Mary Landrieu

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. I thank the Chair. I rise to thank my colleague from Washington State for her admirable work in this area and for her persistence in year after year presenting this amendment that so clearly is deserving on its merits, and coming back again for the third time to this body, which has already expressed strong support for this clarification of this waiver because this body, on both sides of the aisle, Mr. President, I think, understands the great trauma and pain of families experiencing violence, both to the woman primarily and also to the children. I rise because I supported the welfare reform effort. I was not here as a new Senator, so I was not able to vote. But I want to say for the record that I support our efforts to change the welfare system in America, as long as those changes allow for job training and day care opportunities and transition. We do need to do a better job in this country of moving people from welfare to work. We need to do a better job of honoring work, particularly for those working at the minimum wage. So I support the changes. My colleague from Washington has expressed beautifully that there are some modifications and clarifications that are essential. This one is essential. With the suffering that is incurred by millions of children --and I say millions of children--who are in homes where this violence is occurring, the screams in the night, the begging for someone to help, the years of torture and abuse that many children suffer and many spouses suffer, we have to do more. Let us not add to their pain and suffering by letting this remain unclear in the law, when it is so clear that we want to say that the States simply have the right to design temporary relief for them so that they do not have to give certain information that would put them in jeopardy and put their children's lives at risk. I can only say how hopeful I am that when we pass this amendment, which looks as if it will pass by a large margin, it will this time stay in this bill for the children of the Nation, who literally--and I wish I could play a tape that I heard just this week by a chief of police who stood up before a group of us and said, ``This is a tape that I use for training my officers.'' It was horrifying to listen to this child scream in the night for a dispatcher, an operator to send help quickly to the home where a male--I do not know if it was the father or a friend--was beating this child's mother. To close your eyes and listen to this tape and this child's screams was almost more than I and others in the room could stand. So let us not add to the suffering. Let us be clear. Let us give the States a chance to do the humane thing. I thank the Senator from Washington and I urge our colleagues to support this amendment. I thank the Chair.

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I rise today to offer an amendment to the Labor, Health and Human Services appropriations bill. As the Members of the Senate are aware, nearly one-half million children in this country languish in foster care instead of permanent placement. We have had little success in coping with the problem. While the numbers of children in foster care multiply, children trickle into adoptive homes. Last year only a little over 20,000 children were formally adopted. Mr. President, these numbers are unacceptable. Recent advances in science and psychology have indicated that early childhood is the critical stage for human development. The nurturing and attention that infants need can only be provided by a loving family. Studies have indicated that the holding, touching, and play that good parents take for granted, actually affects a child's brain size and activity. Sadly, the children most in need of this kind of human warmth, our abused and neglected children, are ill-served by our Nation's adoption placement system. Equally distressing is the fact that these same problems in the adoption system are reflected in our budget priorities. In the Labor, Health and Human Services appropriations bill we propose to spend over $4.3 billion on support to foster care. At the same time, we are devoting only $13 million to encourage innovation in state adoption systems. This is a little more than one-third of 1 percent of all the money we are devoting to foster care. Our spending priorities are another stark example of our spending billions of dollars in a way that perpetuates a problem instead of resolving it. We need to reprioritize how we address the thousands of children in foster care. This amendment takes a modest step in the right direction. By reallocating $5 million from the administrative costs of the bill to help fund State initiatives in adoption, we can begin the process of addressing the source of the problem rather than its symptoms. Presently, the Children's Bureau has 40 grants to States that were either approved but unfunded, or underfunded due to shortfalls. Among the States with unfunded grant applications are Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Florida, Illinois, Kentucky, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Washington, and the District of Columbia. These grants would affect States large and small and in every region of the country. It is my hope that the programs that we fund by providing State grant support may one day provide a national model. Only through innovations like those funded by these grants can we hope to resolve the foster care crisis. I hope you will join me in supporting this amendment. I thank my colleague again for the time. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that my amendment be temporarily set aside for its determination at the appropriate time for a vote.

Ms. LANDRIEU. I thank my colleague for yielding, and ask unanimous consent to lay aside the pending amendment.

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I send to the desk an amendment to the Labor, Health and Human Services appropriations bill for myself and Senator McCain. I have here a copy of the amendment.

