Mary Landrieu

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Ms. LANDRIEU. If I could respond, both have been very helpful and supportive as we worked toward a bipartisan compromise on some of these issues. I particularly thank the majority leader for his efforts as a cosponsor of one particular piece of legislation, but there have been different versions filed. However, there is a tremendous amount of interest. Perhaps I should ask Senator Gorton--I said I will say this publicly--if tomorrow at his convenience, maybe through the majority leader or directly, he can give Members some idea of some of the things that perhaps are being discussed in terms of riders that were very controversial when this bill passed, as well as some of the specific ways we may be funding some of these projects. We want to work out a bipartisan solution that is reflective of what many Members have worked on now for over 2 years. Maybe there could be an appropriate time tomorrow for discussion. Senator Daschle may have something to add. I certainly want to be supportive of progress we are making on bankruptcy, but I think there are some other important issues, too, that should be dealt with in the next few days.

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, does the majority leader have any information regarding the Interior appropriations bill? That is one of the bills that is continuing to be negotiated. Maybe I should wait to get his attention. Will the majority leader yield for a moment?

Ms. LANDRIEU. Will the majority leader yield?

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I will not ask my colleagues to vote. I will ask for the vote to be vitiated. However, I want to spend 1 minute on this amendment because there seems to be a misunderstanding about some of the facts. With all respect to the chairman and ranking member who do not support this amendment, perhaps we will have longer to debate this in the years to come. It is my understanding--and I am supporting this bill--that our idea is to help develop the continent of Africa in a mutually beneficial way that helps our Nation, also. However, in the current draft of the bill, there is an island that is included which is technically part of Africa. There are 1 million inhabitants and the per capita GDP is $10,300, far exceeding other nations, such as Sudan with a GDP of $875; Ethiopia, with a GDP of $520; Somalia, with a GDP of $600 per year per capita. I don't understand why we are including some islands that are already doing very well--in fact, better than some of our European nations. I bring this to the attention of the Senate. I will not ask for a vote. The ranking member has said there are administrative provisions in this trade agreement that make it clear our efforts are directed to the nations that need development and not to give preferential treatment to nations or areas that are already quite developed. That is my only point. I am not going to ask the Senate to vote on it. Perhaps we will have a time to discuss this in the next year or the next Congress.

Ms. LANDRIEU. The Senator from Delaware should know I am going to certainly support this bill. It is not my intention to offer an amendment that would in any way weaken this bill. But I also believe very strongly that we should not be presenting false hope or providing loopholes or providing special treatment; that if our objective is clearly to develop Africa the continent of Africa and not islands off its shore, if it is to really develop sub-Saharan Africa, then we should shape a bill that will actually do this. I say to the Senator, without this amendment, which clearly outlines that the per capita GDP I am suggesting is five times higher than any African nation currently--if we do not adopt this amendment, I could see clearly that the industries would just continue to go over to this one island off Africa, undercut some of the American industries, not result in investment in Africa, and give help to a particular place that does not need help. That does not make any sense to me. So I offer this amendment in good faith. I have to say, respectfully, I do not understand the arguments against this amendment because, again, the per capita GDP in Africa is currently $1,798, and the business community knows they would be free to continue to do work until the per capita income reached $10,000, which is the cap. That would be many years down the line and would give them the stability they need but not allow us to be circumvented by an island that is not part of sub-Saharan Africa and I think could undercut our intentions. I thank the Senators for extending me the time to respond. I look forward to a vote on this later today. Mr. ROTH addressed the Chair.

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, could I ask unanimous consent to respond for a moment?

