, Maryland, where the unemployment rate is a remarkable 1.4 percent. However, because of the high cost of living, many working families still struggle to make ends meet and are being forced to live from paycheck to paycheck, without any hope of saving for the future or building the tangible assets which are so important to upward mobility. I recently finished reading the book, ``The Millionaire Next Door,'' and discovered that when the authors of this book began interviewing millionaires as part of their research, they were surprised to find most of the wealthy people they spoke with didn't drive fancy sports cars, or have $5,000 gold watches or even live in fabulous mansions. They were first-generation business people who, through aggressive saving, sensible investing and frugal spending, had managed to accumulate a significant amount of assets. While not everyone's goal in life is to become a millionaire, this book does carefully outline the road to fiscal security and clearly documents the importance of saving. I know that you will be as shocked as I was to learn that, while the net worth of the typical American family has increased dramatically recently, the net worth of families under $25,000 has actually been decreasing. The Federal Reserve Board recently released a study which showed that families earning under $10,000 a year had a medium net worth of $1,900 in 1989. This figure rose to $4,800 in 1995 but slipped to $3,600 by 1998. The net worth of families who earn less than $25,000 annually was $31,000 in 1995 but then dropped to $24,800 in 1998. During this same time period, while the number of families who owned a home or business rose overall, this figure among lower income families has actually decreased. In 1995, 36.1 percent of families who earned less than $10,000 a year owned a home, however by 1998 this number had decreased to 34.5 percent. In 1995, 54.9 percent of families who earn less than $25,000 annually owned their home but in 1998 this percentage was reduced to 51.7 percent. Mr. President, I rise today to address this problem by introducing the Savings Are Valuable for Everyone Act of 2000, or SAVE, which will help all families save for the future. The goal of SAVE is simple: help the working poor build assets for themselves and to expand the IRA limit to ensure retirement savings. The goal is not income redistribution, but instead it is to find ways that allow opportunities for everyone, regardless of income, to build the productive assets that lead to economic security. In order to help the working poor break the discouraging cycle of living from paycheck to paycheck and to help the lower-middle class move up the income ladder and save for the future, this measure provides incentives for the accumulation of assets through the use of Individual Development Accounts, or IDAs, while, at the same time, making it easier for the rest of America to save for retirement. IDAs are matched savings accounts which are restricted to three uses: (1) post-secondary education/training; (2) small business start-up costs; and (3) purchasing a first home. Private as well as state and local public sector funds can also be contributed to the account with a special tax credit of up to $500 a year attached to the private contribution. Usually it takes two to four years for the account holder to accumulate enough funds to purchase the asset they were saving for and, before the money is released, they must complete an approved financial education course which is provided by the qualified financial institution or non-profit which holds the account. All IDAs must be held at a ``qualified financial institutions,'' meaning, any financial institution qualified to hold an IRA. IDAs are available to all citizens or legal residents of the United States who are at least 18 years old and whose household income does not exceed 80 percent of the area median income, or AMI. At least 33 percent of the IDAs will be targeted to households which are at 50 percent or below the AMI. Contributions made by a participant into an IDA are limited to $2,000 per year. While the individuals who open these accounts are encouraged to use the money for their own benefit, they may withdraw it to help a spouse or dependent open a business, buy a house, or further their education. For example, one such program was started in March of 1999, by Hibernia Bank Louisiana. They began pilot IDA programs in New Orleans, with another one operating in Shreveport, to help low-income families save for a house. So far, 11 families are participating in the New Orleans program, with seven already placed in homes of their own and four shopping for one. The program administrator said these 11 families ``absolutely would not be in a position to buy a home at this time'' without this program. Hibernia matches the account holders funds two-to-one up to a set amount. The funds then can be used for home-buying costs, such as a down payment or closing costs--lump sums that often can be prohibitive to working families on a tight budget. In order to encourage the establishment of IDAs, two tax credits are offered. The first is available to participating financial institutions. For every dollar saved in an IDA, the qualified financial institution will provide a one to one match, limited to $500 per person per year. The financial institution would then be eligible for a 90 percent federal tax credit for matching funds provided. The second tax credit is known as the IDA Investment Tax Credit. In order to leverage private sector investments and encourage broader community involvement in this program, a 50 percent tax credit will be available for investments in qualified non-profits, 501(c)(3)s or credit unions, which can administer qualified IDA programs. However, in order qualify for this tax credit, at least 70 percent of the funds received must be used for financial education, program monitoring, and/ or program administration. Any taxpayer can participate can participate as a donor. It is important to remember that each IDA consists of two parallel accounts--one that the participants make his deposits into and one that the donor makes their deposits of matching funds into. The interest on the money in the participant's account would be taxed while all funds in the matching account (including interest) would be tax free. One could say that the participant's account is treated in a similar fashion to the way that the IRS treats IRAs and 401(k)s. Already an estimated 3,000 people nationwide are taking advantage of available pilot programs, which are run in partnership