Mary Landrieu

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I commend my colleague from Connecticut for his leadership on this issue, and I also commend my colleague from Indiana, whose insights as a former governor have been invaluable. A group of us have joined with them to call for a change in the role the Federal government plays in its partnership with our States and local governments in the area of education. Before I begin, I would also compliment our great colleague from the State of Massachusetts for his leadership over the years --actually over the decades and throughout his entire lifetime --for being a tireless champion for education, particularly the education of children who are poor, children out of the mainstream, and children who are disabled. I thank him for his leadership. There is a growing number of us in Congress who feel the need to stand up and say no to maintaining the status quo; that the status quo, while there is some incremental progress across the board in education, is not enough, is not happening quickly enough, and is leaving behind millions and millions of children, many of whom are least equipped with resources and families to help to educate them. As I said a few weeks ago, in 1965, when the Federal Government first stepped up to the plate, the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, as signed by President Johnson, was 32 pages long and contained 5 programs. Today, the current law is 1,000 pages long--1,000 pages of instructions, prescriptions, unfunded mandates and micromanagement from the Federal level. It contains over 50 programs, 10 of which are not even funded. At that time, the world of education was much different. In 1930, there were 260,000 elementary and secondary schools. Today, there are 89,000. Schools were smaller. Children were given more individual attention. Despite the tremendous increase in population, one can see the numbers of schools have declined. Years ago, there were qualified teachers in the classrooms, because, to be very honest, while teaching was and still is wonderful, the fact is, laws, customs, and traditions barred many exceptional women and exceptional minorities from any other line of work. So the profession of teaching was the great beneficiary. Today, that is no longer the case. Women and minorities are moving into different fields. Our schools have become larger and the demands on teachers have become greater. As a result we have less qualified individuals attracted to the field of teaching when the need for high quality teachers is even greater than ever before. Years ago--and not that long ago--school violence meant a fist fight on the school playground. Today, unfortunately, it means a loaded automatic weapon in a cafeteria. The use of drugs in schools is increasing. A lot has changed in education over the last 35 years. People say the prize belongs to those who are the quickest, the swiftest, and the smartest. I think the prize belongs to people most able to adapt to change, and that is really the argument. It is about change. It is about the status quo not working for the vast majority of our children. It is about the fact the world has changed. The facts supporting public education have changed. Yet we find ourselves in Congress, at least too much to my mind, arguing for more of the same: more programs and more money, not recognizing these fundamental shifts that have occurred. The prize belongs not always to the swiftest and the smartest, but those most able to change. The Lieberman-Bayh amendment is about changing these 1,000 pages to give more flexibility to local governments to make better decisions about how to reach the children who need to be reached. It is about targeting the money to needy kids. When the first bill was passed by this Congress and signed by President Johnson, the intention was excellent, to bridge the gap between the advantaged and the disadvantaged. The intention was to use Federal dollars to invest in the education of poor children. This intention has been lost in these 1,000 pages. Under the present title I formula, a school need only have 2% of their children in poverty to be eligible for title I funding. As a result, 1 in 5 schools with between 50% and 75% poverty receive no funding at all. Our formula would do what Title I funding was intended to do, serve poor children. Our amendment, the Three R's proposal, is about increasing flexibility and accountability at the local level. If we try to provide more flexibility to the States, but we also do not provide, along with that accountability, increased investments, at best it is an unfunded mandate, at worst it is a hollow promise. We are actually doubling the funding, as the Senator from Connecticut has pointed out, for title I and targeting the money to be sure the new money is getting to the poor children, the disadvantaged children, and the children for whom we need to close the educational gaps. Along with the increased funding comes real accountability. The taxpayers will appreciate the fact we are not just dumping more money into a growing problem, but we are securing our investment in education and rewarding states who make real strides in closing the achievement gaps are closed quickly and in a more appropriate fashion. Senator Bayh made reference to these numbers but did not focus on the specifics of this chart. I believe it is important for the American people to know the reason some of us refuse to accept the status quo. Mr. President, I am sure you will agree that test scores are quite startling; they are quite troubling. This chart shows, the performance scores of several minorities on the 1996 NAEP. One will notice that under the status quo, under these 1,000 pages, while there have been some improvements, only 26 percent of the white children are proficient level in math, only 8 percent of Native Americans, 7 percent of Latinos, and 5 percent of African American children. If we are not satisfied with these numbers--which I am not, and I do not think there are many in this Chamber on the Republican or Democratic side who are satisfied with these numbers--we need to do something different. Funding more programs with more money is not going to work. In response to something Senator Kennedy said--and I think he is accurate on this one point--money from the Federal Government represents only 7 percent. If these test scores are what is happening with 92 percent of the funding, then let's not continue to do the same things or give it all to the Governors. He is absolutely correct. Obviously, the money is not targeted to help these kids increase their student performance; the State dollars, the 92 percent, is not targeted, because if it was, these numbers would be improving significantly. The answer is not to sit by and do nothing; the answer is to lead by example. Let the Federal Government begin by taking its 7 percent and targeting the poor children so these test scores can improve, and we hope the States, the Governors, and the local education authorities will take their money and do the same thing so we can improve these test scores. This next chart shows the eighth grade math scores: 23 percent of all children, at the eighth grade level, are scoring at the proficient level; only 4 percent of African Americans; 8 percent of Latinos; 14 percent of Native Americans; and 30 percent of the Caucasian children. But I would like to do more than show you the numbers. Here is a chart showing an excerpt from the recent NAEP writing test. I have heard too much on this floor that you cannot test kids, that the tests are too high stakes. I want to share this with you so you can understand how dire this situation is. I am a strong believer in tests. I believe we have to have some objective measure to see how well our children are doing or how poorly they are doing. Perhaps the tests should not serve as 100 percent of what we use to judge whether a child should be moved forward or not, but clearly, we have to have, as well as parents and taxpayers have to have, some way to judge if the children are doing well or not. For those who say we cannot test them, let me just read from a real test. This is from a fourth grader whose writing is rated ``unsatisfactory.'' I am going to read it for you because you can hardly interpret it. But this represents what the National Assessment of Educational Progress rates as ``unsatisfactory.'' This was written by a fourth grader. He was asked to communicate a minimal description of his room. He writes: My room is very cool it white I got wester picture I got a king sides bed I have wester toys I got wester wall paper on my wall. I got wester t-shirt on my wall. I got That is a writing sample of a fourth grader whose writing was rated ``unsatisfactory.'' Let me give you a sample of writing that is rated as ``approaching basic'' for a child in the fourth grade. This would be at a minimum. All States are different, but these are the kinds of tests we are talking about supporting in this amendment. This fourth grader is ``approaching basic,'' is not at ``basic'' yet. But this fourth grader writes: there to the left is my jeep and my cat. there to the right is my swimming pool and my dog and my waterguns. And to my left of my bed is my trampoline and maid. And by the wall is my roller blades and my nantendo-- spelled N-A-N-T-E-N-D-O-- 60 four. These two samples represent the writing skills of over 50% of those in public schools. 50% of these kids can't master spelling or formulating sentences. We have to do better than this in our public schools. So I just want to argue that life is high stakes. We have to be supportive of tests--not a Federal test, not something mandated from Washington--but we have to be about accountability, about real testing, so we can tell whether our children are reading, whether they are able to compute. We have to be able to identify what schools are not performing, not so we can punish the children or punish the parents, but so we can help them. In conclusion, let me say, again, times have changed. The status quo is not sufficient. The amendment we have outlined, the Three R's, gives greater investment, greater accountability, greater flexibility, and more choice. Hopefully, it will spur greater outcomes faster so that children do not lose the only opportunity they have--one life, one chance at education--so they can graduate with a diploma that means something and go on to have a job, a career, and build a life they can be proud of in the greatest democracy on the face of the Earth. To do any less is falling down on our job. No system is perfect. I will only conclude by saying that perhaps the amendment we offer is not perfect, but it is offered with great sensitivity and great commitment and great dedication, to urge both sides to try to move away from the rhetoric and move to recognizing the failings of the current system. We do not want to abandon public schools and move to total block grants or total vouchers, but we want to move to a bill that creates the right kind of partnership, where kids can learn, parents are happy, taxpayers are happy to give money because the system is working, teachers are feeling fulfilled--most importantly, children are learning. That is what our amendment attempts to do. I urge my colleagues, on both sides of the aisle, with all due respect to the other issues that have been talked about, to adopt our amendment, to move us in a new direction, away from the status quo, to a chance where children can actually learn to read, to write, and to compute, and to take advantage of the tremendous, unprecedented, historic opportunities that exist in the world today. I yield the floor. Several Senators addressed the Chair.

