Mary Landrieu

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. Yes. I would say so. The spirit of this resolution is clear that no diplomatic end to this war should allow any immunity for those who are guilty of war crimes. I would have no objection. I would want to talk with Senator Specter about adding reference to the United Nations. Clearly though, it is a NATO conflict.

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. I thank the Senator from West Virginia. I appreciate his work on this very important measure for our country at this time. I was here in the Chamber and got to hear the remarkable speech of the distinguished Senator from North Dakota. He is absolutely correct. There is not enough money in this supplemental appropriations bill to address the devastation that we are experiencing throughout rural America. My State in particular has been hard hit because of weather- related disasters, the worst drought in over a century occurred last year. It is my hope that in the months ahead we will all, on both sides of this aisle, Democrats and Republicans, be more mindful of the tremendous difficulty that rural America is experiencing and come up with additional and real ways of helping that lead us to a more market- oriented approach but recognize that there are some safety nets and some bridges that need to be put in place that are not there yet, and it is causing great pain throughout America. However, I want to point out that in this supplemental, partly because of the fine work by the Senator from North Dakota and others, we have added a half billion dollars for much-needed farm relief. It is not enough, but it is better than nothing. Farmers in my State in Louisiana and in many States around the Nation are depending on us today to vote favorably toward this measure and to send them this help. Every day in my office the phone rings with farmers needing their emergency assistance that was promised to them last year but not forthcoming. It is estimated from our agriculture commissioner that there are over 300 to 400 farmers that are just barely holding on, waiting for these checks and this assistance so that they can make future plans. It is important. It is not enough money in this bill, but it is better than what it started out to be. Because of the leadership, a half billion dollars has been added. I am happy to say that a great deal of that money will go to help Louisiana and other States in our area. This package includes much-needed emergency assistance to farmers in Louisiana and other agriculture States still reeling from last year's extreme weather conditions. Mr. President, I will never forget the faces of farmers in my home State as they showed me acre after acre of scorched row crops, or how shocking it was to see the horrible cracks and craters in what was once fertile soil. This package, Mr. President, includes additional assistance to replenish the fiscal year 1999 emergency loan account, which has been depleted due to the severity of this crisis. Hundreds have received help but, right now more than 300 farm families in Louisiana are waiting for their emergency loan applications to come through. And although more assistance may still be needed, those loan payments are crucial to help our farmers stay in business. Mr. President, hurricane victims in Central America are also waiting on this emergency package. In fact, they've been waiting for more than 6 months. The winds and rains of Hurricane Mitch claimed the lives of more than 10,000 people, and left an estimated 1 million homeless. It completely wiped out hundreds of schoolhouses, bridges, roadways, and churches. But after visiting Honduras and Nicaragua, I can assure you the numbers fail to convey the full extent of the devastation. Besides the obvious humanitarian reasons, helping our Central American neighbors recover serves the long-term interests not only of the United States but the entire Western Hemisphere. Within the past few decades, we have seen Central America move from conflict to peace, from authoritarian governments to democracies, from closed to open economies. Now this progress is at risk. In the past, the United States has played a strong role in encouraging economic development in Central America. Nearly four decades ago, President Kennedy traveled to Costa Rica to announce his ``Alliance for Progress'' to promote the expansion of agriculture exports throughout the region. Since then we have pursued a variety of other measures designed to help these countries diversify their economies and boost exports. While these policies have not always been successful, the United States has always shown its willingness to help lift these economically depressed nations to a more prosperous standard of living. The point is--the United States has a long history of helping our Central American friends move further down the path of development. Now--perhaps--that friendship is being tested by the devastation that has decimated their towns and villages and the commerce that flows through them. But, as we all know, friendships become stronger when they are tested. And I am glad that the United States is responding like good friends should. I am also particularly pleased that this supplemental package will be used in part to addresses the problem of permanent housing in Central America. During a historic meeting--hosted by Senators Lott and Coverdell-- held in the LBJ Room several months ago, four Central American Presidents made it clear that permanent housing is among the highest priorities for their recovery. The numbers say it best: Mitch destroyed 700,000 homes, severely damaged 50,000 and left 35,000 people in temporary housing--tents, schools, churches. I will be working--along with other colleagues on both sides of the aisle--to see that we do all we can in the area of housing in Central America. Helping Central America rebuild is of special concern in Louisiana. With one of the largest Honduran communities outside Honduras, New Orleans is sometimes referred to as ``the third largest Honduran city.'' Brought to our State through trade with the port, these enterprising people have been a source of strength to our community for many years now. So this package is of utmost importance to them and so many others back home. Before yielding the floor, Mr. President, let me also express my support for the increase in military spending in this supplemental. Over the last decade, we have seen a slow, steady decline in the recruitment and retention of our military men and women. We have allowed the disparities between military and private sector to grow so large that our service men and women are being lured away. For instance, B-52 pilots at Barksdale Airforce Base in Shreveport, LA, can go right down the street to the Shreveport International Airport and sign on with a commercial airline with better salaries, pensions, and benefits. It is imperative that we reverse this trend. Mr. President, my hope is that these military spending increases will mark a good step forward in helping us recruit and retain the best and the brightest. In closing, let me say again how important this Emergency Supplemental Package is to farmers in Louisiana and other rural communities in America. And as we consider the interests of our Nation and this hemisphere--and the future of the fragile democracies in them--on the edge of this new century, let us make sure we honor our ties of friendship with the nations of Central America.