with more than 100 nonprofit organizations and authorized financial institutions. This fact shows the strength of this plan: it serves as a catalyst for the rapid creation of public-private partnerships--between accountholders, banks, foundations, policymakers and providers of financial education-- that are the hallmark of successful IDA programs. As you can see, IDAs are not only good for individuals and their families, they also are good for the future of our country. Russell Long once said, ``The problem with Capitalism is that there are not enough Capitalists.'' IDAs provide a tool with which our country can address this age-old problem and help create more Capitalists. When capitalism is combined with the proper social safety nets and incentives for asset development for those at all income levels, we create incentives for saving at all levels while you create a capitalist system that works for everybody. These accounts are a sure- fire mechanism that will build assets and create wealth among the families and communities who need help the most. Economic analyses of the impact of a national IDA investment show that for every dollar invested, a $5 return to the national economy would result in the form of new businesses, new jobs, increased earnings, higher tax receipts and reduced welfare expenditures. However, it is important to realize that the Savings Accounts Are Valuable for Everyone Act does not simply focus on the working poor. It also provides savings incentives for the middle class by expanding the current Individual Retirement Account limits from $2,000 a year to $3,500. Currently, our tax code allows individuals to save up to $2,000 a year in IRAs with income earned on the deposits either being tax deferred until withdrawal, which can begin at age 59\1/2\, or, through the use of the Roth IRA, the taxes can be paid up front on the money deposited into the accounts. SAVE will make these accounts an even better tool for retirement saving by expanding the annual contribution limits. I firmly believe that we must find ways to shift our nation's policy from one of consumption to one of savings and wealth accumulation for all American households. To understand why, one need only consider these facts which were calculated by the Corporation for Enterprise Development in Washington, D.C.: One-half of all American households have less than $1,000 in net financial assets; One-third of all American households and 60 percent of African- American households have zero or negative net financial assets; Forty percent of all white children and 73 percent of all black children grow up in households with zero or negative financial assets; By some estimates, 13-20 percent of all American households do not even have a checking or savings account; and Ten percent of all American households control two-thirds of the wealth. We already have a tax code that provides over $300 billion in federal tax expenditures which are dedicated to asset building for middle- and upper-income wage earners and businesses, but tax-based incentives are still out of reach for most lower- and middle-income families. In this time of wealth and prosperity, why can't we offer tools that will assist in asset building for the families who need them the most--the working poor and moderate-income families who make up the backbone of our economic system. Benjamin Franklin once said, ``The wealth of an individual is measured not by what a person earns but by what he saves.'' Take the example of Oseola McCarty of Mississippi. Oseola toiled in obscurity for most of her life, taking in other people's laundry for $2 a bundle and amassing a small fortune by socking away every extra cent in a savings account. At the age of 87, she donated $150,000 of her life savings to the University of Southern Mississippi, establishing a scholarship fund to give African-American youths a chance for the education she never received. What Oseola accomplished is a great example of the power of savings. Savings, investing and assets--not necessarily income--determine wealth. Just think what Oseola could have accomplished, not only for herself but for others, with the benefit of a program like IDAs to add matching funds and additional interest to her hard-earned savings. IDAs are partnerships between the government, the community and the individual to build stronger families and a stronger economy. For not only do Americans improve their economic security through the building of assets, this also stimulates the development of capital for the entire nation. As our nation continues to build on our recent economic successes, we in Congress must continue to look for innovative ways to give working families the tools they need to plan for the future. Passage of the Savings Accounts are Valuable for Everyone Act is one way we can do this. Mr. President, to summarize my comments, I will share a story about what this act, if passed and adopted, will do. There is a family in Washington, the Darden family. Selena and Dwayne Darden thought they were doing the best they could do. They were both working, earning about 150 percent of the poverty rate. They had four children and were doing a very good job of raising their children, but basically living paycheck to paycheck. They never thought they could save for the future or, for that matter, own a home. There just wasn't anything extra. Then just about 2 years ago, according to this article, Selena, who is a beautician, heard about something called Individual Development Accounts, a program that was offered here in Washington with the Capital Area Asset Building Corporation. They inquired and were told basically that this was a pilot program that Congress had established a few years earlier that would allow her and her husband to put up some savings, which would be matched by the Federal Government through an appropriate financial institution and a community agency that would provide some education and support for the effort. If she was a consistent and good saver, she and her husband could save enough for a downpayment. The end of the story is that they did; they saved enough. They are now proud homeowners right here in Marshall Heights. I share that story because that is exactly what this bill does. In my State, in the last few years, I have come to learn about these pilot programs that we initiated through the work of Senator Coats, and Senator Santorum has been on this issue for some time, and Senator Lieberman has been advocating this proposal. I want to add my voice by introducing this bill to say how much I support this effort, and