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, this has been a very difficult issue for us to try to resolve. It is with a great deal of thought and consideration that I come to the floor to announce that I will be voting to override the President's veto. It is a very difficult vote, obviously, but a correct and necessary vote for my State of Louisiana. The Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 required the Department of Energy to provide a Federal repository for used nuclear fuel no later than January 31, 1998. Here we are, 2 years after that deadline, and there is still no central repository for spent nuclear fuel in 40 States. In fact, according to the Department of Energy's latest projections, the placement of waste underground at Yucca, which I have visited, would take place, at the earliest, in 2010, and only then if it receives full regulatory approval. That leaves us at least 12 years behind schedule. Meanwhile, millions of American families and businesses have been paying, not once but twice, for this delay. They pay once to fund the Federal management of used nuclear fuel at a central repository and again when electric utility companies have to build temporary storage space. As a result, since 1983, American consumers have paid approximately $16 billion to this nuclear waste fund through add-ons to their utility bills without a real satisfactory result. Still, the Federal Government continues to collect nearly $700 million a year from electricity consumers. Future generations of Americans, our children and grandchildren, will pay a high price for continued inaction. We must push to do something, and that is what this debate is about. Also, the situation for the more than 100 operating nuclear powerplants storing used fuel onsite grows ever more urgent. Plants are running out of storage space. In Louisiana, we have two nuclear powerplants: Riverbend Reactor in St. Francisville and Waterford near New Orleans. These plants will reach maximum storage capacity very soon, and waiting until 2010 poses definite problems for my State. This legislation is a necessary step toward meeting the Federal Government's legal obligation to safely and responsibly manage used nuclear fuel and high-level nuclear waste. It provides the necessary tools to begin moving used nuclear fuel to a central facility for disposal if scientific investigation demonstrates that the Yucca Mountain repository site in Nevada is suitable. This is an important step that we need to take. S. 1287 establishes three definitive deadlines for developing a repository for used nuclear fuel at Yucca Mountain. First, it reaffirms that by December of 2001, the Secretary of Energy must make a recommendation to the President on whether Yucca Mountain is a suitable site for a nuclear waste repository. Second, it requires the President to make a subsequent recommendation regarding Yucca Mountain's suitability to Congress by March 2002. Third, it requires a decision on the construction authorization application for a repository at Yucca Mountain by January 2006. In addition, the bill enhances an already safe transportation system with more training and state involvement in routing. According to the President's veto message issued on April 25th the administration has two primary concerns with S. 1287. First, ``the bill would limit the EPA's authority to issue radiation standards that protect human health and environment and would prohibit the issuance of EPA's final standards until June 2001.'' In fact, under the bill the EPA retains authority to establish radiation standards that protect public health and the environment near Yucca Mountain. The bill seeks the participation of experts on radiation safety at the National Academy of Sciences and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission in order to establish the best public health and environmental standards possible. Second, the administration argues that ``the bill does little to minimize the potential for continued claims against the Federal Government for damages as a result of the delay in accepting spent fuel from utilities.'' I point out that the federal government bears responsibility for this delay and should not be completely absolved. Under the legislation the Energy Department is given specific authority to reach settlements with the utility companies that have filed lawsuits for the Department's failure to meet the congressionally mandated requirement to move used nuclear fuel. In addition, the Department is prohibited from using the funds accumulated in the Nuclear Waste Fund for settlements, except when the funds are used for containers or other aspects of storage that would be required to meet the Department's obligation to move the fuel to a repository. Mr. President, it is difficult to come to the floor to speak on an override. It will be very rare, I hope, in my career that I will vote to override any President because I do respect the office, but I also respect the role of the Congress. I think this is the right vote for the Congress and for my State.