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

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I appreciate the opportunity to share just a few remarks about this important budget reconciliation and adoption. I first thank and congratulate the leaders on both sides of the aisle, to the chairman and to our ranking member of the Finance Committee and the Budget Committee, for all of their hard work and leadership. Nothing of this magnitude is accomplished without good, strong, well informed leadership. I think we have it in our leaders here. This bill is not everything that I hoped for. It is not everything that any one individual Member would have wanted. And it is not perfect. But it is a good bill. It is a good start to getting our fiscal house in order. Getting our fiscal house in order and making sure we are spending our money wisely, saving where we can and giving tax relief, is something that I personally feel is supported by the vast majority of Americans, regardless of party, and so many people in Louisiana feel this way. On these difficult problems, such as balancing the budget, neither party can get the job done by themselves. It is going to take both parties to get the job done in the right way for the American people. I am very proud, though, of a couple of points in this bill. Again, I show the Meyers family from Shreveport. Because of the good work that we did here in the Senate, and with the leadership of the President-- and I will say many of the Democrats supported the expansion of this $500 child tax credit to hard-working, not welfare but hard-working middle-class and moderate-income families--this family, Lois and Scott Meyers, of Shreveport, will be able to take part in the $500 tax credit. Families with earnings up to $110,000 will be able to benefit, which, in Louisiana, covers just about all of our families. The household incomes of 95 percent of our families are under $75,000. So the work that we did, and the fight to make this child credit available to working families like this, I think is something we can all be very proud of. Mr. President, 46 percent of Louisiana taxpayers earn less than $20,000 a year--not get less than $20,000, they work hard and only get $20,000 a year. This will really help almost 50 percent of the families in my State and that of Senator Breaux, and we are happy for that victory. I also want to say how pleased I am to see our first step, but I hope not our last step, in providing health care to uninsured children. Again, these are children who are of working families, whose parents have jobs--sometimes not just one, sometimes not two, but three jobs-- and are still without health insurance for their children. We could, as a country, make no better investment than providing critical health care to zero to 3, zero to 6--helping children to develop in ways that will save us all, as taxpayers, millions and millions of dollars down the line for other expenses like criminal justice or special education. I am looking forward to working with my State leaders to design the kind of health care program for them that is cost-effective, quality oriented, child centered and family centered. I am looking forward to that. I also want to say how thrilled I am about the investment in education. Because, really, with President Clinton's lead, we have now invested more money in education than since President Johnson was in the White House. Why is that important? It's important because our country doesn't have a future if our children and our workers are not well educated and well trained, to take advantage of the jobs and challenges that the next century will hold. So the Hope scholarships, the Pell grant expansions, and the student loan deductions, I think, are excellent provisions, to say we believe in education. It is the foundation of our economic development plan for the Nation and we are going to put our money where our mouth is. Let me also say to my senior colleague from Louisiana, who worked so hard on expanding the IRA, I have heard many of our colleagues say that giving people money to spend is what it's about. I do believe people can make good choices about the way they spend their money. But I think the real need is to encourage people to save their money. Our savings rate in this country is much lower than it needs to be. If we can encourage people to save for the right things--to purchase a home, for catastrophic health care needs, for education to improve their productivity and to give hope to their children--that is really what this is about. I thank the members of the committee for fighting hard for expanding IRAs. It is important to people everywhere, and very important to people in Louisiana. Finally, just a word on the estate tax and small business and farmers. We believe, on this side of the aisle, and there are many on the other side who thought it was important, if a grandmother, grandfather, great-grandfather built a farm on the sweat of their brow, invested in their land, invested in their equipment, they should be able to pass that farm down to the next generation without having to sell off the land or sell off the equipment to pay the taxes to our Government. We heard that. We have responded, and we have now given a tax incentive to be able to pass those small businesses and farms on, to people in our country. Mr. President, I thank you for the opportunity to address the body, to say this is not a perfect bill but it is a very good step toward getting our fiscal house in order, to providing much-needed tax relief to hard-working, middle-class families in our country and to making the kind of investments that are going to make our country even stronger and more productive in the future. On behalf of the Meyers family, to the 236,000 children that will be able to benefit from health care, and to the almost 400,000 children that will be able to benefit from this tax credit, and for others, I thank you so much and I yield the floor. Mr. GORTON addressed the Chair.