to take these pilot programs that have been successful and expand them nationwide. In Louisiana, I have come across many families from New Orleans to Shreveport, and elsewhere, who are coming into partnership with the Hibernia Bank and community action organizations, such as the Providence House in Louisiana, that help families get back on their feet when they go through a crisis. The idea is to help create these accounts. People can begin saving money. The bill allows for them to either use the funds for home ownership, because we know how important that is, or building a person's confidence and self-esteem--how important it is for children to live in a home that actually belongs to them, as opposed to renting and perhaps having to move, and to be able to put down roots. We know how important that is. This bill will allow people to save to start up a business. We spend a lot of time in Washington talking about business. Sometimes I think we focus on businesses that are actually quite large, which is wonderful; but we need to focus on the great strength of America, which is small business--that entrepreneur out there who takes a risk to start a business. He employs himself and one, two, or three other people. That is the backbone of the American economy and the great system we have enjoyed. We are really the envy of the world. This bill will allow for people to save a few thousand dollars to start a successful business and employ members of their family, or friends, or other workers in their area. I am hoping we can potentially consider, as this bill moves through the process, that it may allow savings for a transportation vehicle. If you can get a good job, sometimes the jobs are not necessarily where people live. Mass transit is not as dependable as it should be. Perhaps we should consider this matched savings plan to give people the ability to get a vehicle and to be able to drive to work. Some of these pilots allow that. This bill will allow for these savings accounts. It is limited to households of 80 percent of the median income, based on regions, and 150 percent of the national poverty rate. While that might work for Louisiana, it doesn't work very well for poor families in Connecticut or California, where the standard of living is high. We have designed this bill to reach to the low-income working poor. But we are sensitive to the different regions in this Nation. We believe if we can help people accumulate assets and encourage them to save, that not only is it good for individual families but it is good for our Nation to encourage savings rates. Let me share a few statistics about this which are of very great concern to me and of which I would like my colleagues to be more aware. According to a recent report by the Corporation for Enterprise Development in Washington, DC, one-half of all American households have less than $1,000 in financial assets; one-third of all American households and 60 percent of African American households have zero, or negative financial assets; 40 percent of all white children and 73 percent of all African American children grow up in households with zero or negative financial assets; by some estimates, 13 to 20 percent of all American households do not have a checking or a savings account; and 10 percent of all American households control currently two-thirds of the wealth. If we want to address an income gap, if we want to try to increase prosperity, if we want to try to eliminate poverty, I suggest that our efforts have to be more than just income, more than just about full employment or a job. It is about income, frugal spending, and aggressive savings. And we should be partnering with the American people to do just that, to encourage wealth and assets creation and development. Not everyone wants to be a millionaire. Some people are better at that than others. But I don't know of a family that doesn't want to have financial security--not one. Whether they work at a relatively modest job from 9 to 5, or whether they work two jobs, or three, or whether they are quite aggressive and well educated enough to make large sums of money, in every case I think it is about security. It is about choices. But I don't know any family that doesn't want to be secure. We can be better partners in this Government by encouraging policies such as this that enable people to be part of that American dream, to widen the winners circle, because we have the greatest economic expansion underway and there is a cost-effective way to do it. Let me just make a couple of other points as I close. According to some documents that are supporting this policy, let me read for the Record a couple of things: No. 1, assets matter and have largely been ignored in poverty policy debates. No. 2, individual development accounts address the wealth gap and bring people into the financial mainstream. No. 3, public policy plays a large role in determining levels of household wealth. People say, We can't afford to do this. They ask, Why would we want to do this for a certain group of people, low- and moderate-income people? One reason is we already do it to the tune of $300 billion for middle-income and wealthy individuals and businesses. It is called tax incentives. All throughout our Tax Code and public policy, we are already putting up $300 billion to help create and maintain assets for the wealthy and for businesses. Let's do the same for the working poor and lower and middle class so they can be more able to join this extraordinary economic expansion. We do that through IRAs and 401(k)s and IDAs, which are good national investments and they improve the national savings rate. In conclusion, let me say that this SAVE Act will expand IDA. It also raises the income limits for IRAs for all families in America to encourage them to save. By expanding the opportunities for IRAs, which many of us have supported in a bipartisan way, and by implementing IDAs from pilots to a national model, I believe we could go a long way in eliminating poverty, expanding the middle class, and expanding and widening the winners circle in this great economic expansion. I share this with my colleagues. I thank again Senator Lieberman for his great work. Senator Santorum has also been leading this effort. Senator Dan Coats, who is no longer serving with us, I understand was one of the original sponsors of this pilot program. It is now time. We know it works to take it national. That is what we do with this bill. I yield whatever time I may have. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to insert additional material into the Record.