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, today is a special day in America: Take Our Daughters To Work Day. The Senator from Wyoming and the Presiding Officer will recognize that there are many young girls, of all ages, working their way around the Capitol. I have some special girls with me today: Jordan Willard, Katherine Elkins, Cara Klein, Jessica Harkness, Samantha Seiter, Kelsey Cook, Sadie Landrieu, Rachell Solley, Chelsea Niven, Caroline Hudson, and Frederica Wicker. I welcome all of these girls to the Capitol today and express my best wishes to the millions of girls participating in Take Our Daughters To Work Day. I yield back my time.

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. I thank the Senator.

Ms. LANDRIEU. All right. One and a half.

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, since I just want to make brief remarks, will the Senator indulge me so I can introduce a bill if I take about 2 minutes?

Ms. LANDRIEU. If I could have 30 more seconds.

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I come to the floor today to introduce a bill. We are going to be discussing, I hope, next week the reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, which is a very important act for the country, that provides the ways in which the Federal Government supports our local school systems throughout the country. There are a few of us here who believe very strongly we need to change some of the ways we do that, to really focus on results and not process, so we can stop funding failure and begin rewarding success. So I come to the floor today to introduce a bill because there are so many ways we can help improve our schools. Because my time is limited, I cannot list them. But one of the ways we can do that is by helping to encourage good people to go into the field of teaching and to help raise teachers' salaries, if we can, in appropriate ways, to encourage good, qualified teachers to stay in the classrooms. As you know, Mr. President, we do not fund teachers' salaries directly. The bill I am introducing will provide a tax credit for those teachers who become nationally board certified. Currently, there are over 4,000 teachers who are nationally board certified. This will provide a $5,000 tax credit. It is the least we can do to help encourage the States to continue the way they are encouraging good, qualified people to stay in the classroom and to help raise the salaries of teachers in this Nation. Just for the record, beginning teachers make $7,000 less than their peers, but, more tragically, teachers with a master's degree make about $35,000 less.

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I come to the floor today to introduce a bill. We are going to be discussing, I hope, next week the reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, which is a very important act for the country, that provides the ways in which the Federal Government supports our local school systems throughout the country. There are a few of us here who believe very strongly we need to change some of the ways we do that, to really focus on results and not process, so we can stop funding failure and begin rewarding success. So I come to the floor today to introduce a bill because there are so many ways we can help improve our schools. Because my time is limited, I cannot list them. But one of the ways we can do that is by helping to encourage good people to go into the field of teaching and to help raise teachers' salaries, if we can, in appropriate ways, to encourage good, qualified teachers to stay in the classrooms. As you know, Mr. President, we do not fund teachers' salaries directly. The bill I am introducing will provide a tax credit for those teachers who become nationally board certified. Currently, there are over 4,000 teachers who are nationally board certified. This will provide a $5,000 tax credit. It is the least we can do to help encourage the States to continue the way they are encouraging good, qualified people to stay in the classroom and to help raise the salaries of teachers in this Nation. Just for the record, beginning teachers make $7,000 less than their peers, but, more tragically, teachers with a master's degree make about $35,000 less.