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. The Senator makes a fine point, and I would like to add that the new communications system would also support inter-operability with most of the adjoining parishes and the city of New Orleans. This would mean expanded emergency capabilities throughout the region which are vital to the entire State of Louisiana.

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, the Jefferson Parish Sheriff's Office has demonstrated its commitment to this project by allocating over 50 percent of the cost of this initiative in a dedicated escrow account. In a competition for funds, the sheriff's office, with its well developed procurement strategy and available matching funds, would no doubt prevail as a deserving candidate.

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. Thank you, Mr. President. I am happy to be here this morning to join my colleague from Washington State and so many of our colleagues to talk about the issues regarding this tax package and the budget that we are debating. I will be setting up in just a moment a picture of a family, Mr. President, from Shreveport, LA, the Meyers family. It is Lois and Scott Meyers, their son, Clayton, and Jessica, their daughter, who is 17. Their son Clayton is 5, the same age as my son Connor. This family works very hard, Mr. President. They only make, however, $17,000 a year. She, Mrs. Meyers, has a master's degree, but she works at a homeless shelter as a counselor. He has a $7-an-hour job. Of course, it is not full-time, but he also is a counselor and does not work a full 40 hours, but under contract has a flexible schedule. They are struggling hard to raise these two children. If we do not make this change that so many of us have talked about, expanding this $500 tax credit, this family in Louisiana, the Meyers family, and so many families like them in your State, in the State of Washington, in Texas, in South Carolina, will simply be left out. I believe, as so many of our colleagues do, that everyone in America, frankly, deserves a tax break. I really believe that, and I believe there are ways for us to provide tax breaks for those at the higher end, for those at the middle end, and for those working hard and struggling to make ends meet at the lower income levels. This family is not a welfare family. They are a hard-working, lower income family. In Louisiana, 95 percent of the people in my State--95 percent--make less than $75,000. Ninety-five percent of the households in Louisiana make less than $75,000. As their Senator, it is my job to argue that all of them, I believe, deserve some sort of tax relief. If we do not make this child credit stackable against the earned income tax credit, families like this, the Meyers family, will simply be left out. I just think that is not right. I believe they need to have tax relief. Now, this family, at $17,000 income, is frankly not going to be able to take much advantage of the capital gains tax relief, although I support capital gains tax relief. They are not going to take advantage of the estate tax relief. Their estate is not anywhere close to $600,000 in assets. They will be able to take advantage of, hopefully, the HOPE scholarship for Jessica as she gets ready to go into college, but if they don't get the $500 tax credit, they will not be a part of this tax plan. Now, it is true that they did only pay $200 in income tax last year because of the earned-income tax credit. They received a credit of about $1,200, but this family paid approximately $1,300 in payroll taxes, and that is what is important--for them to get this child tax credit against their payroll taxes, as well as the credit against the income tax. The President is fighting very hard, along with many, many of the Democrats. I hope some of the Republicans will join us in saying that we want tax relief for these families. In other States, the average schoolteacher salary, preschool and kindergarten teacher, is $18,700. The average sales occupation in America today is $24,000. Bookkeepers and accountants make on an average $20,000. Dental assistant, about $18,000. If this tax credit is not corrected in the way we believe it should be in conference, all of these families that I have mentioned--firefighters, bookkeepers, teachers, and this Meyers family--will not get the tax relief I think they deserve. I am here this morning to speak for them. They are not able to speak on this floor. They are only able to write letters and to call in. I am here this morning, along with many of my colleagues, to speak for these families, to say, ``Let's make this tax package fair.'' We also need, as you know, Mr. President, and so many of our colleagues, to make sure that we move toward a balanced budget, that we do it in a fair way, by giving tax relief broadly in the ways that we can, also cutting back where we can to make sure that we are running this Government in a very fiscally responsible way that promotes growth, that promotes job development, but also promotes fairness. When we can give a tax cut, let's give it to the families that deserve it. This is a hard-working family. They are not on welfare. They never have been on welfare, and they deserve a break today. Another subject of the tax bill that is important to me and so many on both sides of the aisle is the provision for a tax exemption for the State-sponsored savings plans. Florida has an extensive plan: 450,000 families have been able to join the Florida prepaid tuition plan. Senator Graham has been very supportive of this provision. In Louisiana, before I was elected to the Senate, as State treasurer I helped to institute a Start Smart plan, where families of all incomes up to $100,000--which includes just about everybody in Louisiana--would be able to set aside a small amount of money, as much as they were able to, sometimes as little at $10 a week, into a savings plan, and in our State, our general fund in Louisiana matches. For every $1 that a family is able to put up--it can be a parent, a guardian, a grandparent, a corporation can set up a savings plan for a child so they could go to college--whatever amount they are able to save, the State general fund matches that savings. For those at the lower income level, as the Meyers family, $18,000 to $20,000, the State makes a greater match, but the State gives some help or match to families making up to $100,000 on a progressive scale. The bottom line, in our conference, we have a possibility, which I understand the President supports--and I hope the American people will support this, too--to give tax-exempt status to those savings plans. We want more children, Mr. President, to be able to go to college. We want everyone to have the education they need to compete in a world very different than the world we grew up in. They need those technical skills. If they are not able to go to a 4-year college or a 2-year community college to at least get the technical training, post high school--12 years of education is no longer what is required. They need to go the extra 2 or 4 years to get the education they need to compete. Families need to be able to save. One of the other great provisions in this tax bill, but it is not a done deal yet, another great provision, which will cost about $1 billion, but it will be the best $1 billion we will ever spend, is leveraging the great will and great hope and great aspiration that families have to be able to have their children and grandchildren do better than themselves, to enable them to set up these savings accounts. I hope we will urge the President and urge the Republicans and Democrats to support this one provision in this tax bill that will make these savings plans tax exempt, encourage more States outside of Florida and Louisiana--and only a few others have set up these programs--urge them to set them up. This is supported by the National Treasurers Association, which has been a very strong advocate for this savings plan. This is not a handout, Mr. President. This is a handup. This says to families, if you are willing to set aside $10 a week or $50 a month or even $100 a month, we will match that effort, we will allow that fund to grow, tax exempt, so you will have that money. Mr. President, $500 a year, $17,000 a family would be able to save, almost $30,000 under a savings plan, even a modest savings plan, which is a good amount of money, actually a very large amount of money to be able to have that young person attend school. Also, this is for adults who set up in Louisiana this savings plan which allows them to go back to school to get the degree they need to have a higher salary and a more productive income level. So, besides the $500 tax credit that we on this side feel so strongly about making fair, this provision that allows and actually encourages families to save and increases the savings rate of America--which any economist and any person that is involved in the financial sector will tell you, America's savings rate is too low. It is not good for our country. So we do two things at once. We help families do the right thing by saving for their children. We also increase the savings rate for America, which helps our business to have more capital to invest. It is a win-win for everyone. I hope my colleagues will join me in supporting the change in the $500 child tax credit, as well as the provision for the statewide savings plans which would be so helpful to thousands, millions, of American families.