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I say to the Senator from Delaware that I am fully supportive of the efforts to provide opportunity for trade that will be mutually beneficial between the United States and Africa and the Caribbean. I have been to the floor now on more than one occasion talking about the merits of this bill. It is not perfect, but it is a good piece of legislation, and one I am convinced will be mutually beneficial to the nations included. I believe my amendment will make this bill better and will clarify something which I think was the intention of this bill but may have been lost in the drafting. This amendment simply says we will prohibit countries with a per capita GDP five times the average of all sub-Saharan African nations from participating in the Generalized System of Preferences portion of this legislation. Let me explain. The African Growth and Opportunity Act, I believe, should live up to its billing; namely, this legislation should provide an opportunity for growth in Africa, not outside of Africa. As I stated last week, this bill is also an opportunity for businesses in my home State and for the whole country, but it is important we do not lose sight of this objective. Faced with tight budgets, the United States will not make the same contributions to foreign aid as we have in the past. To replace this shortfall, we are relying on the great American promise of opportunity. In this case, the opportunity is represented by access to the greatest market in the world--our market. In essence, this bill is an invitation for Africa and the Caribbean to offer their best to America, to compete in our marketplace and, in so doing, raise the standard of living on both sides of the relationship. The success of this new relationship between Africa and America rides on the ability of poor African States to capitalize on greater market access. Until now, they have been unable to do so, but one of the promises of this bill is it will attract additional investment in the region. With the necessary infrastructure and capital, Africa may compete in international markets and establish the requisites for a robust manufacturing base. The question becomes: If new foreign investment comes to Africa, where will it be applied? I believe it is the intent of my colleagues in the Senate, as well as in the House, to assist the countries generally known as sub-Saharan Africa. We want to turn around two decades of economic decline in places such as Kenya, Tanzania, Liberia, and Ghana. That is the point of this amendment. If the United States is going to take this step, it is important we make certain the results assist the intended nations. We need to have confidence that the direct investment inspired by this legislation is directed to the countries that need it most. I restate that this amendment I am offering will try to make a good bill even better by prohibiting the Generalized System of Preferences to countries with a per capita GDP five times the average of all the sub-Saharan nations. The average per capita GDP in Africa, for anyone's interest, is $1,798. Thus, the cutoff of participation would be a per capita GDP of $8,987. This per capita cutoff is more than $2,500 more than South Africa, and also more than the per capita GDP in Russia, Brazil, Turkey, Hungary, and Poland. It is a reasonable cap. Why is this important? This amendment does not seek to target any particular country, but it is important to know there is an island nation off the coast of Africa, Mauritius, that already has a GDP of $10,300. Furthermore, this island is closer to Africa than any other continent, and it is hardly the kind of place I believe our colleagues or the American public would conceive as part of sub-Saharan Africa. One might well wonder how this island of over 1 million people has been able to attain such economic success. The answer is a well- developed textile industry. Through investments, Mauritius has managed to create a mature apparel processing shipment and manufacturing hub right in the middle of the Indian Ocean. It is a very tiny island with over 1 million inhabitants, but it is well developed. Its GDP would make countries in Europe green with envy. Mauritius can proudly boast of unemployment rates that would be welcomed in countries in Europe and is unheard of on the African Continent. Unfortunately, I am afraid if nations similar to this are included in the African Growth and Opportunity Act, much of, if not all of, the opportunity will go to the country that is already successful and hardly needs our assistance and directed help. If, after a hard-fought battle to bring this legislation to the floor, all we accomplish is to raise the standards of a small island where standards are already raised and already has a successful industry, I do not think we have done much, and we have truly toiled in vain. Again, this amendment creates objective and dynamic criteria for who can and cannot participate. It does not attempt to single out any particular place. But I do use that as an example of something I do not think is our intention. If we are successful, the average per capita GDP of Africa will increase as the continent moves forward. A more wealthy nation, such as the one I have described, may be eligible to participate later on. However, at this juncture, I believe we must remain focused on our objective. That is why I urge our manager, the Senator from Delaware, to take a look at this amendment. I hope it can be acceptable to both sides as we work to make this bill even better. I do not think it was our intention to move investments to a place that is already developed, and it is not fair to our industry in the United States. Our intention is to increase and bolster the infrastructure investment in the continent of Africa itself, particularly countries that are known as sub-Saharan Africa. So with this small amendment, we can correct and make that clear. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment and thank them for their attention on this matter. I yield the floor. Mr. ROTH addressed the Chair.

Ms. LANDRIEU. I ask unanimous consent for an additional 2 minutes to respond.

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to lay aside the pending amendment and call up amendment 2430.

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

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Oregon for his terrific statement and his terrific work with our colleague from Maine on a very important piece of legislation. The President has said time and again, as have most of us, as the Senator from Oregon has pointed out, that we would never even think of designing a Medicare program today without having prescription drug coverage. It would be unthinkable, particularly because of the advances in science and technology which, at a minimal cost, help keep people well and out of hospitals and out of difficulty and pain and suffering. It would be cost-effective to the taxpayer. I thank him and commit to him my intention to continue to work with him and with many Members on both sides of the aisle until we can resolve this problem and answer the legitimate needs and requests of our seniors in America.