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I rise today to recognize a special artist from my state whose art was recently exhibited in our nation's capital. She is Rose Fisher Blasingame, a member of the Jena Band of Choctaw who are located in LaSalle Parish in Jena, Louisiana. Rose Fisher Blasingame was born and raised in Central Louisiana, and is married to Micah Basingame and has four children. Her artwork is basketry, an art she is attempting to revive since its loss from their community after the time of her great-great Aunt Mary Lewis who practiced the craft until she died in the early 1930's. From hearing stories from her family and elders, and seeing some of her aunt's work, she decided to try to learn this art-craft and bring back this lost tradition. She should be very proud that she has accomplished this goal. She also makes blow guns, arrow quivers, and tans deer hides. She shares the task of making china berry necklaces with her elders who she also joins in the tradition of passing down stories about creation, medicinal plants and home remedies. Her new goal, which she shares with her elders, is to attempt to bring back the Choctaw language. Her baskets have been based on authentic Choctaw artifacts in the Smithsonian. They are splendid works of art which have many complex weaves of light and dark involving a number of incredible shapes and textures. One of her pieces which I saw was composed of an inside weave which was the mirror image of the exterior weave done in reversal contrast of light and dark. She is a beneficiary of a grant from the Louisiana Arts Endowment Program. By recognizing her artwork, I also wish to honor all Choctaw tribes and culture. The Choctaw call themselves pasfalaya, which means ``long hair.'' They are of the Muskhogean language group. The Choctaw were natives of Mississippi and Alabama, making them one of Louisiana's immigrant tribes. After Spain took control of Louisiana in 1763, the Spanish government, seeking a buffer between themselves and the English, invited the tribes from east of the Mississippi River into Louisiana. Small groups of Choctaw, including the Jena band, took them up on this offer, and there were several Choctaw settlements throughout north and central Louisiana. Louisiana boasts of many Choctaw place names. Early explorers used Choctaw guides to lead them to the new territories west of the Mississippi. The names given to the rivers, streams and other landmarks have remained as they were named hundreds of years ago. Some of these names include Atchafalaya (long river), Bogue Chitto (big creek), Catahoula (beloved lake), Manchac (rear entrance), and Pontchatoula (hanging hair or Spanish moss). It is also the Choctaw who taught the French and Spanish settlers the use of file' seasoning which is so widely used even today in the gumbo recipes of our unique Louisiana cuisine. Clearly, Rose Fisher Blasingame knows that she holds the rare coin of her culture which should be cherished and treasured. Imagine the remarkable effort she has undertaken along with her tribe to re- establish their language. In this ambitious effort, Rose has sent her daughter Anna Barber to attend the Choctaw school in Mississippi in that branch of their tribe. I understand there are about 12 Choctaws speakers left among the Jena Choctaw, and the tribe is planning a computer language program which will teach adults as well as children, but aimed specifically at the kids. As always, their hope for the future will be carried by their children. Mr. President, I thank you for this moment to recognize the work of this remarkable artist and woman, and the Choctaw tribe and culture of Louisiana.

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, Douglas MacArthur, one of this country's greatest military minds, stated ``it is fatal to enter any war without the will to win it.'' I believe that we are faced with that question today. Does this country have the will to win the war in Kosovo, or will the Atlantic Alliance become another fatality of Serbian aggression? We must pose this question to the Senate now because of a mistake. As NATO policy in Kosovo evolved, we made the mistake of taking a critical capability off the table. From the very start, the President and NATO leadership stated that this would be an air campaign, and an air campaign only. They went to great lengths to make this point to the press and to the public. Unfortunately, other ears were also listening. Slobodan Milosevic heard loud and clear that this would be a limited NATO effort. By doing so, we gave Milosevic every reason to doubt that NATO had the will to win. Furthermore, we gave Mr. Milosevic a vital piece of intelligence on how we would fight this war. In doing so, we have inadvertently given him an advantage more valuable than divisions of soldiers, or batteries of antiaircraft guns. This information has allowed Milosevic to disperse his forces and dig in. He knows he has only to wait out the air campaign to win this war. It is axiomatic that you cannot win a war by air power alone. We tried in Vietnam. We tried in Iraq, but when meeting an enemy determined to resist, airpower can only succeed with the use of ground troops. However, at the start of this war, we told Milosevic that he did not have to worry about ground troops. That is why he is so certain that this country and NATO do not have the will to win. Ask yourselves, how much more accommodating to NATO demands would Serbia be, if they knew we were preparing an invasion? Yesterday, Milosevic announced that he has over 100,000 troops in Kosovo. This is most likely a lie, but nevertheless, could Milosevic afford to have so many troops rounding up Kosovars if he knew NATO might invade? Of course not. One of the reasons that this man has been able to continue to perpetrate war crimes in Kosovo, is precisely because he has always known that he need not fear a ground war. Mr. President, I believe it is high time that we rectify our mistake. Mr. Milosevic has underestimated the resolve of the United States and the resolve of NATO. We will see this war through to victory. The first step to victory is a very simple one. Mr. Milosevic must understand that this country will use all of its resources to prevail. No one doubts that we have the means to win the war in Kosovo, this resolution will also demonstrate that we have the will. It does not commit the United States to a ground war, but it does state that if a ground war is necessary for NATO to meet its objectives, we will fight a ground war. In short, we will fight anywhere and anytime to accomplish this mission. This country has faced dark days in Europe before. I think few people expressed the significance of that time better than Winston Churchill. When asked what were his goals for the war with Germany he said simply ``victory at all costs, victory in spite of all terror, victory however long and hard the road may be; for without victory there is no survival.'' I believe that if this Nation has learned any lesson from the twentieth century, it is that you do not win wars by half measures. Winston Churchill understood this. So do the American people. I hope that the Senate will demonstrate that it too understands this lesson, and will oppose tabling the McCain resolution today.

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I am happy to note the overwhelming vote that just occurred to try, in some small way, to express the feeling of this body about the recent tragedy in Littleton, CO. It is a first step of perhaps many that will be taken to properly address this tragedy. The massacre that occurred makes us all want to jump to action, because we are action-oriented individuals and an action-oriented body. That is why we are here--to do things. I think the tendency in a situation like this is to want to jump out and do things so we can prevent another tragedy in the future. The problem is, with that approach, this situation has actually raised more questions than it has provided answers. I will share with Members some of the leading news articles this week. ``Why?'' Newsweek asks. ``Why?'' U.S. News & World Report asks. Again, a very important question that should be answered. Time Magazine asked, What can schools do? Where were the parents? These are all very, very important questions that should be answered. It is important at this time in the Senate and in the House and within the leadership of this country to perhaps do a little bit more listening than talking, so we can help find answers as to why this tragedy happened in order to attempt to prevent it from happening in the future. This is not the first such tragedy. This is, unfortunately, a long line of recent incidents. It may prompt some parents or some lawmakers to say ban all video games and movies. It could prompt some people to say ban all guns and bomb-making equipment everywhere in every instance. It could prompt others to either call for severe censure of the Internet or the abolition of the Internet. I suggest, as respectfully as possible, that now may not be the time to push through laws or initiatives, either at the Federal or State level, before we can get some answers to these very troubling questions. I am not suggesting that nothing be done--absolutely the opposite, that we do some things, but after we understand a little bit better why some of these things in these schools actually took place. As an example, let me point out that when TWA Flight 800 exploded over Long Island, the Federal Aviation Administration and the National Transportation Safety Board spent over 2 years working around the clock, hauling wreckage from the ocean and methodically rebuilding this airplane, and an exhaustive investigation determined the cause. The FBI assigned 600 agents to the case and conducted 4,000 interviews with eyewitnesses, mechanics, people at the airport--anyone they could find who might be able to provide answers. As a nation, we gladly undertook this massive effort so that millions of people who step on airplanes every day, who pack their suitcases and their briefcases and board airplanes, can feel secure that their Government is trying to keep them safe. I suggest we undertake a similar effort, that we most certainly should spend the time and the resources to find out what happened in Colorado, in Mississippi, in Oregon, in Arkansas, so that these parents and children and other children can have some answers as to what happened and how we can prevent this before it spreads to more places in more States. I am hopeful that as we talk among ourselves and hear from the public at home and listen more carefully, we think about the possibility of creating a strong bipartisan commission that is given the resources and the time to ask these questions and to find answers. Hopefully, a commission such as this could be led by some of the strongest Members on both sides of the aisle, to come up with the answers so we can craft the proper solutions. Some of them will be government solutions as in a Federal law; some will be government solutions at a State and local level; others will be solutions that can happen through our churches, our nonprofit organizations, our communities, and in every home in America. I suggest now is not the time to rush into action, even though that is a natural tendency, but now is a time to listen. If we can spend millions of dollars and thousands of manhours to find out why airplanes explode, why can't we match that effort to find out why some children explode? I look forward to working with the Members of this body to find the proper solutions to this critical challenge before our Nation.