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I am pleased to join with my distinguished colleague from Louisiana, Senator John Breaux, in introducing legislation that would establish the Cat Island National Wildlife Refuge in West Feliciana Parish, Louisiana. Cat Island is one of the last remaining tracts in the Lower Mississippi River Valley that is still influenced by the natural dynamics of the river. The 36,500 acre site supports one of the largest densities of virgin bald cypress trees in the entire Mississippi River Valley. The site is also the home of the nation's largest cypress tree. Cat Island is important habitat for several declining species of songbirds and thousands of wintering waterfowl. The site is also home to the Louisiana black bear and high populations of deer, squirrel, turkey, and furbearing mammals such as mink and bobcats. We introduce this important legislation with the purpose of preserving and enhancing this valuable natural resource for our nation and generations to come. Mr. President, I recently had the good fortune of visiting Cat Island with Senator Breaux and representatives from the U.S. Department of the Interior, and I must tell you I was overwhelmed by the breathtaking beauty and bountiful natural resources of this site. Cat Island truly represents one of the most valuable and productive wildlife habitats in the United States. The site has high value for public uses such as outdoor recreation, environmental education, ecotourism, hunting, and fishing. There has been a tremendous amount of enthusiasm for protecting and enhancing the natural resources of Cat Island. Citizens and elected officials from the State of Louisiana, representatives from national environmental conservation organizations and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service have supported our efforts in developing this important legislation. The Police Jurors of West Feliciana Parish, Louisiana, have passed a resolution in support of establishing the Cat Island National Wildlife Refuge. The Governor of Louisiana and the Secretary of the Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries have endorsed creating the refuge. The Nature Conservancy of Louisiana has generously agreed to underwrite the operation and maintenance cost for the Fish and Wildlife Service during the first three years of operation of the refuge. The conservation organization will also facilitate the acquisition of the site and the transfer of ownership to the Fish and Wildlife Service. Most recently, the President allocated $4 million in his fiscal year 2001 budget for land acquisitions at the Cat Island site. Mr. President, Cat Island clearly represents one of the best examples of Louisiana's unique natural heritage and is deserving of inclusion in the National Wildlife Refuge System. This legislation supports the aims of the Lower Mississippi River Aquatic Resources Management Plan and the Lower Mississippi Valley Joint Venture under the North American Wetlands Conservation Act. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, today I rise, along with the senior Senator from Louisiana, to introduce legislation which would establish the Red River National Wildlife Refuge. Congressman McCreary is introducing identical legislation in the House of Representatives. Mr. President, the Red River Valley located along the Red River Waterway in Caddo, Bossier, Red River, Natchitoches and Desoto parishes in Louisiana is of critical importance to over 350 species of birds, aquatic life and a wide array of other species associated with river basin ecosystems. It represents a historic migration corridor for migratory birds funneling through the mid-continent from as far north as the Arctic Circle and as far south as South America. The Red River Valley also represents the most degraded watershed in Louisiana. The bottomland hardwood forests of the Red River Valley have been almost totally cleared. Reforestation and restoration of native habitat will benefit a host of species. There are no significant public sanctuaries for over 300 river miles on this important migration corridor, and no significant Federal, State or private wildlife sanctuaries along the Red River north from Alexandria, Louisiana to the Arkansas-Louisiana state boundary. The Red River Valley offers extraordinary recreational, research and educational opportunities for students, scientists, bird watchers, wildlife observers, hunters, anglers, trappers, hikers and nature photographers. The bill Senator Breaux and I are introducing today would: restore and preserve native Red River ecosystems; provide habitat for migratory birds; maximize fisheries on the Red River and its tributaries, natural lakes and man-made reservoirs; provide habitat for and population management of native plants and resident animals including restoration of extirpated species; provide technical assistance to private land owners in the restoration of their lands for the benefit of fish and wildlife and provide the public with opportunities for hunting, angling, trapping, photographing wildlife, hiking, bird watching and other outdoor recreational and educational activities. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I rise today to bring to the attention of the Senate a plague that has been afflicted upon our country-- formosan termites. Clearly, any termite is bad news for home and building owners, but the formosan termite is especially a problem. This aggressive termite species is becoming even more prevalent than native termite species in some areas. While native species generally feed on dead trees and processed wood, formosan termites have an unbelievably horrific appetite with a diet that consists of anything that contains wood fiber including homes, buildings and live trees as well as crops and plants. Believe it or not, formosan termites can even penetrate plaster, plastic and asphalt to get to a new food source. Coptotermes formosanus (otherwise known as the formosan termite), have invaded port cities in the United States and are spreading rapidly across the rest of the country. Right now this exotic species is wrecking their special brand of havoc in 14 states including California, Arizona, New Mexico, Texas, Louisiana, Arkansas, Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia, Florida, South Carolina, North Carolina, Virginia, and Hawaii with their map of destruction growing wider daily. Experts have estimated that it costs Americans an astonishing $1 billion each year to repair the harm, with each new case costing homeowners an average of $20,000. Since the formosan termites was first brought to the United States it has spread like a plague through the Southeast. The infestation is most severe in New Orleans, where these pests have caused more damage than, ``tornadoes, hurricanes, and floods combined'' and the total annual cost of termite damage and treatment is estimated at $217,000,000. In areas like the famed historic French Quarter, where close-packed houses share common walls, entire city blocks must be treated--a procedure that is costly and complicated. Outside the Quarter, officials fear that infestation may have hit as many as one-third of the beloved live oaks that shade historic thoroughfares such as St. Charles Avenue. A voracious blind creature that eats history--it sounds like something from a science-fiction nightmare, but it's real. Unfortunately, the only explanation for how this pest came to exist in the United States is that it was introduced from east Asia in the 1940s through the mishandling of U.S. military cargo and troops returning home from World War II--I believe that since the government caused the damage, the government should do something to relieve the burden. The bill I am introducing today seeks to provide the victims of Formosan Termites with some much needed relief. Under current law, small business owners are allowed to deduct the cost to repair Formosan Termite damage as a capital loss under IRS code Section 165. For some reason, individual homeowners have been denied this same right, although they can deduct the cost to repair damages caused by disasters which are defined as casualty losses, such as flood and fire. My bill simply changes the definition of casualty loss to include Formosan Termites so that homeowners are allowed the same deduction that business owners are already getting. This measure also seeks to make low interest loans financed by the issuance of ``qualified'' private activity tax exempt bonds more accessible for homeowners and small businesses seeking to repair the expensive damage which was inflicted upon their homes by formosan termite damage. It does this by expanding current mortgage revenue bond provisions to permit homeowners to receive up to a $25,000 home improvement loan to repair this damage and also allows small businesses and landlords to use issue revenue bonds to finance loans for this same purpose. As an added incentive, as long as the proceeds are used to purchase tax exempt bonds to finance the repair of Formosan Termite damage, banks will be allowed to deduct the interest payments on these loans. Obviously this legislation will not solve all of the problems formosan termites have caused. However, I do believe it is a good first step towards alleviating the burden these pests bring upon homeowners across the country. I urge everyone to join with me and give the victims of this plague a little relief. Thank you. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of this bill be printed in the Record.

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I thank Senator Brownback.

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, if my colleague will yield, I wanted to speak for about 2 minutes. If Senator Byrd would allow both of us to go forward before he begins his remarks, I would be happy to yield.