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. I thank the Chair. I come to the floor today to add my voice in support of this very important piece of legislation in the hope that, as we continue to talk about the great strengths and characteristics that make this a good bill and the importance of continuing this open trade, we can build enough support to pass it, to get over whatever procedural hurdles are present. I thank the Senator from New York and the Senator from Delaware for their bipartisan leadership. With all due respect to the opponents, let me make a few points about this African Growth and Opportunity Act. When the United States can do something that extends opportunity to countries that need our assistance while at the same time benefiting American workers and industry, I believe we should take that step. We can, by voting for this bill, elevate the commercial exchange between Africa, the Caribbean, and Central America--hopefully, if that piece can be added--and the United States. That is what this bill attempts to do. My State, Louisiana, is smart and blessed to have positioned itself at the mouth of the Mississippi River. It is how our State began. It is how the city of New Orleans and communities began hundreds of years ago and developed into a State. It is impossible to overstate the river's importance to the economy of our Nation, but the Mississippi River is more than just a way to move goods within the United States. It is also the primary artery for north-south trade among the United States, Canada, and developing countries to the south. And therein lies so much potential for them and for us. At this time, much of America's trade flows in an east-to-west direction, between Europe and the east coast or Asia and the west coast. We have all benefited, some to a greater degree than others, and there have most certainly been changes, but we have all benefited from that flow. While Louisiana benefits and participates, it does not make use of Louisiana's national geographic advantage. We will continue to benefit in an even greater way by increasing the north-south flow. For this reason, when the United States has the opportunity to increase trade on the north-south axis, I can be confident we will increase those benefits to our State and the Nation. Although it has come under some criticism, the best example for Louisiana is NAFTA. By promoting trade among Mexico, the United States, and Canada, NAFTA moves goods along a north-south corridor that naturally produces growth for our State. The results have been quite dramatic. In 5 years since NAFTA was enacted, Louisiana's trade with our partners has increased 134 percent. Louisiana's exports to Mexico alone were up 34 percent last year. This trade increase supports over 10,000 jobs in my State and is growing every month. Thus, from the standpoint of enlightened self-interest, the majority of people in Louisiana support the expansion of trade between our other southern trading partners in Latin America, the Caribbean, and, yes, Africa. This bill is also about the United States paying more attention, serious attention, to a continent we have in many ways ignored. Such an effort is too long in coming. Until now, United States policy in Africa has really operated in two modes: benign neglect and cold war gamesmanship. Our Government poured aid into Africa when it was an active battleground in the ideological struggle of the cold war. We made many mistakes in our efforts to be helpful. We supported governments that paid only lip service to democratic principles and cared little about the infrastructure necessary for a modern market economy. Much of our aid was wasted--I am sure some of it went to very good use--and the series of wars and human tragedies have left the American people somewhat jaded about the prospects for real reform in Africa. Our neglect of this continent, with some exceptions, obviously, is starkly pointed out by our trade and investment statistics. Only 1 percent of all United States foreign direct investment goes to Africa. Of that 1 percent, half of it is in the petroleum sector, which obviously we, in Louisiana, know something about. The majority was concentrated in only five countries. That leaves 43 other nations in Africa with virtually no contact with the American system of free enterprise. I believe the American people understand this is a continent we cannot afford to leave behind and we cannot afford to develop a society in this world of haves and have-nots. The stresses that such disparities produce inherently rip at the fabric of our society, cause upheaval, and ultimately can, as we have seen on occasion after occasion, decade after decade, century after century, turn to severe violence and war. The disparity between the United States and nations such as Tanzania or Malawi makes the difference between the rich and poor within our own country seem laughable. Yet we wonder where rogue nations come from. We wonder what prompts them to act in violent and, in our idea, irresponsible ways. When people in our country are not vested in the development of our society, when they believe they have nothing at stake in the community, crime and violence result. The international community is no different. Would the Sudan be a rogue state if it had a serious trade relationship with the United States and Europe? I do not believe so. Unfortunately, much of Africa finds itself ignored and divested from the world community. Again, the figures paint a stark picture. For 20 years, the gap between the level of economic development in Africa and the rest of the world has not closed; it has widened. Declining commodity prices cost Africa $50 billion in export earnings. This is twice as much as they received in foreign aid between 1986 and 1990. Fifty percent of all Africans live below the poverty line; 40 percent live on less than $1 a day. And debt service claims over 80 percent of Africa's foreign exchange earnings. It is no wonder that, given this bleak picture, trade relations with Africa need a jump start, not only for Africa's benefit but for our benefit, for South America, for the Caribbean, and for every State in the Union, particularly those that have the infrastructure to offer for north-south trade. The African Growth and Opportunity Act would open up American markets to apparel and other goods produced in Africa, but with the right percentages and the right mechanisms and methods for much of those goods and services to also have value added here, which would preserve jobs. As the amazing growth of East Asia has demonstrated, apparel is a natural entry point into manufacturing and a natural source for more robust trading relations with the United States and Africa. The Senate version of this bill ensures the benefits of this relationship will not be one-sided but will be mutual, as only apparel utilizing American-produced textiles will receive the GSP benefits. Thus, a steady two-way traffic can develop between the United States and Africa. Such a system of mutually beneficial trade can only enhance prospects of further American investment and interest in the African market, creating jobs both there and here. For my home State of Louisiana, this is a very good deal. My friend and colleague in the House of Representatives, Bill Jefferson, has been one of the principal advocates for this legislation because he understands the mutual benefit for our State and many States in this Nation and this continent. Furthermore, as home to one of the most significant ports in the world, trade in either direction translates into highway jobs for citizens of Louisiana. With regard to the criticisms of some of my colleagues relating to the dangers of labor standards and environmental degradation, I take these critiques and critics very seriously. I, for one, most certainly don't want to be a part of any trade relationship that does not promote good and progressive environmental policies and labor policies. The only long-term answer to both of these problems is economic growth. No country will address labor relations when 50 percent of its people live in poverty. No country can protect its environment when people are struggling to be kept alive. Poaching, deforestation, slash-and-burn agriculture, these are all the results of too little trade, too little investment, and too little exchange with more developed countries. This is not to say we should abandon American standards and principle--to the contrary--but, rather, we should look at what has happened in Southeast Asia. As those economies have grown, so have wages and so has concern for the environment. Engagement is required because the status quo is even less likely to produce the kind of environmental goals we want to achieve and to address the rights of workers everywhere. I am saddened to know that despite the importance of the African Growth and Opportunities Act, it is unlikely to receive a vote on final passage. The vast majority of this Senate, I believe, want this bill enacted. I understand that we are late in the year and procedural difficulties could absorb the little time we have remaining. However, I must say that when it comes to the question of world leadership, the Senate should make time for these kinds of discussions. The Senate floor has seen many items debated that have not enjoyed the broad-based support this legislation does. So I remain hopeful our differences can be worked out because this and other trade bills and provisions are so important to help us maintain the upward mobility we are experiencing in America, the tremendous growth of opportunities in jobs and wage improvements that can only help if these agreements are done in the right way in countries around the world and particularly throughout the Southern Hemisphere. I just want to end briefly with a statement about the Caribbean Basin Initiative portion of this bill. I had the opportunity to visit Central America in the wake of the hurricane in Honduras and Nicaragua. They were devastated, set back over a decade or two, according to some analysts who spoke about the devastation that hurricane wrought. It was a terrible time for it to hit, just when they were coming into a democracy and when the economies were expanding. When I visited--as many Republicans and Democrats did--with the Presidents of these nations, yes, they asked for us to help repair their highways, and they asked for our military to engage, particularly our Reserves, which we were proud to send down to help them dig out and rebuild. The one thing they asked for more than anything was the Caribbean Basin Trade Initiative so that they could work themselves up, so that they could help produce new jobs, not only in the Caribbean, not only in South America and Central America, but here in the United States of America. So let us learn from the past. Let us look confidently toward the future. Let us not cower back because the rules may be different and because globalization is upon us. Let us be brave and go forward, recognizing that global trade brings wealth and opportunity, and not only more to our Nation, but it is the only thing that is going to help close the tremendous gap of wealth in this world, which, if we don't close, will produce nothing but unrest, violence, and war in the future. So for all those reasons--primarily for economic development but also for world peace--let us be about the business of trade. That is what today is about. I yield the floor.