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, on a note closer to home, I would like to say a special word of thanks to all the Senators and staffers that joined together in support of a very special day here in Washington and in America that we hope will spread to many places in the world, and that is Take Your Daughter to Work Day. I have with me here working in the Capitol two of my nieces, Holly Landrieu and Emily Landrieu, and two of my friends from college and their daughters are here, Sarah Margaret and Claire. With the hundreds of other young girls that have joined us, they are learning that our work is about domestic issues and international issues, that we have to be concerned with what happens in our own communities and in far places around the world. So it has been a good experience for many of them. I thank our colleagues for sharing this day with so many special girls in this area and around the country. I yield the floor. Mr. GRAMS addressed the Chair.

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, on the eve of the gathering of all of NATO to celebrate the successful completion of our first 50 years, I wanted to take this opportunity to comment on the current situation in Europe. As you know, we are blessed to live in a country which enjoys a deeply rooted democracy and a deeply rooted sense of equality. However, these same characteristics and qualities which make America a model for the world also present very real challenges in times like these. It is often said that the most difficult task for any democracy is deciding to go to war. The reasons are self-evident. When you live in a nation that believes all people are created equal, how do you ask some citizens to sacrifice so much so that others may continue to enjoy their freedom? When you live in a nation where human life is sacred, where, in fact each individual life has dignity, how do you build a consensus for the sacrifices that may be necessary to achieve the victory that we hope for? The task is even more complex when the challenge to American freedom is more indirect, as it is in this case. We have confronted this reality since the beginning of the war in Kosovo. No one in America believes that Serbia intends to invade the United States. We will never look out of the window and see Yugoslavian tanks driving down Pennsylvania Avenue to squelch American liberties. It remains, then, for those of us in the leadership of this Nation who support NATO operations in Kosovo to explain why we are prepared to ask American troops to make the sacrifices that may be necessary, in this seemingly remote and distant land. I believe there is one central reason that justifies our actions, and that is the price, the tremendous price, we have already paid for freedom in America and in Europe. Our parents' generation and their parents were asked to risk their lives to fundamentally alter the way the world operates. In World War I, President Wilson asked our grandparents to fight to make the world ``safe for democracy,'' and they did. In World War II, when fascism threatened to conquer the democracies of Europe, President Roosevelt asked America to become ``the arsenal of democracy,'' and we were. During the cold war, President Kennedy called on Americans to ``pay any price, to bear any burden,'' to meet the threat of communism, and we have. Finally, President Reagan said insisted that we ``tear down that wall,'' and it was. We emerged victorious from World Wars I and II, as well as the cold war, but not without a price. American blood was spilled in the trenches of World War I and on the beaches of Normandy during World War II. Americans fought and died in Korea and Vietnam to contain communism during the Cold War. So, for more than three generations, Americans have been making the sacrifices necessary to change the world in which we live and to maintain democracy in Europe and, yes, indeed, to help spread it throughout the entire world. It is important to remember that this sacrifice has not been in vain. It is easy today to be cynical about human nature and the prospects for lasting peace in Europe. After all, these feuds in Europe predated America's existence by many centuries. But to dwell on the worst instincts of Europe and Western civilization is to ignore the very real progress and the tremendous victories that have been made possible by our allied unity and American intervention. Who would have imagined that in a little over 50 years, since the end of World War II, bitter enemies like France and Germany, England and Italy, would be joined by a common currency, a common market, and a pledge to defend one another against a common enemy? It was the sacrifice of many, including Americans, that made it possible for Europe to turn its back on a history of bloody conflict and embrace a vision for peace and democracy across its great continent. Ironically, as NATO expands to the east and the European Union incorporates still more of Europe, we are faced with a war in Yugoslavia that threatens to undo all of this good work. It is ironic because that is how this century began, with an act of violence from Serbia which sparked a world war. The President is fond of saying that the war in Kosovo will either be the last war of the 20th century or the first war of the 21st. What I believe he is trying to say is, that we can defeat Milosevic and give meaning to nearly 100 years of American struggle and effort to bring peace to Europe and secure the gains of our parents and grandparents, or we can turn our backs on their sacrifice, ignore the human tragedy, ignore the tremendous financial investment that has already been made. Then we will hope against our experience that the conflict in Kosovo will simply fade away. Many have remarked that the 20th century has been the most bloody in human history. It is hard to verify such claims. Nevertheless, it is true that we live in an era where the efficiency of industry and technology has been matched, unfortunately, by our expert ability to kill one another. We must, however, stay the course and join with our NATO allies to finish our work and eliminate military aggression and ethnic cleansing as a legitimate tool of national policy. There is a sleepy little town in Austria, near the German border called Branau am Inn. It is not one of those towns at the crossroads of Europe; it is not the home of kings and emperors. In fact, no one in Branau, if it were not for a small event, no one in the world would have ever heard of Branau. But it is the birthplace of Adolf Hitler. The sad legacy of this town is not marked with any great monument. Instead, above the home where Hitler was born, two simple words are written: Never again. Those two words represent a solemn pledge that this country and all civilized nations made at the close of World War II: Never again would we stand idly by while innocent men, women, and children were massacred. Never again would we allow a nation to invade its neighbors without consequences. Some of my colleagues here in the Senate are consistently remind us that Kosovo is not the Holocaust. I agree. What has occurred in the last few months, does not yet compare to the crimes the Nazi's perpetrated. But this is a senseless justification for inaction. Should we wait for another Holocaust to occur before we act decisively? What, then, is the point of action? How many children must be traumatized? How many homes need to be destroyed? How many women need to be victims of brutality before we can act? I say the words ``never again'' mean that we should not wait and we will be decisive in our action. That is why I support using whatever means is necessary to accomplish the goal set out by NATO. The President and our NATO allies believe we can achieve this purpose through air attacks. I certainly hope this is correct. But I also agree with many of my colleagues, led by Senators McCain and Biden, that we cannot rule out other measures that can assure our victory and success. I am proud to join them in cosponsoring an important resolution that they introduced earlier this week, which seeks to give the President the authority and tools necessary to win this war. I urge my colleagues to consider joining with us to send this powerful and much-needed message of resolve during the conflict. The only way that we can have peace in the Balkans is for people like Milosevic and the thugs underneath him to understand that there are real and personal consequences for their barbaric atrocities. The reports are very disturbing and it is very hard for me to repeat them. I predict, unfortunately, that more and more horror stories will be appear in our papers, as more survivors escape to tell their stories. As NATO spokesman, Jamie Shea, explained, the Serbs are engaging in a sort of ``human safari" where they methodically flush out their victims from their homes using tear gas and herd them like animals out of Kosovo. There have been repeated reports of the systematic rape of girls and women. Very conservative NATO estimates indicate that over 100,000 people have simply disappeared, many of them men who have been separated from their families--probably many to their early deaths. When we pledged ``never again,'' these were the sorts of atrocities that we were talking about. As a result of these reports that, I intend to introduce a resolution in the Senate calling on the President to ask for war crimes indictments against the Serbian leadership before the International Criminal Tribunal for the former republic of Yugoslavia. The chief prosecutor has already announced that the jurisdiction of the tribunal extends to Kosovo. We must ask ourselves what kind of situation will we have if Milosevic and his allies go unpunished. Will we have another rogue nation, this time in the heart of Europe, with little else motivating them besides age-old desires for revenge and an interest in interfering with the stability and prosperity of the United States and the entire European continent? We simply cannot allow another Iraq in the middle of Europe. One of the central tenets of our policy must be that these individuals will be brought to justice. Only then will these hundreds of thousands of refugees have any chance of returning to their homes. Only then will we have peace and democracy in the Former Republic of Yugoslavia, and only then will we have at least begun to live up to our solemn promise of ``never again.'' I wish the best of success for the gathering here in Washington of our NATO allies.