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I want to begin by thanking my colleagues for their great patience. It has been a long day. I thank our ranking member for his great attention to this matter. I also want to thank Senators Kerry, Johnson, and Durbin for joining me in cosponsoring this amendment. Mr. President, this amendment would allow the $500 child tax credit that we have talked so much about in the last few days to be available to 20 million families in America that are working very hard. Mr. President, under the current draft of the bill, these working families only get to keep about half of this credit. In my State that means 27 percent of the families in my State who are working very hard will not be able to keep the full amount of this credit. I know this has been considered carefully. But I feel compelled to offer this amendment today. I know that in this bill we are giving tax relief to many Americans. I believe that these Americans should have the opportunity to keep the full $500 tax credit. I ask my colleagues to give favorable consideration. It is budget neutral.

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I want to make a point that this is budget neutral. Technically a point of order could be raised that this is budget neutral in the amendment that I am offering. I would like to, if I could, move to waive and ask for the yeas and nays.

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I have an amendment at the desk.

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

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I rise today to recognize the 70th wedding anniversary of Gerald and Billie Davis Jones of West Monroe, LA. They celebrate their anniversary today with a large gathering of family and friends. The Joneses have been model citizens and contributed to their church and community in both large and small ways. We salute them for their impressive stability and wish them continued happiness together.

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I rise to make a few remarks concerning Charmaine Caccioppi who is retiring from the U.S. Senate after 20 years of service. Charmaine worked for former Senator J. Bennett Johnston during this time and has been a great asset to my office during my transition into the Senate. Her dedication and service to the citizens of Louisiana should be recognized. I wish her the best in all her future endeavors and I want her to know that she will truly be missed.