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I rise this afternoon for just a few moments to add my voice to the chorus of leaders in the Senate, in Congress, and throughout the Nation who have expressed in the last 2 days their admiration and respect for our colleague, Senator John Chafee of Rhode Island. Upon coming to this Chamber almost 3 years ago, one of the first things I did was to try to search out role models who put principle ahead of politics, who held people more important than political parties. John Chafee was such a role model. As has been mentioned many times on this floor, as a young marine who battled at Guadalcanal, to the Rhode Island Statehouse as Governor, to the floor of this Chamber, John Chafee answered the call of his country. While he was never afraid to fight for his country or for his principles, as we all know, he knew that common ground provided a better place to find solutions than the battleground. That is one of his most outstanding legacies to this body, to his State, and to our Nation. Throughout his public career, John Chafee was a tireless fighter for America's children and their families. He correctly perceived that the future of our country would be dictated by how we treated and nurtured our children and set about to create laws, policies, initiatives, and programs which prepared them for the future. We were all privileged to work with him on many issues. I was, indeed, privileged to work with him on a particular issue of which he was so proud: The Adoption and Safe Families Act. I spoke on the floor about this act, of which he was a tireless advocate and leader, just a few weeks ago and said in its first year 37,000 children had been moved from foster care to a place of limbo, to a place where they were not certain anyone wanted them, to families of their own. That was a 32- percent increase over the previous year. John Chafee had a great deal to do with making that happen. As leaders retire or pass on, as in this case, through our meager ways we try to construct buildings, highways, and bridges and name them in their honor. I am sure Senator Chafee will have the prerequisite number of bridges or buildings or statues in his honor. I think knowing him the way I did, the way we all did, the legacy of which he will be most proud is that he spent an entire career building up families, building up children, building up people. There will be millions of families built stronger and nurtured and provided for because of the great work he did, not only on the floor of this Senate but in the many ways he has served his State and Nation. I also want to mention his legacy in regard to the environment. I find, unfortunately, few voices of reason on a subject that is so important to the future of our country. I was so proud, as we all were, to work with Senator Chafee on many issues regarding the environment. He was one of our outstanding leaders working to find a permanent source of funding for the Land and Water Conservation Fund, funding of Teaming with Wildlife programs, for wetlands, for estuaries, for endangered species. I am confident that as we continue the work in these areas, many of his dreams and aspirations on these initiatives will come to pass. In addition, his passion for history and historic preservation was evident until the end. Fittingly, his last public appearance was at the 50th anniversary of the National Trust for Historic Preservation, just this last Thursday at the National Cathedral. In his final speech, he wisely warned of the danger to America's future if it forgets its past. It was a fitting tribute to 50 years of tremendous work, 25 years or more by a leader in this particular area. The poet Abraham Joseph Ryan wrote: A land without ruins is a man without memories. . . . A land without memories is a land without history. John Chafee understood that. Today we honor his memory. Let us never forget his example as an excellent role model, a tireless crusader forfamilies and for children, and a tremendous and reasoned voice in our debate on how to balance the needs of our Nation and our world with the great need to preserve and protect our environment. Today there is an emptiness in this Chamber that we all sense, a terrible emptiness because a grand man, a great man, has left us. We hope our work in these areas will be pleasing to him so we can carry on many of the initiatives he started. I yield the floor.