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I rise today to bring to the attention of the Senate a plague that has been afflicted upon our country-- formosan termites. Clearly, any termite is bad news for home and building owners, but the formosan termite is especially a problem. This aggressive termite species is becoming even more prevalent than native termite species in some areas. While native species generally feed on dead trees and processed wood, formosan termites have an unbelievably horrific appetite with a diet that consists of anything that contains wood fiber including homes, buildings and live trees as well as crops and plants. Believe it or not, formosan termites can even penetrate plaster, plastic and asphalt to get to a new food source. Coptotermes formosanus (otherwise known as the formosan termite), have invaded port cities in the United States and are spreading rapidly across the rest of the country. Right now this exotic species is wrecking their special brand of havoc in 14 states including California, Arizona, New Mexico, Texas, Louisiana, Arkansas, Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia, Florida, South Carolina, North Carolina, Virginia, and Hawaii with their map of destruction growing wider daily. Experts have estimated that it costs Americans an astonishing $1 billion each year to repair the harm, with each new case costing homeowners an average of $20,000. Since the formosan termites was first brought to the United States it has spread like a plague through the Southeast. The infestation is most severe in New Orleans, where these pests have caused more damage than, ``tornadoes, hurricanes, and floods combined'' and the total annual cost of termite damage and treatment is estimated at $217,000,000. In areas like the famed historic French Quarter, where close-packed houses share common walls, entire city blocks must be treated--a procedure that is costly and complicated. Outside the Quarter, officials fear that infestation may have hit as many as one-third of the beloved live oaks that shade historic thoroughfares such as St. Charles Avenue. A voracious blind creature that eats history--it sounds like something from a science-fiction nightmare, but it's real. Unfortunately, the only explanation for how this pest came to exist in the United States is that it was introduced from east Asia in the 1940s through the mishandling of U.S. military cargo and troops returning home from World War II--I believe that since the government caused the damage, the government should do something to relieve the burden. The bill I am introducing today seeks to provide the victims of Formosan Termites with some much needed relief. Under current law, small business owners are allowed to deduct the cost to repair Formosan Termite damage as a capital loss under IRS code Section 165. For some reason, individual homeowners have been denied this same right, although they can deduct the cost to repair damages caused by disasters which are defined as casualty losses, such as flood and fire. My bill simply changes the definition of casualty loss to include Formosan Termites so that homeowners are allowed the same deduction that business owners are already getting. This measure also seeks to make low interest loans financed by the issuance of ``qualified'' private activity tax exempt bonds more accessible for homeowners and small businesses seeking to repair the expensive damage which was inflicted upon their homes by formosan termite damage. It does this by expanding current mortgage revenue bond provisions to permit homeowners to receive up to a $25,000 home improvement loan to repair this damage and also allows small businesses and landlords to use issue revenue bonds to finance loans for this same purpose. As an added incentive, as long as the proceeds are used to purchase tax exempt bonds to finance the repair of Formosan Termite damage, banks will be allowed to deduct the interest payments on these loans. Obviously this legislation will not solve all of the problems formosan termites have caused. However, I do believe it is a good first step towards alleviating the burden these pests bring upon homeowners across the country. I urge everyone to join with me and give the victims of this plague a little relief. Thank you. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of this bill be printed in the Record.

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I make note tonight of a very significant event which occurred today in the Capitol. We were able to pass legislation from the Foreign Relations Committee, under the leadership of the chairman of that committee, Chairman Jesse Helms, The Hague Convention on International Adoption. The reason I mention it particularly tonight is that we will be taking up this implementation legislation when we return--hopefully, soon after we return. Then we will be considering a very important treaty under the same title. There are many hundreds of leaders in Washington today from the Joint Council on International Children's Services and with the National Council for Adoption who have worked literally for years to bring us to this point. I also commend our partners in the House, Congressman Delahunt from Massachusetts, Congressman Burr, and Congressman Gejdenson from Connecticut who worked very hard on this who were terrific leaders. Sixty-six countries participated in this ground-breaking document. There were 37 signatories, and to date 29 countries have ratified. I particularly mention Mexico and Romania as two of the earliest countries. Since the United States receives more children in this country through adoption than all other countries combined, and since we pride ourselves on being a leader in this particular area, I think it is very significant that we step forward, pass this legislation, and ratify this treaty. In closing, let me say it is so significant because many Senators from both sides of the aisle have worked for so many years to promote adoption in a very positive way to say basically that every child deserves a home. If their biological family is split apart or broken up by death, or disease, or tragedy, neglect, or abuse, it is our responsibility as a society to make sure those children are cared for permanently by someone who is capable of nurturing and loving. The significance of this treaty is that now we express, in an international way, that that child should then go to their family and then to the community at large, but if no place can be found, surely there is a home somewhere on this planet for these children. There are many orphans and there are many children in limbo caught within systems in the United States and elsewhere. I thank my colleagues and I thank Senator Helms for his great leadership. I look forward to taking up this issue when we return because there was great committee work done and a lot of work for many years was put into this. I am convinced that millions of children now all over the world will be able to find a home and families will be able to find children once this legislation is implemented and carried out. I thank the Chair.