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I rise today to celebrate the 30th anniversary of the reunification of Jerusalem and support the resolution offered by my distinguished colleagues from New York and Florida in marking this auspicious occasion. Psalm 122 admonishes us to ``pray for the peace of Jerusalem.'' This biblical verse is as apt now, on the 30th anniversary of the Holy City's reunification, as it was 3,000, years ago. Jerusalem knew little peace in the 19 years before 1967. The end of Israel's War of Independence left an obscene no-man's land of barbed wire, tank traps, sniper posts, and minefields. Israel's former adversary left almost no vestige of Jewish history in the historic old city untouched, including the destruction of 58 synagogues; Jewish gravestones from the Mount of Olives were used to build roads and latrines for occupying troops. Mr. President, Israel's foes had as much regard for the rights of religious pilgrims as they did for religious sites: Jews could not visit the Western Wall, and Israeli Muslims were denied access to the Dome of the Rock and the Al Aqsa Mosque. During the occupation, the Christian population of Jerusalem declined from 25,000 to 10,000. On the morning of June 7, 1967, our entire world changed. Israeli commandos stormed through St. Stephen's Gate on the northeast side of the old city walls and took control over the old city and its centerpiece, the Temple Mount. They discovered that occupying troops had used the Temple Mount area, including the Dome of the Rock and the Al Aqsa mosque, as a huge ammunition dump. Mr. President, what might have happened if the ammunition would have exploded, destroying the Temple Mount and perhaps the nearby Church of the Holy Sepulcher? How great would our spiritual loss have been? For the first time since the Romans leveled the city in AD 70, Jews controlled the Western Wall--the surviving remnant of Herod's Temple. Mr. President, shortly after the end of the Six Day War, Israel did something astonishing for a victorious power. Israeli officials assured Arab leaders that the Muslims would keep control of the Islamic holy places on the Temple Mount. That inspired decision began Jerusalem on the road to reunification and began to heal the wounds of centuries. Mr. President, I traveled to Israel with my father when I was 21 and saw a city transformed from that which had seen pain and anguish for thousands of years. Where barbed wire and armed soldiers had once stood was a magnificent area of trees and grass that now surrounds the renovated walls of the old city. I saw a rebuilt Jewish Quarter in the old city. But Mr. President, most importantly, I saw for myself that free and open access to their holy places for people of all faiths was not merely the goal in Jerusalem, it was the rule. The city's parks were revitalized. Schools and museums and hospitals sprang up. Music and poetry once again rose into Israel's evening sky. The people came together as artists, architects, lawyers, and theologians in an effort that resulted in a city that no longer just survived but lived and breathed. The Talmud proclaims that ``of the 10 measures of beauty that came down to the world, Jerusalem took nine.'' Mr. President, for the first time since those prophetic words were first formed, those ``measures of beauty'' saw the light of day. Mr. President, the question that those brave, industrious people tried to answer is one that we still ask today: How can Jerusalem, which means ``city of peace,'' an ancient symbol of humanity's aspirations for redemption, become a living city that does not betray the promise of its name? An answer tragically eludes us, still today, 30 years after Jerusalem's reunification. The United States Congress has a long-standing commitment to a united Jerusalem governed by Israel. Seven years ago, Congress declared that Jerusalem ``must remain an undivided city'' and the Jerusalem Embassy Act of 1995 unequivocally stated that Jerusalem should remain the undivided capital of Israel as a matter of U.S. policy. The resolution introduced by my friends Senator Moynihan and Senator Mack clearly expresses our conviction that it should be so. Mr. President, it is said that ``one prayer in Jerusalem is worth 40,000 elsewhere.'' This resolution offers the voice of Congress to those voices coming from all over our Nation and the world praying for peace and prosperity for this most special city of all cities on this truly important day. Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor.