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, when Justice Blackmun delivered the opinion of the Court in Roe v. Wade, which is one of the most significant decisions--regardless of how one feels about this issue, it is one of the most significant decisions rendered by our highest court--he wrote for the Court the following: We forthwith acknowledge our awareness of the sensitive and emotional nature of the abortion controversy, the vigorous opposing views, even among physicians, and of the deep and seemingly absolute convictions that this subject inspires. One's philosophy, one's experiences, one's exposure to the raw edges of human existence, one's religious training, one's attitude toward life and family, and their values and the moral standards one establishes and seeks to observe are all likely to influence and to color one's thinking and conclusions about abortion. In addition, population growth, pollution, poverty and racial overtones tend to complicate, not simplify, the problem. Mr. President, he was quite accurate, as we have witnessed on the floor of this Senate in the last few hours a very emotional and tough debate regarding one of the most serious issues I think this body has ever considered in the history of the Congress. Regardless of how one feels about this issue, or the way we vote on these amendments, whether we regard ourselves as pro-life or pro- choice, or somewhere in the middle, the amendment I send to the desk and urge my colleagues to vote for and support is an amendment that is quite simple. It simply states that all individuals families or who find themselves in a situation of having a child with a birth defect would have their expenses covered--their medical expenses, their educational expenses, and the respite care for those families. That is so important for the many families who find themselves in the most difficult of situations. At that time in a family's life, there should be no hesitation on the part of this Government to come forward with the money and resources to support that family in this great time of need. So I offer this amendment with great spirit and hope my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, regardless of how they are going to vote on the final outcome, will understand the merit of this amendment and will put this Senate on record as saying we believe all families should have assistance when faced with the great challenge and heartache of raising a child who has been challenged in some special way. So I thank the managers for the time. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on this amendment.

Ms. LANDRIEU. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, we have been debating a very contentious and emotional issue for many, many hours now. This debate will perhaps go on for some years to come as we try to resolve our many differences. It is a very tough issue for many families and for policymakers all over our Nation. This amendment is an attempt to help because whether you are for or against, pro-life or pro-choice, or somewhere in the middle, we can say today it is the sense of this Congress that we want to help all families who have children with birth defects or special needs, regardless of their circumstances. It is a very tough situation when families, even with a wanted pregnancy, have to sometimes make a very tough decision that could result in their financial ruin. We should step up to the plate, and that is what this amendment does. It simply says it is the sense of the Senate that many families struggle with very tough decisions and that we should fully cover all expenses related to educational, medical, and respite care requirements of families with special-needs children. I commend this to my colleagues and ask for their support.

Ms. LANDRIEU. Yes. The Senator from California is correct. The way that this is drafted is in a broader way because I believe that we have to be very sensitive to children with special needs, and their families that sometimes find themselves--even families at a fairly significant income level--in great financial distress. Often one of the parents has to quit their job or give up their job to qualify for the woefully inadequate. It would be my intention to do that. There would be others with other opinions. But I think it would be important for us to reach out to all families with children with special needs.

Ms. LANDRIEU. I send a modified amendment to the desk.