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I rise today to express my thanks for the manager's package that provides an additional fifteen million dollars in Navy O&M and RDT&E funding for the Navy Information Technology Center (ITC) in New Orleans. This additional funding represents an important portion of the request made by myself and the senior Senator from Louisiana, Senator Breaux. The Appropriations Committee's action ensures that the Navy and Defense-wide Human Resource Enterprise Strategy programs will continue at the Navy's Information Technology Center (ITC) in New Orleans. This funding provides for the further consolidation of Navy active duty and reserve personnel legacy information systems and enables the continuing transition of all Navy manpower and personnel systems into the enterprise-wide human resource strategy. However, I should stress that this is not simply a Navy program, but has taken on defense-wide significance under the leadership of the Program Executive Officer for Information Technology, Joe Scipriano, and his team located at the ITC in New Orleans. I want to express deep gratitude to Chairman Stevens and our ranking member of the Senate Defense Appropriations Subcommittee, Daniel Inouye. Thanks also go to professional staff Steven Cortese, Charles Houy, Tom Hawkins, Gary Reese, and Kraig Siracuse.

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I thank the gentleman from Alaska for those remarks. I concur that this is a project important for both Louisiana and the services. For that reason, I hope the Senator from Alaska would agree that the funding of this project should be a priority within the Navy's Operations and Maintenance accounts.

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, again, I thank the chairman, and I look forward to working with him on this project. defense health program

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I rise today to bring the Senate's attention to an important initiative called the Configuration Management Information system. CMIS was developed in an effort to provide the Department of Defense with a standard system that addresses the configuration structure and management requirements of complex military weapons systems, to include their hardware and software. Originally developed in 1990 to support Military Sealift Command's configuration management requirements, the CMIS architecture was identified as the best CM database structure across all DOD. CMIS has progressed through a series of incremental development cycles to include demonstrating compliance with Y2K requirements. Currently, responsibility for the CMIS database architecture is assigned to the Naval Air Systems Command for deployment into the operational environment. Xeta International Corporation has been tasked by the CMIS Program Management Office to identify platforms of weapons systems data for migration into CMIS. These platforms include the EA-6B, F-14, H-60, DD- 21, DDG-51, F-15, and F-16. Additionally, Xeta has been tasked with the responsibility to liaise and collect this data from various DOD Program Management Offices throughout the military. Xeta extracts the configuration management data from existing legacy databases, engineering drawings and other technical documentation in an effort to accurately populate data fields within the CMIS architecture. Once populated, this ``cradle-to-grave'' configuration management repository is utilized in many ways by a variety of DOD offices as well as contractors in order to accurately configure the product and to support life cycle maintenance of the weapons systems platforms. Additionally, Xeta has been tasked to develop a CMIS security capability (to include a multilevel secure computer environment) when operating in a Local or Wide Area Network (LAN/WAN). Unfortunately, Mr. President, no additional funds were included in the Senate bill for this project. I would like to ask my friend from Alaska, Senator Stevens, whether he is aware of these potential shortfalls?