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. Thank you, Madam President. To my distinguished colleague from Massachusetts who has been such a strong and solid voice for working families and working people throughout this country, I appreciate his help on this issue. I am here today with my colleagues, Senator Baucus and Senator Kerrey, to offer some thoughts as to how we can make this particular bill more meaningful to working families. There is an architect, Bill McCuen, in South Carolina who is now running for Congress. He recently changed his political affiliation from the GOP to the Democratic Party. Mr. McCuen has suggested that the national GOP is ``substituting rhetoric for wisdom and * * * building walls instead of opening windows.'' With all due respect to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, I have concluded that Mr. McCuen's analysis is applicable in this instance. Perhaps he has had an opportunity to study S. 4. This bill, in its current form, is not about families nor is it friendly. The issue before us today is about workplace fairness. The bill is harmful to families in its current form. Our distinguished majority leader says S. 4 provides much-needed flexibility to workers. But Madam President, this measure is not about giving flexibility to workers; this bill is about flexibility only to employers or bosses. The 40-hour work week and the protections it affords have been in place since 1938. Under S. 4, these protections are clearly abolished. I believe that as Members of this body we have a real obligation to create truly family-friendly legislation as opposed to the proposal being offered by the majority. There has also been a lot said Madam President about this bill helping women who are now working more than ever before. Today, 60 percent of mothers with young children are in the workplace. This bill does not offer any relief for mothers to spend more time with their children or to meet necessary family obligations. Madam President, this bill neither makes for a better workplace nor is it family friendly. This legislation is merely a comptime scheme that will hurt the hard-working families of America--it will cut their pay, decrease their benefits and pensions, and threaten their long-term plans. It will take decisions that should be made by a worker and give them to an employer and it abolishes a standard that this Nation has abided by for the last 60 years--the 40-hour work week. Madam President, my Democratic colleagues want real flexibility and choice that will protect the working families of this country. We Democrats understand and support the desire employees have for more flexibility between work and family. Democrats fought for an increase in the minimum wage and the Family and Medical Leave Act so that workers would not have to choose between serving their family and serving their employer. Between taking their child to the doctor or getting to work on time. However, we also recognize that we need to have innovative arrangements in the workplace so that both employers and employees can be sure that their basic interests are protected. Madam President, the Baucus-Kerrey-Landrieu alternative would provide this real flexibility to working families because: Employees could decide when to accept overtime pay and when to accept comp time; employees could decide when to use their comptime; health and pension benefits for workers would be protected; and the 40-hour work week would be preserved. Madam President, the legislation that my distinguished Republican colleagues have introduced is wrong for working families and would be harmful to the continued economic success of this Nation because it does not offer workers any flexibility in meeting their obligations to their families and fulfilling their duties to their employers. Instead, S. 4 gives employees less control over both their time and their paychecks. Critical decisions that affect time spent at work, time spent at home, vacation, sick leave, and compensation are all in the hands of the employer instead of where they belong--with the employee. S. 4 undermines the 60-year tradition of the 40-hour work week--a tradition that has helped build this Nation into the world's leading economy. This bill, as it stands, would create an 80-hour work period before an employee could earn overtime. Workplaces have been governed by the principle that asking employees to work more than 40 hours would be a serious infringement on their personal lives--what working parent would want to have even less time with their children than they have now? Under the bill offered by my distinguished colleague from Missouri, employees would make less money and have less choice. Hours of comptime used would be counted as hours worked. This means that an employee who used 5 hours of comptime on Monday to take care of a sick child at home could be forced to work on a Saturday or Sunday to make up the hours but would not be paid overtime. Furthermore, Madam President, the health and retirement benefits of many employees are linked to the number of hours they work so their benefits could be slashed under S. 4. Also, nothing in this bill would prevent an employer from substituting an existing paid leave plan, such as vacation or sick leave, with comptime. Employees could be forced to work overtime and choose comptime if they wanted a vacation or needed sick leave. The bill offered by my friend from Missouri is also unrealistic, employees couldn't really take advantage of comptime when they needed it. Employers could deny an employee's request to use comptime if the employer could claim that the business would be unduly disrupted-- regardless of why the employee needed the time off. This bill forces employees to take a chance that they may be able to take time off when it is as valuable to them as overtime pay. For example, Madam President, take an employee who wants to chaperone her daughter's fourth grade class on a field trip. She chooses to accept comptime for overtime hours worked in order to earn enough paid time off to spend that time with her child and her classmates. Her employer agrees. But when it comes time for the field trip, after the employee has already worked enough overtime to account for any time off, the employer could claim that the employee's absence for the trip would unduly disrupt the business and then justifiably, under this bill, replace the time off with overtime pay. How much money could replace that field trip--the time off that the mother earned and worked for? Would it be enough to pay for the nonrefundable cost of the trip? Would it be enough to make a child forget about a lost chance to spend quality time with a parent? Would it be enough to make up for the inconvenience that the school would have in getting another chaperone? Madam President, I believe that, at that point, the overtime pay just isn't enough. Madam President, public employees have long had protections that private sector workers do not enjoy. For example, Federal workers can only be fired for just cause under the Civil Service system. Alternative work schedules like comptime and flextime went into effect for Federal employees as a 3-year experiment in 1978. They were extended in 1982 and made permanent in 1985. In all cases, employees may elect but cannot be compelled to accept comptime in lieu of overtime pay. Madam President, I agree with my distinguished colleague from Missouri that private sector workers should have greater flexibility and I commend Senator Ashcroft for his honest effort on behalf of the people of his State and the country. However, S. 4 does not provide workers the flexibility my Republicans colleagues are looking for. The Baucus-Kerrey-Landrieu substitute, though, does. Our measure, a meaningful substitute to S. 4, protects working families by providing: That employers cannot discriminate in offering comptime or overtime pay; employees could use comptime for any purpose, as long as they give their employers at least 2 weeks prior notice; comptime could be used with less notice if the business would not be unduly disrupted; overtime for over 40 hours worked in 1 week would be preserved, maintaining the 1938 Fair Labor Standards Act; employers would be prohibited from intimidating, threatening, or coercing employees into participating in a biweekly flexible credit hour program; comptime is treated as hours worked in calculating retirement and health benefits; comptime could not be used to replace or substitute for vacation or sick leave plans; and construction, garment, and other seasonal workers would be exempt. Madam President, S. 4 is a total sham. It is not friendly toward working families. Employers, not employees, maintain the ultimate control over use of comptime earned under this bill. The unfairness of this bill is further borne out by the fact that during the Labor Committee markup of S. 4, the majority refused to provide workers real choices in the workplace by rejecting an amendment that would have ensured that employees could take compensatory time for any of the reasons currently covered under the Family and Medical Leave Act such as to take care of an ill parent if the absence of such workers would not cause ``substantial and grievous injury to the operation of the employer.'' Madam President, the Baucus-Kerrey-Landrieu substitute gives real flexibility and protection to working women and their families but, most importantly, it allows both employers and employees to work together to create the right kind of cooperation in the workplace while at the same time allowing working families to choose if and when and how they take and use comptime. I urge my colleagues to support and adopt this substitute. Thank you, Madam President. I yield the floor. Madam President, 56 percent of hourly workers are women, nearly 60 percent of those earning minimum wage are women, more than 80 percent of overtime recipients have annual earnings of less than $28,000; and 61 percent earn $20,000 per year or less. Working women need their overtime pay. They need flexibility but it needs to be the choice of the workers, not the employers. Finally, I would like to say that I believe most employers in this country want a bill that is fair both to their businesses and to their workers. I reach across the aisle to my colleagues and say: Let us work toward a compromise that establishes real comptime for working families in America. Let us substitute wisdom for rhetoric. Let us open windows instead of building walls as we work to create a policy that will help all Americans in the workplace. I thank the Senator for the additional time, and yield to Senator Baucus.