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I came across a quote from a Senate treaty debate, and I thought it was important to restate it for my colleagues. The quote reads: I am as anxious as any human being can be to have the United States render every possible service to the civilization and the peace of mankind. But I am certain that we can do it best by not putting ourselves in leading strings, or subjecting our policies and our sovereignty to other nations. It struck me how familiar the passage sounded. It is similar in tone and substance to the remarks made during the debate on the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty these last few days. However, the quote is almost exactly 80 years old, because it was nearly 80 years ago today, that this body took its first steps towards rejecting the Treaty of Versailles, and preventing our entry into the League of Nations. The statement is from the distinguished Republican Majority Leader, Henry Cabot Lodge. Senator Lodge had a very real distaste for the President at the time. He, and a small minority of Senators used this treaty to send a political message to then President Wilson. The President had worked very hard to establish the League of Nations, he was very popular with the American people, and so was this treaty. However, through red herring arguments, and political arm twisting, Senator Lodge was able to block ratification. He thought he had embarrassed the President; he thought he had outmaneuvered the Democratic party; he thought he was laying the groundwork for the Presidential election of 1920. But Senator Lodge did not beat President Wilson that day, he beat America. Senator Lodge did not believe America needed to lead. In his view, America could withdraw across the Atlantic, and the world events would take care of themselves. Detractors of this world view called its adherents ``little Americans.'' In other words, the proponents of isolation and withdrawal, saw the United States as a country with no particular place in history, and with no important place in world events. Twenty years later, millions around the world would pay the price for Senator Lodge's short-sightedness. The United States never did join the League, and that fact undermined its credibility from the word go. First, neighboring states in the western hemisphere withdrew from the League: Brazil, Honduras, Costa Rica and a host of others. The trend continued until finally Germany and Japan left the organization. Having abandoned our place at the table, the power vacuum was filled by other forces, in this case the ultra-nationalist and fascist regimes of Germany, Italy and Japan. To put that mistake into a little greater perspective, about 7 million soldiers lost their lives in World War I. That was a shocking figure at the time, it was greater than the combined total of all the wars in Europe for the previous 100 years. However, the horrors of World War I, were completely overshadowed by what came next. The U.S. withdrew into isolation, the League of Nations failed, and World War II was the direct result. World War I was the worst disaster humanity had known in 1919, the loses in World War II were three times worse. This is a very high price to pay for a little presidential politics, and the false security of isolationism. Mr. President, we have an often repeated axiom in the Senate, that politics stops at the waters edge. The axiom is there to remind us of exactly the kind of mistake this body made 80 years ago. To play politics with international agreements is to invite disaster. The headlines were the same all over last night, the Senate handed the President a major defeat last night by rejecting the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. There is no defeating the President, he will be out of office in 18 months, his legacy will not rise or fall with the passage of this treaty. However, the members of this body can undermine America's standing in the world, and last night they did just that. As a member of the Armed Services Committee, I sat through several hearings, listened to testimony on the CTBT, and weighed the merits of the agreement. I understood the perspective of my Chairman, Senator Warner and others with respect to this agreement. There were legitimate concerns expressed by the directors of our national laboratories, there were serious questions about our ability to monitor this agreement, and I understand how reasonable minds can disagree about the merits of the treaty. However, what occurred last night was willful disregard for the leadership role that this nation plays in the world. That vote need not have occurred. We could have waited for a stronger consensus on the science of the stockpile stewardship program. Had we delayed consideration, we would have benefitted from the revised national intelligence estimate. We might also have negotiated with the Russians and Chinese to address some of the more difficult treaty monitoring questions. However, all such potential benefits of time are lost to us. All of this despite the fact that a clear majority of Senators would have preferred to delay consideration of the treaty. Sadly, I must conclude that the drive to bring this treaty to a vote was not a question of merit, it was a political exercise. We have numerous treaties sitting before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee that might be brought up, and dealt with the same way. I'll give just one example--the Convention on the Elimination of all forms of Discrimination Against Women or CEDAW. There are many in this body who oppose particular provisions of this treaty, and I am not certain that if we brought it to the floor, there would be sufficient votes to ratify it. The reason we do not bring it to the floor, is because the United States is not going to send a message to the world that the United States tacitly endorses discrimination, by actively rejecting this treaty. However, on something as important as nuclear proliferation, the majority felt compelled to do exactly that. Mr. President, I believe that a small group of the members of this body took aim at our President with last night's vote. Unfortunately, like Senator Lodge before them, they missed the President and hit the American people. President Wilson was fond of saying that American power, was moral power. He was right. The United States does not, and cannot rely on its nuclear weapons to convince the nations of the world to follow our example. The only real weapon that we have to combat nuclear proliferation is our world leadership and the power of American moral authority. With last night's vote, I am afraid that we unilaterally disarmed.