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. Thank you, Mr. President. I yield 1 minute to my friend, the Senator from Vermont.

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I rise today with my distinguished colleague from Vermont and other members of this body in strong support of legislation that takes a much needed step on behalf of our Nation's children. I am very sad to say, however, that Louisiana ranks among the worst when it comes to providing for its children. By providing access to quality child care that is both safe and affordable the Caring for America's Children Act will improve the lives of children in Louisiana and across the Nation. As a professional with two young children, I am well aware of the challenges that face working parents as they balance their children's needs with the demands of their careers. I also know first hand how expensive quality child care is, costing anywhere from over $3,000 per year to over $10,000 per year, depending upon where a family resides. For the parents of some 800,000 children in Louisiana who spend most of their day outside their parent's care, these costs are prohibitive. It is especially difficult for over 50 percent of Louisiana families who need child care, but whose incomes fall below the Federal poverty level. To address this dilemma, this legislation would increase the child care and development block grant (CCDBG) from $1 billion to $2 billion. By doubling the funding level for CCDBG, twice as many poor children will receive quality child care. Presently, however, only eight percent of Louisiana's poor children are being assisted through this program. With this increase another 40,000 children will receive needed help. Nevertheless, the demand for assistance will far outweigh funding, so thousands of parents and their children will continue to go unserved. In addition to the shortage of funding for low-income children, Louisiana, like many other states, must confront two other critical issues dealing with child care. First, facilities must be improved and expanded. Secondly, minimum quality standards must be set at the state and local levels for child care providers. This like other educational improvements will only occur when we expect more, provide more, and pay more for quality care. If we do not, the status quo will remain the same. For example, the average wage of a child care worker in Louisiana in 1997 was only $10,760, barely above what a minimum wage job would pay annually. Worse yet, the ratio of children to care givers in Louisiana far exceeded the recommended ratios. On a national level, safety in child care facilities is another critical issue. Earlier this week the Consumer Product Safety Commission announced that it had examined 220 licensed child care settings. They found that most contained at least one safety violation, such as crib bedding that could suffocate babies or loops on window blind cords that could cause strangulation. Moreover, the agency found that 31,000 children, age 4 and younger, were treated in 1997 in hospital emergency rooms for injuries they received in child care and school settings. Additionally, at least 56 children have died in child care facilities since 1990. To provide states with additional resources for the purpose of improving the quality of their day care facilities, this bill establishes a quality improvement incentive program. States would receive funds based on the CCDBG formula, which could be used for a variety of activities designed to improve the quality of child care within each state. Additionally, the bill also provides greater professional development opportunities for child care workers through a new distance learning program and interactive computer applications. The legislation will also provide states with greater flexibility, so that they can use their community development block grant funds for the construction and/or renovation of child care facilities. Finally, important tax provisions are included in this legislation for both parents who work or stay home. Toward this end, the bill would increase: the child tax credit from $500 to $900 per year; the dependent care tax credit (DCTC) to $3,600 for one dependent and $6,000 for two or more dependents; and expand the home office tax deduction so that parents who work out of their home will not be penalized. By providing parents with these additional benefits, families will have greater options in ensuring their children receive the most appropriate care depending on individual family circumstances. I am also very pleased that appropriate modifications to our Federal child care system are included in this legislation. Most importantly, this bill would allow Federal agencies to use appropriated funds for the purpose of making child care more affordable to low-income Federal workers. Additionally, within six months of the passage of this legislation every Federal child care facility will have to be licensed. Within three years, they must also meet standards established by a child care accreditation entity. The Federal facilities title also reauthorizes the Trible amendment that allows Federal facilities to provide on-site care and innovative approaches to expand child care services on a contractual basis. Before the Congress enacts legislation to enhance child care at the state level, it is essential that the Federal Government first address the deficiencies and inadequacies within its own system. While the Federal Government has made significant improvements, we must ensure that Federal Government leads by example. Mr. President, improving the availability of quality and affordable child care should not be a partisan issue. A recent Carnegie study found that children in poor quality child care are delayed in language and reading skills, and display more aggression toward other children and adults. We should not delay one more year while thousands of children are held back because of our inaction in the Congress. I thank Senator Jeffords for his leadership on this issue.