Ms. LANDRIEU. Three minutes is just fine.

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I rise in support of Senate Concurrent Resolution 27, the bipartisan budget agreement as amended during the debate of the past few days. Mr. President, I believe that the Budget Resolution represents an important victory for this body and for the American people in that we can finally look forward to a balanced budget by 2002. Priorities like Medicare, Medicaid, education and the environment have been protected. This agreement, the first true balanced budget in 28 years, delivers on a personal promise of mine to work to strengthen the economy, balance the budget and put families first. Mr. President, I salute the work of both parties as the primary reason this agreement was reached. Each side had to give and take to get us to this point. I commend the President and the congressional leadership, particularly Senator Domenici and Senator Lautenberg, for their responsible conduct throughout this entire process. We are in their debt. Mr. President, the budget agreement puts more resources into educating America's children--from Head Start to college--than the Federal government has done in 30 years. It secures Medicare's solvency for a decade, cleans up poisonous waste sites and will help move millions of Americans from welfare to work. Just as important, it accomplishes all this and gives needed tax relief to hard-working families and small businesses through capital gains and estate tax cuts and a $500 per child tax credit. Mr. President, this agreement only begins our work, it doesn't end it. I will go forward with my colleagues fighting for families--to strengthen our investment in children by repairing their crumbling schools, extending medical coverage to more children, and cutting juvenile crime--and to strengthen Social Security and make retirement secure for every working American.