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. Obviously, there are many great things we can do in this Congress to promote adoption. Many of them have already been accomplished. However, there is much more that should be done, beginning with acknowledging the great work of everyone who has worked on this issue in America and around the world. Finally, I am delighted that we are taking the necessary time today to bring this important issue to the attention of all of our colleagues. I yield back the remainder of our time and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I rise this afternoon to speak on a subject that is very important to many Members of this body. In fact, Senator DeWine from Ohio has been one of the leading advocates for adoption. Before he leaves the floor, I wanted to acknowledge that. He, along with many Members, including the occupant of the Chair, Senator Voinovich, have been very active in the promotion of laws and policies that would help us to reach our goal of finding a loving and nurturing home for every child in this world that needs one. Many of us believe that it is a fundamental right to grow up in a home with a family, as opposed to in a hospital, or some type of institution. I rise to bring the body up to date on some of the things that we have accomplished and that we should be proud of, as well as some of the challenges that are still before us as a Congress. In the short time ahead, I am hopeful the appropriate committees will have hearings on relevant legislation in order to move the adoption debate along quickly. There are literally millions of children and families depending on us to act. First, let me congratulate Senators Chafee and Rockefeller for leading the successful effort last year to pass the Adoption and Safe Families Act. Last week, President Clinton and Mrs. Clinton hosted the first awards ceremony associated with the passage of that Act. The great news is that we have taken a mighty and important step forward because since the passage of the Act 36,000 American children have been placed in foster care while 15,000 foreign children have found permanent homes--all with wonderful families throughout America. Moreover, at least 35 States were acknowledged for their outstanding work in this area at the White House ceremony last week. In some States, the increases have been 20 percent over last year's numbers, while others have seen 50- to 70-percent increases over the previous year. This has occurred because the law we passed gave the necessary tools to parents, social workers, community activists, and to local elected officials so that the dream of a family became a reality for these 36,000 children. The problem is we still have over 500,000 children waiting for a family to call their own. Through this bill, many of the children in foster care, who range from all ages, races, medical conditions, and backgrounds, will be able to one day return to their biological families. However, despite our best efforts, unfortunate circumstances exist which prevent some of these children from returning home. Consequently these children must be moved to a permanent place. The Adoption and Safe Families Act will provide the tools for us to help these children in terms of guidelines and the necessary resources. Again I want to thank all the members, particularly Senators Rockefeller and Chafee, for their leadership in making this law possible. It is working and we just need to continue our efforts because many children are still waiting for a home to call their own. That leads me to the next three points. We have accomplished some wonderful things. But in this Congress during the next few weeks, some important tasks still remain to be finished. If we fail, there will be several million children left waiting. Next week, under the leadership of the distinguished Senator from North Carolina, Senator Helms, we will be having our first hearing on the Hague Treaty, the International Convention for Adoption. The purpose of the hearing will be to consider the Intercountry Adoption Act, legislation which seeks to implement the objectives of this Treaty. I am an original cosponsor of this measure, along with Senator Helms, Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, and the Ranking Member, Senator Biden from Delaware. This Treaty is very important because, as we endeavor to ensure that every child in America who needs a home will have one, it is also important for us to realize that there are millions of children around the world--in South America, in Africa, in Latin America, in Eastern and Western Europe, and Asia--who are growing up in horrible conditions. Some of them are in institutions with unspeakable conditions and there are others who are actually living in the streets. With all of our global successes, it is appalling and unacceptable that these conditions exist anywhere in the world. We can do something about it. Today, the Internet will allow us to do more than we ever dreamed possible--connecting families with children, allowing agencies to work more closely together, and, most importantly, allowing for improved communications between governments. The language barriers are coming down as technology opens up greater opportunities. But none of this can work without a body of international law that gives us the rules and regulations for how this is going to take place. We must eliminate the corruption, the outrageous trafficking of children, and the extraordinary fees that are sometimes being paid illegally. So if we are to have protection for children, protection for families, and protection for the legal framework, this Treaty is absolutely essential. I urge my colleagues to pay special attention next week during this hearing, and I urge them to learn more about this issue, because there is something we all can do; that is, to move this piece of legislation forward with the few minor differences that exist between both sides of the aisle, approve the treaty, and then implement it. If my colleagues are like me--and I think many of them are--when we get a few minutes to watch television we can view programs such as Save the Children where there are thousands of children who are in need. I sit there and think about what I could do as one individual sponsoring one child. It does not seem to be enough. But in many instances reaching out to sponsor that one child is quite enough. Millions of Americans have the opportunity to do the same. I am looking forward to the Senate Foreign Service Committee's hearing on adoption next week. I am confident that we can solve the differences that may exist among the interested parties who are working to move this important legislation forward. In addition to the implementation of this international Treaty, we are faced here in the United States with some additional challenges in our adoption laws. One of the things we failed to accomplish, which perhaps may have been an oversight when we passed the Family and Medical Leave Act, was a requirement that employers offer adoptive families the same benefits as birth families. I believe the Family and Medical Leave Act made progress toward equal treatment for adoptive families, but discrepancies remain for adoptive families who seek the same employee benefits as birth families. This law enables both adoptive and birth families to take up to twelve weeks of unpaid, job protected leave. Some employers, however, permit employees to use sick leave or provide paid leave for birth parents, but do not provide these same benefits for adoptive families. As an adoptive parent, I can certainly attest to the fact that whether the child is biological or comes as a gift through adoption, the stress on the families are very much the same. This is why the expansion of the Family and Medical Leave Act is so important. It must include the thousands of families in our country who adopt either domestically or internationally every year. This inclusion will allow Congress to say that building a family through adoption is a blessing for children and parents. This is one important goal I hope we can achieve this Congress. In addition, I hope we can extend the adoption tax credit we passed several years ago, which is now $5,000 based on actual expenses, and double it, making it $10,000. This will make it real and workable, especially for those families who adopt special needs children. Currently, this tax credit is working but it can be improved for those parents who adopt special needs children--older children, handicapped children, children with special emotional challenges, sibling groups, or international adoption. Unless you can demonstrate all expenses in connection with the adoption you are unable to avail yourself of the tax credit. In many ways, when you take a special needs child, there are no expenses associated with the adoption itself because the agencies of course want to place these children. I believe it would be in the best money this Congress could spend to provide tax credits, tax credits to families who adopt hard-to-place children and sibling groups, and others with difficulties. The Government should state that if you will take a child into your home and call it your own, we will give you a $10,000 tax credit. A family who would adopt two children would get a $20,000 Federal tax credit. It is my hope that they would not have to pay Federal taxes for many years because these families are doing something great for their community and country. Mr. President, in closing, let me show you a picture of a beautiful little girl as an example of what I have been talking about. This child is coming from China. Her mother, Cheryl Varnado, wrote me a letter about little Anna Grace Cai Yong Lin. Her letter reads: Senator, would you fly an American flag over the Capitol today so that I can give it to our little girl in remembrance of her first day in the United States? I commend the Government of China for the wonderful work they are doing to provide homes for millions of Chinese children. Today they are doing a much better job in this area. The challenges faced by this country are great. There are over one million children without families who will grow up in institutional care unless someone brings them into their home and provides them with the love of a family. We are happy for Anna and her new family. The flag flying over the Capitol today will remind us of her arrival to the United States and the thousands of other children that have come from all over the world to find homes in America. In conclusion, a wonderful couple that won an award was honored on the front steps of the Capitol earlier today for adopting not one, not two, but 30 children of all ages, races, physical handicaps, and challenges. They received the Norman Vincent Peale Award for outstanding service to our country. I commend Penny and Chuck Hauer. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have an article printed in the Record about this couple.