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I speak today to honor an innovative and patriotic American--the logger-turned-boatbuilder, who single-handedly transformed the concept of amphibious ship design when our nation and her Allies needed it most. Despite a series of bureaucratic obstacles set up by America's World War II war-machine, Higgins skillfully engineered Marine Corps landing craft, and eventually won contracts to build 92 percent of the Navy's war-time fleet. The story of Andrew Jackson Higgins exemplifies the American Dream, and merits full recognition of this body 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, turning out specialized vessels for the oil industry, Coast Guard, Army Corps of Engineers, and U.S. Biological Survey. But 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 had thus overruled decisions to create landing boat crafts. As the U.S. Marine Corps discerned the need for mass production of amphibious vessels for both the Pacific and European theaters, top brass began to lobby the Navy to abandon its internal contracting, and procure ships from Higgins Industries, which boasted high performance quality, and unprecedented speed for turning out boats. In 1941, the Navy finally asked Higgins to begin designing a landing draft to carry tanks. Instead of a design, Higgins delivered an entire working boat. It had only taken 61 hours to design and construct his first Landing Craft, Mechanized (LCM). Quickly, the Higgins firm grew to seven plants, eventually turning out 700 boats a month-- more than all other shipyards in the nation combined. By the war's end, Higgins had turned out 20,000 boats, ranging from the 46-foot LCVP (Landing Craft, Vehicle & Personnel) to 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 ship building acquisition, but sustained the universal faith American invention and global power projection. Higgins landing craft crashed on the shores of Normandy on June 6, 1944, launching the greatest amphibious assault in world history, and commencing a eastward drive to liberate Europe from Nazi Germany. 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. Mr. President, in 1964, President Dwight D. Eisenhower was reflecting on the success of the 1944 Normandy invasion to his biographer, Steven Ambrose. Andrew Jackson Higgins ``is the man who won the war for us,'' he said. ``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.'' to me, Mr. Higgins and his 20,000-member workforce embody American creativity, persistence, and patriotism; they deserve to be distinguished for their critical place in history. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the full text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I rise today to honor the thousands of America, British, Canadian, and French veterans of the greatest amphibious invasion in military history. On June 6, 1944, the D-Day Allied Expeditionary Force included 150,000 troops, 1,500 tanks, 5,300 ships and landing craft, 12,000 airplanes, and 20,000 airborne troops. Ultimately, their task was to establish a western foothold on the European continent, and commence an overwhelming thrust against France's Nazi occupiers. General Dwight D. Eisenhower was convinced that launching Operation Overlord would hasten the end to World War II, as he stated on D-Day morning to his American troops, ``In company with our brave Allies and brothers-in-arms on other Fronts you will bring about the destruction of the German war machine, the elimination of Nazi tyranny over oppressed peoples in Europe, and security for ourselves in a free world.'' The invasion of Normandy far surpassed its goals, accomplishing four monumental tasks: it initiated the liberation of France and dismantlement of the Nazi Third Reich, established a critical milestone in military strategic history, inaugurated an era of American preeminence, and, ultimately, made the world safe for democracy. But victory could not be achieved without any cost. By the end of D-Day, U.S. forces, including two deployed airborne divisions, suffered 6,603 casualties, with 1,465 killed, 3,184 wounded, and 1,928 missing in action. To these men who paid the ultimate price for our freedom, the world owes an incalculable measure of gratitude. Today, the people of the United States salute their memory, and continue honoring the courageous service of other D-Day veterans, like the senior senator from South Carolina, who risked similar fates in southern France. Now, 56 years after the first Higgins Landing Craft beached on the Normandy shores, our country's first National D-Day Museum will open in my hometown of New Orleans. Built in the heart of Downtown, this institution will not only commemorate an awesome military success, but exhibit the unified vision of a nation's political, strategic, and industrial leaders. From the formulation of Operation Overlord to innovations in amphibious technology, every aspect of war-planning and implementation will be on display; contributors to our victory from various sectors of society will be studied--the decision-makers, the war tacticians, the equipment manufacturers, and the Americans in uniform. Esteemed political scientist, Stephen Ambrose has dedicated this museum to the American Spirit, the teamwork, optimism, courage and sacrifice of the men and women who won World War II. As they embarked on their ``Great Crusade,'' Eisenhower reminded America's soldiers that ``the eyes of the world are upon you.'' Well, today I say to the veterans of Normandy that the hopes and prayers of liberty-loving people everywhere continue to march with you. Forever embodied in the National D-Day Museum, we have distinguished one of America's finest generations with an indelible place in our country's history, sustaining a promising legacy for our country's future generations.