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I rise today to congratulate the Loyola University, New Orleans Law School's Moot Court team for their performance in the American University Burton D. Wechsler First Amendment Competition. The competition is designed to showcase the dedication and talent of law school students from across the country, and the Loyola students displayed a great deal of both in their victorious efforts. Moot Court Competitions are an opportunity for law school students to demonstrate their talents as advocates in an appellate court setting. They tackle a difficult legal problem in a written brief and then are subject to the grueling ordeal of probing and questioning by a panel of appellate court judges. The Burton Wechsler First Amendment Competition asked competitors to argue the complex question of the use of languages other than English while conducting government business. I am proud to say that our team from Loyola University took this challenge and used it as an opportunity to excel. The team of Steven Griffith, Gaven Dall Kammer, Christopher Alfieri, Elisia Shofstahl, and faculty advisor, Prof, Mitch Crusto, took overall first place honors in the competition. Loyola defeated five highly- regarded opponents on their way to the title. Other honors garnered by the Loyola team included first place ``Best Brief'' and the ``Runner-Up Best Oralist'' award, won by Elisia Shofstahl. Loyola's fine performance in this prestigious national competition represents the very best in effort and education. The team's impressive victory is a testament to the hard work and inherent skill of Loyola's fine law students. Such effort and success is worthy of our admiration and praise. Again, I congratulate the members of Loyola's Moot Court Team on their victory at American University's First Amendment Competition, and wish them the best of luck in their future competitions and careers.

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. It is my hope that we can work under the great leadership of Senator Helms on this issue to pass this implementing legislation and the treaty to provide hope to millions of children in families that would welcome it.

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I am very proud to join with my friend and colleague, the senior Senator from North Carolina, in introducing the implementing legislation for the Hague Convention on Intercountry Adoption. As many Members know, Senator Helms cares deeply about the welfare of children and knows personally of the joy of building a family through adoption. I commend him for his strong commitment, his leadership, and the very thoughtful work that he has put into this important piece of legislation. In my office, I have a large black and white poster of a smiling infant crawling only in a diaper. On the baby's bottom, on the diaper, is a huge bull's eye. The text says simply, ``Children always make the easiest targets.'' Unfortunately, Madam President, that seems to be true in our legislative and budgetary process. They don't move very quickly, they are not very strong, they don't have very loud voices and they can't protect themselves. We need to help them do that. It would have been easy for the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee to come to this floor on one of the dozens of other important treaties that he has pending before his committee. It would have required no effort to leave this relatively obscure treaty languishing in limbo for months or even years. Instead, Senator Helms made this treaty a priority. I am very proud to join him as a lead democratic sponsor of its implementing legislation, which will benefit millions of children throughout the world, and families around the globe. I have had the opportunity to meet with many foreign dignitaries on the subject of intercountry adoption, from China to Russia, to Romania. Many countries have indicated that the United States ratification of the Hague Convention is the single most important thing we can do to strengthen the process of intercountry adoption. The United States adopts more children than any other country in the world. Unfortunately, this Nation and other large receiving nations have been sending the wrong message about our intentions regarding adoption. A nation like Romania, for instance, which has had a tortured history in the field of child welfare indicated the importance of this treaty by being the first nation to ratify. For that, they should be commended. Other sending countries have similarly stepped up to the plate, while receiving nations remain inactive. We must change that. Today, in the Senate, we send a new message to the world. The United States is serious about the Hague convention. We are serious about improving and reforming the intercountry adoption system, and we will encourage other nations of the world to join us in that effort. Habitat for Humanity's Millard Fuller, a man who has accomplished a great deal in the last few years, has a credo for his organization. He says everyone deserves a decent place to live. He is right. With that simple, but bold vision, Habitat for Humanity has been an incredible success story, building homes around the world for millions of families. This is another simple but bold idea. Every child deserves a nurturing family. This treaty doesn't guarantee that, but it will give millions of children their best chance for a family to call their own. Furthermore, it will give millions of would-be parents a better chance at the joy of parenthood. We cannot let arbitrary borders and national pride get in the way of this simple but powerful idea, that every child should have parents who can love and care for them. No child should have to be raised alone. The Hague Convention, by normalizing the process of intercountry adoption, brings this bold idea a step closer to reality. I will briefly touch upon several important pieces of this legislation. First, let me say that this treaty is not a Federal endeavor to take control of the adoption process. This system is working for the most, and in many parts of the country it works very well. The philosophy throughout has been to address the real need for reform of intercountry adoptions and leave the other debate to another day. This bill, however, does make several changes which will revolutionize the status quo. First, the State Department will finally be given legislative authority to track, monitor and report on intercountry adoptions. We will have hard figures on disruptions, adoption fees, and most importantly, the number of American children who are adopted by people abroad. Second, accredited agencies will need to provide some minimum services to continue operating in the intercountry field. Among these services are translated medical reports, 6 weeks of preadoption counseling, liability insurance and open examination of practices and records. By allowing public scrutiny in this area, we believe the Hague implementing legislation provides some basic consumer protection and will help eliminate the few bad actors who occasionally grab headlines in the arena of international adoption. Another significant feature of this treaty is the adoption certificate which will be provided by the Secretary of State. With the certificate, INS procedures and State court finalizations will become routine and quick rather than involved and costly. This will be a welcome relief for many families across this country waiting for children to come home. Americans provide loving families for nearly 15,000 children from around the world. If we pass this convention, those numbers are most certainly likely to increase, which will be an opportunity for families here in the United States, as well as many children who desperately need homes. Every day, my colleagues speak eloquently from this floor about ways to help our children and families grow and become stronger, but rarely do we have an opportunity to do something which can have a significant impact on actually creating loving homes for children who have no one. This is such an occasion. We should not miss this historic opportunity. I look forward to working with our chairman from North Carolina as this bill and treaty progress through the Senate in the months ahead. It is with high hopes that we proceed, hoping that we can pass a strong, bipartisan piece of legislation before the end of the year. Madame President, the need to help children find loving homes, is as old as human history. You can look all the way back to Muhammad who stated that ``the best house is the house in which an orphan receives care.'' I hope we can create many such houses with this bill. I would like to conclude with a quote I read in preparation for this speech that I found quite moving. It says that ``orphans, other than their innocence, have no sin, and other than their tears, they have no way of communication. They cannot explain the wars, the struggles, the political disputes, or the geographical disputes which have all made them homeless, helpless, fearful, and alone. Human history has never seen such a large number of orphan children in this world. Mankind has never seen such a large number of people in comfort. If you follow any religion, it is your religious duty to take care of orphans. If you do not follow any religion, it is your observation toward humanity that should convince you to support them.'' I ask unanimous consent that documents involving those nations that have signed the treaty be printed in the Record as well as those that have ratified the treaty.

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. It is my hope that we can work under the great leadership of Senator Helms on this issue to pass this implementing legislation and the treaty to provide hope to millions of children in families that would welcome it.