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, today I rise, along with the senior Senator from Louisiana, to introduce legislation which would establish the Red River National Wildlife Refuge. Congressman McCreary is introducing identical legislation in the House of Representatives. Mr. President, the Red River Valley located along the Red River Waterway in Caddo, Bossier, Red River, Natchitoches and Desoto parishes in Louisiana is of critical importance to over 350 species of birds, aquatic life and a wide array of other species associated with river basin ecosystems. It represents a historic migration corridor for migratory birds funneling through the mid-continent from as far north as the Arctic Circle and as far south as South America. The Red River Valley also represents the most degraded watershed in Louisiana. The bottomland hardwood forests of the Red River Valley have been almost totally cleared. Reforestation and restoration of native habitat will benefit a host of species. There are no significant public sanctuaries for over 300 river miles on this important migration corridor, and no significant Federal, State or private wildlife sanctuaries along the Red River north from Alexandria, Louisiana to the Arkansas-Louisiana state boundary. The Red River Valley offers extraordinary recreational, research and educational opportunities for students, scientists, bird watchers, wildlife observers, hunters, anglers, trappers, hikers and nature photographers. The bill Senator Breaux and I are introducing today would: restore and preserve native Red River ecosystems; provide habitat for migratory birds; maximize fisheries on the Red River and its tributaries, natural lakes and man-made reservoirs; provide habitat for and population management of native plants and resident animals including restoration of extirpated species; provide technical assistance to private land owners in the restoration of their lands for the benefit of fish and wildlife and provide the public with opportunities for hunting, angling, trapping, photographing wildlife, hiking, bird watching and other outdoor recreational and educational activities. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I rise today to speak about the Adoption Opportunities Act which would amend the current adoption tax credit so it does what it was originally intended to do, and that is to help all kinds of families in their efforts to adopt all kinds of wonderful children. I would like to begin my remarks this morning by introducing you and my colleagues to someone very special. This beautiful little girl's name is Serina Anglin. Serina was born, as you can see here, prematurely and severely addicted to drugs. Her mother was a 15-year- old girl who herself had been abandoned in a crack house by her drug- addicted mother. At birth, doctors were all but certain Serena would not survive. When she was just a few months old, a neurologist described her in the following way: In summary, Serina is a severely manifold handicapped child whose significant defects are in social, adaptive, affective, and cognitive development. Serina has cerebral palsy as well as other multiple problems including crack cocaine prenatal addiction, history of herpes and encephalitis, and seizure disorders including epilepsy. . . . Her ability to walk is very uncertain. I think she will fall into the moderate to severe range of retardation. However, through the grace of God, Serina came into the home of a wonderful couple, Hal and Patty Anglin, of Wisconsin, who are now her adoptive parents. I want to show you a current picture of Serina. Through their love and determination, Serina has not only survived but her progress has simply amazed medical experts. Today, Serina is a remarkable child. She still has some small seizures, but her larger seizures are all but gone. She not only can walk, she recently learned to ride a bike. Each day she is becoming more and more active. She is true and living proof that the love of a family, growing up in a nurturing environment, can make what was deemed impossible possible. This is not to say this miracle came easily. In the beginning, Serina's care required that she go to the doctor over 16 times a month. For the first year of her life, her adoptive mother, Patty, carried her in a tummy sack to simulate the safety and warmth she had been deprived in the womb. She had to be taught how to breathe and swallow. She has had several surgeries on her leg which was damaged as a result of prenatal drug exposure. I tell this story today because I cannot think of a better way to show my colleagues why the current tax credit needs to be changed. Serina was born to a mother who was a ward of the State. So upon her birth, she was immediately placed in foster care, as I explained. As such, when the Anglins, who were her foster care parents, went through the formal adoption process, the process of adoption cost them almost nothing. Therefore, under our current definition of qualified adoption expenses, they were not eligible to receive one single dime of the $5,000 tax credit that is supposedly available under current law. Had Serina, this beautiful little girl, been a healthy infant voluntarily given up and adopted privately or through one of our many able agencies, the Anglins would have been eligible to claim the $5,000 tax credit. I am sure my colleagues will agree this was not our intention when we passed the adoption tax credit. In the case of children in foster care with special needs, what gives many parents pause is that everyday care of these children can be both physically and financially draining. I cannot tell you how many foster parents tell me the only thing standing in the way of their formally adopting foster care children is the worry that their personal resources will be inadequate to properly care for them. Through a properly drafted and funded adoption tax credit, we can be the partners with these prospective parents whose hearts are ready to take on this responsibility. It is a small step in the right direction but a very important step. A tax credit for special needs children logically should assist parents, such as the Anglins, with the everyday long-term costs of raising a child with special needs and should not be limited to the expenses of the ``act of adoption'' itself. The current definition is limited to ``qualified adoption expenses.'' That is too narrow to reach children such as Serina who need our help the most. The Adoption Opportunities Act, which we introduce today, proposes to fix this dilemma. It allows a straightforward $10,000 tax credit for families who adopt a child with special needs. The new tax credit for special needs children will not require the parents to submit verification of their expenses, nor will the amount be dependent upon the cost of adoption itself. I know many of us have argued for years about simplifying the Tax Code. I am hard pressed to imagine a way that would be more simple than the one Senator Craig and I are proposing, for all a parent has to do is simply attach a certificate of adoption for any special needs child to their tax return and they will get, under this bill, a $10,000 credit that can be carried forward for 5 years. It is that simple. Another problem lies in the fact that the current tax credit for nonspecial needs children is due to sunset in December of 2001. Hoping to ensure the credit was well designed and necessary, the drafters of the original bill agreed to reevaluate it after 5 years. We have done that and have included that in our bill. It permanently extends the $5,000 tax credit for adoption and almost doubles the adoption tax credit for special needs. Because of this assistance, many families, who might not otherwise have been financially able to do so, have been able to build a family through adoption. Last week, in fact, I had the great honor of attending a ceremony when 17 children from 14 different countries became citizens of the United States. All of these children were brought here to be adopted into loving and wonderful homes of Americans from all parts of our country. At that gathering, one of the mothers who had adopted two children came up to me and said: Senator, please let them know in Congress how much we appreciate the adoption tax credit. It made all the difference to me and my husband as we decided to adopt our second child. So we know that tax credit works. We know it has a positive impact, and part of our bill today extends that permanently so families can count on it. With the cost of adoption still on the rise, this tax credit is an important factor, as I have mentioned. It has been estimated that adoptions can range anywhere from $10,000 to $20,000, whether done privately or through an agency domestically or internationally. Another figure to keep in mind is one that was released recently by a national adoptive parent organization. They estimate that using specialized foster or adoptive parents instead of what we do now, which is congregate care facilities for drug-exposed children, could save-- and I believe the Senator from Texas, Mr. Gramm, will be interested in this as he continues to fight for ways the Federal Government can save our money--they estimate we can save as much as $550 million a year by relying on adoptive parents instead of keeping many of these children in the ``system,'' for which the taxpayers pay. Anything we can do to encourage adoption will not only be the right thing, the moral thing, the wonderful thing, and the family values thing to do, but it is smart for the taxpayers of the United States. In addition, in case people are interested, there are more than 100,000 children in this country today waiting to be adopted--children who have had termination with their biological parents. They are waiting for someone to claim them as their own and to be adopted. There are 550,000 children in foster care. About 450,000 of those are in the process of either being returned to their families or they, too, can be eligible for adoption. Clearly, there is a need to promote adoption in this country that works for the benefit of birth parents, adoptive parents, and the children. Finally, for parents to raise a child in their home, the estimates for a middle-class family are about $140,000. That is not including college tuition or vocational education. That is just an estimate. The least we can do is help in a small way with a $5,000 or $10,000 tax credit to encourage families to be their partner in this adoption effort. I believe not only does it simplify the Tax Code, but there is a great need, and the need has been demonstrated. The results have been terrific. We have had testimony after testimony about how important the current system has been, so anything we can do to improve it I am sure will be welcomed by so many. It is a step in the right direction. I close by saying, as we debate which tax credits to pursue, which are worthy, this adoption tax credit should be on the top of every list. We need to continue to be bold enough to take these steps because every time we do, children such as Serina, for whom people have given up hope, have found families on which to rely and with whom to grow.