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I speak today to honor an innovative and patriotic American--the logger-turned-boatbuilder, who single-handedly transformed the concept of amphibious ship design when our nation and her Allies needed it most. Despite a series of bureaucratic obstacles set up by America's World War II war-machine, Higgins skillfully engineered Marine Corps landing craft, and eventually won contracts to build 92 percent of the Navy's war-time fleet. The story of Andrew Jackson Higgins exemplifies the American Dream, and merits full recognition of this body 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, turning out specialized vessels for the oil industry, Coast Guard, Army Corps of Engineers, and U.S. Biological Survey. But 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 had thus overruled decisions to create landing boat crafts. As the U.S. Marine Corps discerned the need for mass production of amphibious vessels for both the Pacific and European theaters, top brass began to lobby the Navy to abandon its internal contracting, and procure ships from Higgins Industries, which boasted high performance quality, and unprecedented speed for turning out boats. In 1941, the Navy finally asked Higgins to begin designing a landing draft to carry tanks. Instead of a design, Higgins delivered an entire working boat. It had only taken 61 hours to design and construct his first Landing Craft, Mechanized (LCM). Quickly, the Higgins firm grew to seven plants, eventually turning out 700 boats a month-- more than all other shipyards in the nation combined. By the war's end, Higgins had turned out 20,000 boats, ranging from the 46-foot LCVP (Landing Craft, Vehicle & Personnel) to 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 ship building acquisition, but sustained the universal faith American invention and global power projection. Higgins landing craft crashed on the shores of Normandy on June 6, 1944, launching the greatest amphibious assault in world history, and commencing a eastward drive to liberate Europe from Nazi Germany. 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. Mr. President, in 1964, President Dwight D. Eisenhower was reflecting on the success of the 1944 Normandy invasion to his biographer, Steven Ambrose. Andrew Jackson Higgins ``is the man who won the war for us,'' he said. ``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.'' to me, Mr. Higgins and his 20,000-member workforce embody American creativity, persistence, and patriotism; they deserve to be distinguished for their critical place in history. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the full text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, each year, on the third Saturday in May, the nation expresses appreciation and gratitude to our military. In Louisiana, we are proud of our men and women in uniform and have a long-standing tradition of honoring them every year. We are proud of the military in times of war, and we are proud of the military in times of peace. We know that without our fighting men and women ``life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness'' would be just hollow words. Since the birth of our Nation, America's Armed Forces has served the United States with honor, courage, and distinction, both at home and abroad. America's patriots have assumed a sacred duty, understanding that our history, our heritage, and our honor, require us to bear the burdens of sacrifice. We acknowledge and applaud their selfless service, courage, and dedication to duty. Today, thousands of troops are deployed throughout the world, operating in every time zone, and in every climate defending our freedom. Our sailors and Marines are aboard ships and submarines in the Adriatic. Our Air Force and Navy pilots fly the perilous skies over Iraq. Our soldiers keep the vigil and preserve the peace in the former Yugoslavia. They do it to promote American values: democracy and freedom from the oppression of demagogues, tyrants and totalitarian governments. The peace and freedom so longed for by people throughout the world often starts over here, on American soil. When our Armed Forces go overseas, they take with them our national values: a tradition of democracy and a love of individual liberty. Our service members are truly freedom's ambassadors. So on behalf of the state of Louisiana and a grateful nation, we thank you. We thank you for all that you give to us every day of your lives. We thank those serving on active duty, those standing by in the Reserves and National Guard, and we thank all family members for their patience and their sacrifices. Thank you for your devotion to duty, for your loyalty, for your courage and for your patriotic and profound love of country.