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I am very proud to join with my friend and colleague, the senior Senator from North Carolina, in introducing the implementing legislation for the Hague Convention on Intercountry Adoption. As many Members know, Senator Helms cares deeply about the welfare of children and knows personally of the joy of building a family through adoption. I commend him for his strong commitment, his leadership, and the very thoughtful work that he has put into this important piece of legislation. In my office, I have a large black and white poster of a smiling infant crawling only in a diaper. On the baby's bottom, on the diaper, is a huge bull's eye. The text says simply, ``Children always make the easiest targets.'' Unfortunately, Madam President, that seems to be true in our legislative and budgetary process. They don't move very quickly, they are not very strong, they don't have very loud voices and they can't protect themselves. We need to help them do that. It would have been easy for the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee to come to this floor on one of the dozens of other important treaties that he has pending before his committee. It would have required no effort to leave this relatively obscure treaty languishing in limbo for months or even years. Instead, Senator Helms made this treaty a priority. I am very proud to join him as a lead democratic sponsor of its implementing legislation, which will benefit millions of children throughout the world, and families around the globe. I have had the opportunity to meet with many foreign dignitaries on the subject of intercountry adoption, from China to Russia, to Romania. Many countries have indicated that the United States ratification of the Hague Convention is the single most important thing we can do to strengthen the process of intercountry adoption. The United States adopts more children than any other country in the world. Unfortunately, this Nation and other large receiving nations have been sending the wrong message about our intentions regarding adoption. A nation like Romania, for instance, which has had a tortured history in the field of child welfare indicated the importance of this treaty by being the first nation to ratify. For that, they should be commended. Other sending countries have similarly stepped up to the plate, while receiving nations remain inactive. We must change that. Today, in the Senate, we send a new message to the world. The United States is serious about the Hague convention. We are serious about improving and reforming the intercountry adoption system, and we will encourage other nations of the world to join us in that effort. Habitat for Humanity's Millard Fuller, a man who has accomplished a great deal in the last few years, has a credo for his organization. He says everyone deserves a decent place to live. He is right. With that simple, but bold vision, Habitat for Humanity has been an incredible success story, building homes around the world for millions of families. This is another simple but bold idea. Every child deserves a nurturing family. This treaty doesn't guarantee that, but it will give millions of children their best chance for a family to call their own. Furthermore, it will give millions of would-be parents a better chance at the joy of parenthood. We cannot let arbitrary borders and national pride get in the way of this simple but powerful idea, that every child should have parents who can love and care for them. No child should have to be raised alone. The Hague Convention, by normalizing the process of intercountry adoption, brings this bold idea a step closer to reality. I will briefly touch upon several important pieces of this legislation. First, let me say that this treaty is not a Federal endeavor to take control of the adoption process. This system is working for the most, and in many parts of the country it works very well. The philosophy throughout has been to address the real need for reform of intercountry adoptions and leave the other debate to another day. This bill, however, does make several changes which will revolutionize the status quo. First, the State Department will finally be given legislative authority to track, monitor and report on intercountry adoptions. We will have hard figures on disruptions, adoption fees, and most importantly, the number of American children who are adopted by people abroad. Second, accredited agencies will need to provide some minimum services to continue operating in the intercountry field. Among these services are translated medical reports, 6 weeks of preadoption counseling, liability insurance and open examination of practices and records. By allowing public scrutiny in this area, we believe the Hague implementing legislation provides some basic consumer protection and will help eliminate the few bad actors who occasionally grab headlines in the arena of international adoption. Another significant feature of this treaty is the adoption certificate which will be provided by the Secretary of State. With the certificate, INS procedures and State court finalizations will become routine and quick rather than involved and costly. This will be a welcome relief for many families across this country waiting for children to come home. Americans provide loving families for nearly 15,000 children from around the world. If we pass this convention, those numbers are most certainly likely to increase, which will be an opportunity for families here in the United States, as well as many children who desperately need homes. Every day, my colleagues speak eloquently from this floor about ways to help our children and families grow and become stronger, but rarely do we have an opportunity to do something which can have a significant impact on actually creating loving homes for children who have no one. This is such an occasion. We should not miss this historic opportunity. I look forward to working with our chairman from North Carolina as this bill and treaty progress through the Senate in the months ahead. It is with high hopes that we proceed, hoping that we can pass a strong, bipartisan piece of legislation before the end of the year. Madame President, the need to help children find loving homes, is as old as human history. You can look all the way back to Muhammad who stated that ``the best house is the house in which an orphan receives care.'' I hope we can create many such houses with this bill. I would like to conclude with a quote I read in preparation for this speech that I found quite moving. It says that ``orphans, other than their innocence, have no sin, and other than their tears, they have no way of communication. They cannot explain the wars, the struggles, the political disputes, or the geographical disputes which have all made them homeless, helpless, fearful, and alone. Human history has never seen such a large number of orphan children in this world. Mankind has never seen such a large number of people in comfort. If you follow any religion, it is your religious duty to take care of orphans. If you do not follow any religion, it is your observation toward humanity that should convince you to support them.'' I ask unanimous consent that documents involving those nations that have signed the treaty be printed in the Record as well as those that have ratified the treaty.

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, the need for a national missile defense system is real. The North Korean Taepo Dong tests, the Iranian Shahab III project and the uncertainty resulting from unexpected nuclear tests in India and Pakistan underscore the palpable threat that we now confront. Today, we signify that the United States has no intention to allow its foreign and national security policies to be held hostage to weapons of terror. In this sense, this bill will provide a real incentive against nuclear proliferation. By embracing a system of counter-measures that will grow progressively stronger in the next century, we tell the North Koreans, the Iranians and any other country thinking of threatening this nation with ballistic missiles, that those efforts will fail. They may as well spend their modest resources on something constructive for their people, because the United States intends to commit whatever resources necessary to ensure our security. That we will be able to send this message with bipartisan resolve, makes it that much stronger. I would also like to thank my colleagues Senators Levin and Cochran for providing their leadership, guidance and wisdom on this issue. It was their flexibility and negotiation that made yesterday's amendment possible. The amendment that we adopted by a vote of 99 to nothing shows the consensus that this body shares regarding the importance of nuclear arms control. By setting deployment of a limited national missile defense and future reductions of nuclear stockpiles on equal footing, this legislation emphasizes the complimentary nature of those two key national security concerns. They are equally important, and we cannot lose site of one for the other. Finally, I think the compromise we have reached will signal to our Russian partners that we are serious about maintaining the progress that we have achieved. A limited national missile defense is not a threat to Russia, I would not support such an act. Instead this bill helps move both countries beyond cold war thinking. It should hearten the Russian Government to know that we will deploy a missile defense system which preserves the Russian nuclear deterrent. Again, it demonstrates how far our countries have come. It is concrete evidence that we have moved beyond a national security policy centered on containing Russian influence and countering every Russian capability. Mr. President, I am very proud of this legislation and proud of this institution. I hope that we will use the momentum gained here for further bipartisan efforts to address serious threats to our national security. Mr. President, I thank my ranking member, Senator Levin, and our sponsor, Senator Cochran, and my colleague, Senator Snowe for working through this important piece of legislation. Thank you, Mr. President. Mr. COCHRAN addressed the Chair.