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for 15 minutes.

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I rise today to commend Chairman Domenici, Senator Reid, and the other Conferees for addressing vitally important issues for Louisiana in this bill. As you know, Mr. President, the annual Energy and Water Appropriations Bill provides funding to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to protect our citizens from flooding and to facilitate the flow of maritime commerce through our many waterways. Both of these endeavors are very important to Louisiana and our nation. The FY 2000 Energy and Water Appropriations Conference Report (H. Rept. 106-336) addresses the Inner Harbor Navigational Canal (IHNC) Lock Replacement Project in New Orleans which is very important to maritime commerce. I thank the Conferees for providing $15.9 million for this project. I also thank the Conferees for including report language that would expedite the community mitigation plan and ensure that the Corps work in good faith to arrive at an equitable solution in determining the value of property to be transferred by the Port of New Orleans to the Corps to complete the project. Notably, I understand that the Corps is also acquiring nearby property from another landowner for this project and that the Corps is employing a replacement cost methodology to determine the value of this nearby property. Therefore, I believe that an equitable solution to determining the value of the Port's property requires a valuation in the same manner as that employed for the nearby property. Additionally, the Conference Report addresses the Aloha-Rigolette Project. I thank the Conferees for providing $581,000 for this project. Although not included, I also thank the Conferees for considering my request for bill and report language that would authorize full federal responsibility for project costs in excess of what was anticipated in the Project Cooperation Agreement issued in 1994 in connection with the Bayou Darrow Floodgate portion of the project. I sought this language at the request of the local project sponsor, the Town of Colfax. Mayor Connie Youngblood of Colfax informed me that the Corps negotiated a no- cost termination with the project contractor without consulting the Town and is now expecting the Town to cost-share the additional costs that have resulted. Because the Town of Colfax is a very small rural community and unable to pay the unanticipated additional costs which it did not consent to, I remain very concerned about this matter. Accordingly, I ask the Corps to work with the Town of Colfax to resolve this matter so that the project can be completed in a timely manner. In closing, I again thank the Conferees for their work on the FY 2000 Energy and Water Appropriations Bill and the attached Conference Report.