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I would like to take this opportunity to extend a warm welcome to His Excellency, Mugur Isarescu, the Prime Minister of Romania. Prime Minister Isarescu's visit is very well-timed. United States' policy in the Balkans is at a decisive point. We took an extremely important vote in the Senate last week that served as a litmus test for our commitment to the region. I am relieved at the results. Ultimately, the United States did not sent the wrong signal to Serbia about our intentions. However, the amendment by the Senior Senators from Virginia and West Virginia, gave the Senate the opportunity to reevaluate our role in the Balkans. The debate of that amendment highlighted the need to establish a more coherent rationale for our leadership in the region. Mr. President, that is why the Prime Minister's visit is so opportune. The United States has rarely had an ally that has suffered so much for the reward of serving a just cause. However, that is precisely what Romania has done. Romania enjoys good relations with all of its neighbors, but the historical links with Yugoslavia were particularly strong. Yugoslavia, under Tito, was a role-model for how Romania could find a middle path between the superpowers and allow western influence without provoking the Soviets. As you might expect, they shared strong commercial and economic ties. Furthermore, the Danube, the critical life-line for intra-European trade, runs through both countries. Because of Romania's stalwart support of the NATO mission in Kosovo, we have compelled them to forgo these ties. It has come at great economic cost, and I believe that is incumbent upon the United States, and all of NATO to recognize this sacrifice. However, beyond calling attention to the steadfastness of Romania and other Partnership for Peace nations in our Kosovo mission, the Prime Minister's visit also represents a true opportunity. Romania has had to cope with instability and shifting power-struggles throughout its history. We are fortunate to have an ally who can provide wise counsel as we navigate our way through this region. Furthermore, Romania's help comes from a faultless motivation. Romania would like to be embraced by the institutions of the West. They earnestly desire to participate in NATO and the European Union. Rather than play a game of horse-trading, Romania has tried living up to the ideals of NATO membership before entering the alliance. Mr. President, I would again like to welcome the Prime Minister, thank the Romanian people for their sacrifice in the Kosovo conflict, and wish the Romanian government well as it seeks to further the excellent working-relationship that we have established since the end of Communism.

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I rise to commemorate this very special day, National Missing Children's Day. Proclaimed by President Ronald Reagan in 1983 and honored by every administration since, May 25th is the day 6 year old Ethan Patz disappeared from a New York City street corner on his way to school in 1979. His case remains unsolved and is an annual reminder to the nation to renew efforts to reunite missing children with their families and make child protection a national priority. As a mother of two beautiful children, I cannot imagine what I would do if my children were missing. All of us with children know that this a parent's greatest nightmare. Yet every 18 seconds a child disappears, and so each day over three thousand parents go through the terror of losing their child. The Theme of this year's National Missing Children's Day is ``Picture them Home.'' This national public awareness campaign is aimed at encouraging the public at large to be aware of their important role in the recovery of these children. One in six children featured in the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children's photo-distribution program is recovered as a direct result of someone in the public recognizing the child in the picture and notifying the authorities. Unlike so many of our national tragedies, we can do something to help return a missing child to their families. I urge the American public to really look closely at pictures of missing children they see. The small gesture can be the key to reuniting a mother or father with their missing child. In closing, I would like to commend those individuals who were honored this morning by the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children (NCMEC), the Fraternal Order of Police and the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention at the U.S. Department of Justice Fifth Annual National Missing and Exploited Children's Awards Ceremony. Sergeant Investigator Awilda Cartagena, Texas Dept. of Public Safety--For the recovery of Johnny Tello, a family abduction victim from Dallas, Texas, after a six-year search. Special Agent K. Jill Hill, Federal Bureau of Investigation, Little Rock, Arkansas--For the location and recovery of non-family abduction victim, three-year-old Destiny Leann Richards, who was kidnapped from her home in Mabelvale, Arkansas, on June 11, 1999, and located in a wooded area the next evening following extensive ground searches. Detective Captain David W. Bailey, accepting for the Lancaster (Ohio) Police Department--for the successful local location and recovery of three-year-old Ashley Taggart, abducted in April 1999 and found three days later in the home of a twice-convicted sexual predator. Senior Resident Agent Scott Wilson, Federal Bureau of Investigation, Painesville, Ohio, Township Division--for the recovery of Nicole Nsour, an international child abduction victim, whose non-custodial father abducted her and held her in Jordan for over two months. Postal Inspector Paul Groza, Jr., U.S. Postal Inspection Service-Northwest Portland, Oregon--for the investigation resulting in the conviction of Jonathon and Sarah Aragorn for their construction of a Web Site to procure children for sexual relations with themselves and their children. Officer James E. Lee, Lake Bluff, Illinois, Police Department--For the investigation and arrest of Donald C. Moore, a local child mentor who was victimizing area youth entrusted to his care. Detective Michael Schirling, Burlington, Vermont, Police Department--For the investigation and apprehension of a 19-year-old fraternity president, summer camp counselor and student at the University of Vermont at Burlington, for possession of child pornography and child sexual abuse.

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate stand in recess to greet the Prime Minister appropriately.

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, visiting us is the Prime Minister of Romania, Mugur Isarescu.