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, I thank our ranking member, the Senator from Michigan, for his good work in this area. He is a national leader and has been outspoken on this issue. His guidance and counsel have been very important as we have worked through this very important piece of legislation. I thank him. I also thank the Senator from Mississippi for his graciousness and being open to working out this bill--although simple, it is quite important and quite historic--and to make sure it is done in the right and appropriate way. I am convinced, Mr. President, that if this amendment I have offered, on behalf of myself, Senator Levin, and some of my colleagues here and on the other side of the aisle, is adopted, it will enable us to vote in good faith and in good conscience for this bill, which I have said earlier I support but have some hesitation. This amendment will make sure it is the policy that we have a national missile defense system capable to deploy, as soon as technologically possible, an effective system and one that also states, with this amendment, that while we are developing this we will continue to negotiate reductions in Russian nuclear forces. It is the policy, a joint policy. It makes this bill stronger and better. And it enables us to pass this bill that recognizes the threat is real, that the world has changed significantly. The record is replete, as I have mentioned earlier in my remarks, with hostile neighbors to the United States, with the development of these weapons that could, in fact, now threaten parts of our homeland-- Hawaii, for instance, which is why the distinguished Senators from Hawaii are supporting this bill. And it is clear to many of us now that this threat is more real than ever before, so the need for this bill is important. I think this amendment helps to strengthen the bill. It most certainly will enable several of us on this side of the aisle to vote for this bill and to pass it with bipartisan support and, I believe, with the administration's support. I thank my distinguished ranking member. I thank the author and sponsor of this bill, and I yield back the remaining time I have. I strongly urge my colleagues to give consideration to this amendment which will make a good bill even better.

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

Ms. LANDRIEU. Thank you, Mr. President. Mr. President, it is a simply worded amendment but a very important amendment. The distinguished Senator from Delaware brought up excellent points in terms of the necessity for us, as we consider this important bill that the Senator from Mississippi has brought to us, to continue to talk about our commitments to further reductions of nuclear weapons. I strongly support a limited national missile defense. It is important that we pursue this program with energy and determination. But we must also keep pursuing other means of enhancing our security. We need to move our strategic relationship with Russia from the cold war paradigm of mutually assured destruction to one of mutually assured security. We have made great progress in this regard, as has been pointed out in the last hour on this floor by Members on both sides, but much remains to be done. However, in making this transition, we cannot allow the territory of the United States to be threatened by ballistic missiles from rogue nations, especially if it is in our capacity to protect ourselves from this imminent threat. Nevertheless, we should not allow our missile defense effort to distract from our security relationship with Russia, if at all possible. And that is the essence of this amendment. Our country and Russia have come a long way in terms of reducing strategic nuclear threats to both countries, and nothing we do today should negate this progress. But, in my view, nothing in the 20th century has contributed more to American security than an end to the imminent threat of nuclear war. It is important that we carry this momentum to finish the task. No threat from a rogue nation should outweigh the need for us to attain a mutually secure and stable relationship with our Russian partners. On the eve of a visit from Prime Minister Primakov, it is important that we continue to work towards this goal and we use this opportunity to further our negotiations. Therefore, I offer this amendment, which simply states that it is our policy to seek continued negotiated reductions in Russian nuclear forces which will reaffirm the Senate's belief that such reductions are in our national interests. It would also be an important signal to the Russians on the eve of that visit. Furthermore, this amendment is in keeping with the recommendations of our National Defense Panel. As you know, the NDP was created by Congress to review the Pentagon's conclusion in its Quadrennial Defense Review. It is a nonpartisan panel of defense experts, some of the finest minds working on national security. They are in agreement that a defensive system, such as our national missile defense, is best developed if coupled with limiting our offensive capabilities in our arms reduction efforts. That is what we are trying to do with this amendment. I believe it will receive bipartisan support. It will help make this bill an even better bill. Before I conclude, I would like to add just a few things to the Record that I think are very important as we negotiate the passage of this important piece of legislation. Our distinguished colleague from Mississippi did not include this language in his very simple bill to deploy an effective national missile defense system in his efforts to gain support. And I agree with that. But I think it is important, Mr. President, for those who are considering whether or not to vote for this bill--and I hope they will vote for this amendment and then vote for the bill--for me to take 2 minutes to read into the Record some important statements that have been made by our President, as well as some of the enemies of this country, about why it is important for this bill to pass. Not last year, not the year before, but in 1994, President Clinton certified that: I * * * find that the proliferation of nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons (`weapons of mass destruction') and the means of delivering such weapons, constitute an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security, foreign policy, and economy of the United States, and hereby declare a national emergency to deal with that threat. For those who say the threat is not real, recently--last year--some new information came out about the significance of this threat. This is 1994. Let me go on to read: Several countries hostile to the United States have been particularly determined to acquire missiles and weapons of mass destruction. President Clinton observed in January of 1998, for example, that ``Saddam Hussein has spent the better part of this decade, and must of his nation's wealth, not on providing for the Iraqi people, but on developing nuclear, chemical and biological weapons and the missiles to deliver them''. Let me also say that it is not just this country. Qadhafi, the Libyan leader, has stated: If they know that you have a deterrent force capable of hitting the United States, they would not be able to hit you. If we had possessed a deterrent--missiles that could reach New York--we would have hit it at the same moment. Consequently, we should build this force so that they and others will no longer think about an attack. I could go on. But I think the Record is replete with quote after quote by hostile leaders to the United States that it is most certainly their intention to develop these weapons that could possibly hit our homeland. Although it is hard for people to think about this--and we most certainly don't want people to panic--we want to be realistic to the threat. I thank the Senator from Mississippi for bringing this bill before us at this time. I offer this amendment in an attempt to get more bipartisan support for what I consider to be a good bill, and a quite timely one, that will not, and should not, disrupt our ongoing and very beneficial relations with Russia in our reductions, but one that will protect the people of Louisiana, the people of Alaska, the people of Mississippi, the people of Michigan, and everyone in this Nation for this growing and imminent threat that even the President himself has acknowledged over and over is real. I yield the remainder of my time. I ask the floor leaders to give whatever time they think is appropriate to the discussion of this amendment. I will call for a rollcall vote at the appropriate time. Several Senators addressed the Chair.

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I came to the floor to speak for a moment of personal privilege, but I heard my colleague from Nevada speaking about the need for a visitors center. I would like to add my support for his calling for us to resolve whatever difficulties there may be and try to get this visitors center constructed for all the good reasons he outlined. There are millions and millions of young people and adults who come to this beautiful building. This really is the people's house. There really is no place for them to rest and to have a refreshment and to get someplace away from the hot Sun. The lines are quite long. For all the reasons he laid out in his few minutes, I add my voice to how important I think it is for us to get on with the business of a visitors center for this Capitol.