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor.

Ms. LANDRIEU. I thank the Chair. (The remarks of Ms. Laudrieu, Mr. Gramm, and Mr. Craig pertaining to the introduction of legislation are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')

Ms. LANDRIEU

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

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, since the men and women in our armed services provide 100 percent of our national security, they deserve at least 1 percent of the tax cuts as outlined in this budget resolution. We are the largest employer as the Federal Government. The members of our armed services constitute the largest single workforce in America not yet covered by a thrift savings plan. This amendment does not ask for the same match program we have but that simply they be allowed to have a thrift savings plan. It allows for the participation by all members of our armed services, and it will not replace the current military retirement plan. I understand this amendment is acceptable, and I ask for a voice vote.

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I rise in support of the Graham amendment. I acknowledge the very helpful comments made by my colleague from Connecticut and others who have spoken about this amendment. I realize my time is short. I would like to begin by saying that in 1965, when President Lyndon Johnson first signed the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, it was 32 pages long with 5 program titles. Today, the bill is over 1,000 pages and contains over 60 programs. We need to get back to basics, and that is what the Graham amendment is about. If these 1,000 pages of rules, regulations were working. If micromanagement of these 60 programs is the answer, then we should be satisfied with the status quo. A few minutes ago, my colleague from Arkansas spoke about what the status quo means for our children. I rise to urge my colleagues, Republicans and Democrats, to say no to the status quo. As the Senator from Connecticut, our leader on this issue, has acknowledged, there are many wonderful schools and many wonderful teachers, and some wonderful superintendents and active parents. The problem is they are becoming the exception rather than the rule. Let me just share just a few startling and disturbing statistics. In many school districts, 40-, 50-, or 60-percent failure rates are the rule, not the exception to the rule. Every day in America, 2,806 children drop out of the school system because it is not working for them. According to the National Education Goals Report, 80 percent of our fourth graders scored below proficient in math and 70 percent scored below proficient in reading. For every 100 children who start kindergarten each year, only 27 percent eventually graduate from college. If you are happy with these statistics, then do not vote for the Graham amendment. I, for one, cannot live with these numbers and am here to insist on change for our kids. Let me say that although we are all talking about change, there is right change and there is wrong change. There is change that gets us on the right road, and there is change that takes us further away from where we want to go. Some Republican leaders offer vouchers as the solution to the dilemma I just outlined. Those same Republican leaders also talk about block grants, minimal accountability, and then waiting 5 years for results. I personally do not think that is the solution. On the Democratic side, unfortunately, there are many leaders who just want to talk about more programs, more money, more strings, more pages, and more micromanagement. But more money and more programs are not the answer. The Graham amendment is about a clean break away from the old ways. Away from sort of the ``romance,'' if you will, of vouchers, which really are an abandonment of our public schools and the children who need them the most. The Graham amendment says we need to talk about performance and outcomes. We need to minimize the paperwork, the redtape, the regulations. We need to help our schools set high performance standards, reward them when they meet those performance standards, and make sure there are serious consequences when they fail to do so. We cannot have a system any longer that fails a third of our children. It is important for us to break with the past. That is what this amendment attempts to do. It does not do it all. There are many other steps we have to take. But it is an important step. A bold step. It talks about real accountability. It requires that States and local districts set and meet targets for boosting student performance. It will offer awards to those who meet their goals and withhold funding from those who repeatedly fail to do so. The amendment suggests greater flexibility. It acknowldedges that the local level has the tools necessary to make these decisions and gives them the power to do so. While it does not call for consolidation specifically, it does call for us to concentrate our resources around broad titles, including teacher quality, professional development, smaller classroom sizes Finally--I know I am getting to the end of my time--it increases funding because it is time that we truly invest in our children's future. Derek Bok, Former President of Harvard once said, ``If you think Education is expensive . . . try ignorance.'' I am proud to stand here and support the Graham amendment because it is the only way for our Nation to build the kind of foundation we need for the future. I yield back the remainder of my time.