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I come to the floor today to rise for a moment of personal privilege on behalf of myself and Senator John Breaux to note with great sadness the passing of a leading citizen of my hometown, New Orleans, LA, our State representative, Rev. Avery C. Alexander, a community and civil rights leader for many decades who passed away in New Orleans last Friday at the age of 88. Reverend Alexander, or ``the Rev,'' as he was referred to by all of his many, many, many friends, was the son of a sharecropper from Houma, LA, and rose to prominence in the 1960s civil rights struggle. From the streets of New Orleans where he ``shouted out'' for the voiceless, to the halls of Baton Rouge where he fought for better schools, civil rights, and a more inclusive economy, ``the Rev'' stood tall. When I was considering running for the legislature many, many years ago at the ripe old age of 23, my father rightfully advised me to meet with a small group of leaders to ask for their input and their ideas and their counsel. The first person to show up at our home on that day was ``the Rev.'' Once I was elected to the legislature, he helped me understand the political process from the inside as well as the outside. I will always be grateful for his early advice and counsel, and so will the thousands of others who have benefited from his encouraging words, his fighting spirit and determination to make this world a better place for all. Reverend Alexander was a person who always managed somehow to rise above the man-made limitations placed on him, and he succeeded triumphantly. It was Margaret Mead who said, ``Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world.'' In fact, she said, it has never been done any other way. ``The Rev'' knew that and lived that until the day he passed. Many times, he alone was that small group, and he did, in fact, change our world for the better. He worked as a laborer and a longshoreman--before he was a member of the legislature--while continuing his education at night. When he witnessed the unfair treatment of dock workers, he became active in the labor movement on the waterfront in New Orleans. As a lifelong member of the NAACP, he championed the cause of antidiscrimination, voter registration, and citizen review of police brutality and misconduct. He participated in the now famous march from Selma to Montgomery alongside the Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr. In 1956, Reverend Alexander was arrested and dragged up the steps from the basement of city hall while attempting to integrate the public cafeteria in that building. In 1992, he established a nondenominational ministry founded on the principle of ``helping all people.'' Reverend Alexander was elected to the House of Representatives in 1975 and remained an active and effective member until his recent death. As dedicated as he was to advocating civil rights for African Americans, he was equally dedicated to standing up for the rights of women. His words of encouragement throughout the years were in no small part responsible for helping me become the first elected woman Senator from Louisiana. As a strong believer in higher education, he continued his own personal education at Xavier University, Southern University, Tulane University and the Union Theological Seminary and the University of New Orleans. Reverend Alexander also served as chaplain for many, many years of the Louisiana legislative black caucus, on the National Board of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference and was a delegate on three separate occasions to the National Democratic Convention. Mr. President, the citizens of New Orleans and the State of Louisiana have lost a dear friend. Many young leaders in our State and throughout the country have lost a great mentor, and the American people have lost a great civil rights leader. He will be missed. God bless his family, especially his daughter Cheryl, his brother Lymon and all the grandchildren and great grandchildren. We today commend him to you, dear Lord, in your eternal care. Thank you, Mr. President. I yield back the remainder of my time and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. Thank you.

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be able to speak for 10 minutes.

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

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, let me thank the distinguished Senator from Massachusetts for his leadership on this issue. He is trying to communicate, and I think eloquently so, the issue before us. This week we want to do something good, something that is meaningful, something that will help in our education system in this country. We need to spend more than just a few days. It has been a little discouraging, I think, for some of us, on both sides of the aisle, in our evident lack of ability to come to some reasonable agreements about some of these amendments, so they are preventing this good bill from passing. I am a cosponsor of the Ed-Flex bill, along with Members of the Republican side and other Democrats who are supporting this bill. Why? Because our Governors at home are supporting this bill; our superintendents at home are supporting this bill. I had the great privilege of cohosting, with my Governor and superintendent of education, and our BESE, which is the Board of Elementary and Secondary Education, just Monday in our State, over 250 education leaders from all over the State, from all of our 64 parishes. They came and expressed their support for the idea that the Federal Government should give the schools, the States and the districts more flexibility so they can combine programs to more efficiently spend the money, as long as the basic regulations of safety, health and civil rights are there. They really want the flexibility. I would like to give it to them, and I know the distinguished Senator from Massachusetts and our leader from Vermont wants to, also. So, I am hoping we can come to some agreement. If we could offer a few amendments on our side and other amendments could be offered on the Republican side, amendments that are meaningful, then we could get this bill passed with a couple of other things that will work and need to be done. One of those things is the reduction of class size. I don't believe there is an educator who would disagree. Whether you are from California or Vermont or Louisiana or Illinois, who doesn't know that having smaller classes at those earlier grades--particularly kindergarten, first, second and third grades--is so important? I could give this speech pretty well before I was a mom. Now I can give it very well. Frank and I have a 6-year-old who is learning to read this year. With 28 kids in his class, it is a struggle. He has a tutor. We help him at home. But the teacher does not have enough time individually. We want to be able to send some money down to the States, with very few strings attached, to help our school districts that are really struggling in this area, to give them some additional money to help them hire additional teachers. In doing that, as I was told this Monday--and I want to communicate this to my colleagues--it would be no use to send that money down to help reduce class size if we also do not send a companion amendment down for school construction and modernization. You cannot have a new teacher if you don't have a classroom or you don't have the space for that teacher to teach and to divide those classes into smaller units. We have a crisis in our country at this moment. That crisis is that 40 percent of our youngsters at the second grade level are not reading at second grade level. Let me repeat that: not 2 percent, not 10 percent, not 25 percent--but 40 percent. Unfortunately, in some places in Louisiana, in some demographic groups, that number is tragically as high as 70 percent. If this is not something the Federal Government should be concerned about, I don't know what is. I don't know of anything that is more significant than having second graders in this country--the strongest country, militarily, in the world, economically strong, leading the world in many areas--but lagging behind in this simple basic. Local governments can do some things. The State government most certainly is the big partner. But we need to be a junior partner, and we need to be a reliable junior partner by putting up some money where our mouth is, sending that money down to the States with as few strings attached as possible, and then insisting, in partnership with our locals, on accountability every step of the way. So, yes, this Ed-Flex bill is important, giving more flexibility to local governments. But if we would do that and not do our class size, our school construction, we would be--I know my time is running short, so let me just conclude--we would be shortchanging students who are already shortchanged by the numbers I have just suggested. I thank my colleague. Could I have 1 more minute?

Ms. LANDRIEU. I thank those who have brought this bill to the floor. Thank you, Mr. President.