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I thank my colleagues, Senator Lieberman and Senator Evan Bayh, for their leadership on this important issue. I am proud to stand with them and several others in support of an outstanding piece of legislation, one which calls for us to reinvent the federal funding stream, reinvest in our children's education and, perhaps most importantly, hold the system responsible when it fails to work for our kids. Over the past year, we have worked together with individuals and organizations from all fifty states, in an effort to craft a bill which reflects the concerns of all those involved in elementary and secondary education in America. We spoke with parents, teachers, principals, administrators and, most importantly, the students. In doing so, we came to this rather simple conclusion, we owe our children more than we are giving them. The future of this country depends on how well we are able to educate our children and prepare them for the changing global marketplace. In order to raise academic achievement in our public schools, we must put the priority of federal programs on performance instead of process, on delivering results instead of developing rules and on actively encouraging bold reforms instead of passively tolerating failure. It is true that the Federal Government only contributes 7% to the overall spending in elementary and secondary education. But it is an important 7%, the portion which is directed to the most needy and challenged children. We must begin to use this $13 billion annually as leverage to promote national priorities such as quality teachers, smaller schools, lower teacher pupil ratios and raising the academic performance of minority and disadvantaged students. By streamlining the many different programs and funding streams currently under ESEA, over sixty to be exact, into six goal oriented titles we put the day to day decisions of education back where it belongs, at the local level. With this added flexibility, we propose to double our contribution to Title I schools. As many of us know, Title I funding is essential for bridging the ever increasing gap in the quality of education available for the rich and the poor. In Louisiana, this would mean a $100,000,000 increase to support existing Title I programs as well as additional funding to develop and implement new and innovative strategies for improvement. Of course, we all agree that those who are in the class room should be qualified and confident to teach the subjects they are assigned to teach, yet we must ask ourselves what are we doing to ensure that they are. What are we doing to attract the best and the brightest to the classroom? This bill would increase the funding available to states for the professional development of teachers to $3 billion. With this money, states could develop and maintain programs to address the increasing national teacher shortages and retain the quality teachers. It supports efforts like Troops to Teachers and other transitional teaching programs. Most importantly, it requires that those who teach our children are competent to do so. And finally the third and final R--Responsibility. Our proposal calls for the Federal government to rededicate ourselves to the basic principles of accountability and consequences. In my view, accountability is an essential ingredient in any recipe for success. As parents, how many of us would offer to pay our child a $10 or other incentives for every F they received on their report card? As investors, how many of us would double our investment in a company that continued to show poor earnings? Yet this is exactly what we continue to do in public education at the local and state level, we continue to fund failure and we do not reward progress. It is time to change that approach, it is not working. This proposal gives local educators the freedom they need to meet their specific needs, since they know best what their students require. However, it also requires that they meet specific performance measures--with real consequences for failure. I am proud to say that Louisiana has been a leader in the call for accountability in public education. According to a recent report on accountability, ``Louisiana has one of the Nation's most comprehensive accountability systems including ratings and consequences for schools, exit tests for students to graduate from high school and monetary rewards for successful schools.'' By using the carrot and stick approach, Louisiana has begun to see some positive results. A recent National Assessment of Educational Progress study found that Louisiana was one of only seven states that achieved significant gains between 1992 and 1994 in the percentage of fourth graders reading at proficient level or above. In 1994, we decided, as a nation, that states should be held more accountable. Therefore, we attached Title I funding to standards based assessments to force states to take a long hard look where improvements needed to be made. But we did not go far enough in making sure that the consequences for not meeting these assessments were real. Under Three Rs we do. Right now, regardless if a state or local agency is making the grade, they receive equal funding. We aim to change that. Like a parent, we need to encourage schools to strive to achieve. We need to begin to reward them for A's not F's. We also make accountability mean more than statewide tests. We create a funding structure that encourages states to implement an accountability system which includes report cards that summarize the performance of individual schools; targeted assistance to help schools improve; rewards for schools with high performance and the authority to close or take over and reconstitute schools that don't get better over time. In other words, real accountability. Also, this proposal ensures that state and local educational agencies have systems for additional or specialized assistance for children who are struggling to perform. Implementing a policy to end social promotion before ensuring appropriate school accountability and the opportunity for all students to learn in well equipped schools with high quality teachers is fundamentally unfair and must be stopped. In closing, I would again like to thank my esteemed colleague from Connecticut. Because of his leadership and insight, this bill promises to bring about great change in public education. It is a bold step in the right direction. A step I am happy to join him in making.

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, today I, along with Senators Snowe, Kerry, Cleland, Murray, Mikulski, Abraham, and Jeffords, am introducing the National Women's Business Council Re-authorization Act of 2000. This legislation would ensure that one of our most valued resources may continue its work in support of women's business ownership. The bi- partisan National Women's Business Council has provided important advice and counsel to the Congress since it was established in 1988. At that time, there were 2.4 million women business owners documented; today, there are over 9 million women who own and operate businesses in every sector, from home based services to construction trades to high tech giants. Women are changing the face of our economy at an unprecedented rate, and the Council has been our eyes and ears as we anticipate the needs of this burgeoning entrepreneurial sector. The 15 appointees to the Council, all prominent business women, have been hard at work during the last three years. Some of their accomplishments include: hosting Summit '98, a national economic forum that produced a Master Plan of initiatives and recommendations to sustain and grow the entrepreneurial economy; preparing a Best Practices Guide for Contracting with Woman, and issuing a comprehensive statistical study of 11 years of federal contracting with women owned businesses; co- hosting a series of highly regarded policy forums with the Federal Reserve in 10 cities, including New Orleans, Louisiana, on capital access issues facing entrepreneurs and working to secure the collection of data on women-owned businesses by the Bureau of the Census, and funding new research on a range of issues concerning women's business development. Recently, the Council has stepped up efforts to increase access to credit for women-owned businesses. This spring, the Council will release a report in collaboration with the Milken Institute, which will identify model programs that have been successful in increasing the flow of credit to small, women owned businesses, especially those in the retail, service or high tech sectors. The Council is also working to increase investments in women-led firms by launching Springboard 2000, a national series of women's venture capital forums. Building on the momentum of its highly successful Silicon Valley event in January, the Council will host at least two more forums showcasing women-led businesses before private, corporate and venture capital investors. As my colleague Senator Kerry has said so often, the equity markets are the last frontier for women entrepreneurs. The Council's venture capital fairs provide women entrepreneurs with much needed access to capital so that they can launch and grow their high tech businesses. The Council is leading the effort to increase access to competitive contracting opportunities by working with federal agencies and women's business organizations. Later this year, the Council will release an extensive report on the characteristics and experiences of the over 5,000 women business owners who have been successful in receiving federal contracts. We eagerly look forward to reviewing their findings. Under the chairmanship of Kay Koplovitz, the Council has indeed taken a bold new approach in its advocacy of the fastest growing business sector. As a result of the Council's work this year, we will know more than ever about women's business enterprise, their economic trends, the characteristics of their owners and their public and private sector needs. The Council has been a powerful resource for policy makers by providing valuable data, information and recommendations which are essential if we are to assist our communities in sustaining the unparalleled number of new businesses launched in the last 7 years. It is for these reasons and more that I am introducing legislation to re-authorize the Council for another three years. It is imperative that the National Women's Business Council continues its great work and expands its activities to support initiatives that are creating the infrastructure for women's entrepreneurship at the state and local level.