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. I thank the Chair. I begin by thanking my distinguished colleague from South Dakota, Senator Daschle, for his hard work and excellent work. He has been working for months, talking with medical doctors, advocates for children and families, and affected women to try to help us arrive at a balanced approach, that will resolve this very difficult of issues. To my distinguished colleague from New Hampshire, who just spoke, I say that I am here today because I want to join with you in ending late-term abortions. The young woman about whom the Senator spoke so beautifully, would have a chance to live under our amendment because it will ban all procedures except in the very rarest of circumstances. With due respect, under the bill that the gentleman is supporting, that wonderful child could still be aborted, because the mother would still be free to choose another procedure. My colleagues on the opposite side continue to make reference to a Dr. Hern. I want to say again that when this bill passes, he will lose his license. He will not be able to practice. My distinguished colleague from New Hampshire has made the excellent argument for the minority of people in this country who believe that abortion should be banned at all times, in every circumstance, in every case, but the majority of Americans in my State of Louisiana and in this country want reason. They want to abide by the Constitution which gives the woman the right to terminate a pregnancy in the early stages, but they want most certainly to ban and prohibit late-term abortions. That is what this amendment does. We have heard all day about one or two doctors that might say they would never perform a late-term abortion. That is their right under the law. But the American Medical Association, 37,000 strong, has said, and I want to quote again for the debate: In recognition of the constitutional principles regarding the right to an abortion articulated by the Supreme Court and in keeping with the science and values of medicine, the AMA recommends that abortions not be performed in the third trimester except in the cases of serious fetal abnormalities, incompatible with life. Although third-trimester abortions can be performed to preserve the life or health of the mother, they are in fact generally not necessary for those purposes except in the most extraordinary circumstances. That is what my distinguished colleague from South Dakota along with the two Senators from Maine, have tried to craft, a very narrow health exception with tight restrictive language. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the Snowe-Daschle amendment to Senate Bill 6. Mr. President, the distinguished Supreme Court Justice Felix Frankfurter wrote: Great concepts like liberty were purposely left to gather meaning from experience. For they relate to the whole domain of social and economic fact, and the statesmen who founded this nation knew too well that only a stagnant society remains unchanged. We are not a stagnant society and changes in reality and our perceptions have brought us here today. It has been nearly 25 years since the Supreme Court decided Roe versus Wade. The Roe decision encompassed a lot of the experience and wisdom that our nation had acquired regarding personal liberty. In 1973, it affirmed the new understanding that Americans had developed about the role of women in society and the role of government in our personal lives. However, 25 years after Roe, our country has had more time to reflect on its experiences. Social and economic factors have altered the world in which we live. Breakthroughs in medicine have changed our understanding of human development and have allowed us to deliver premature babies at ages never before possible. We have reached the appropriate time to review our definition of liberty in the context of a woman's right to end a pregnancy. Those of us who support Roe versus Wade understand this was not a decision which allowed for abortion on demand, but rather it was a decision which balanced the rights of privacy and liberty on one hand-- and State's authority to protect prenatal life on the other. In writing his decision, Justice Blackmun clearly stated: A state may properly assert important interests in safeguarding health, in maintaining medical standards, and in protecting potential life. At some point in the pregnancy, these respective interests become sufficiently compelling to sustain regulation of the factors that govern the abortion decision. One of the questions we face today is what is the approximate point at which prenatal life becomes sufficiently compelling and what are the appropriate regulations to the termination of pregnancy. In reviewing both Roe and Casey, it is clear that the Court has given us one sure point on which to balance individual liberty and prenatal life. That point is viability. Before a fetus is viable, the rights of privacy and personal liberty found in the Constitution require us to provide safe and accessible method to terminate a pregnancy. After viability, the State's interest in prenatal life should prevail. Our first woman on the Supreme Court, Sandra Day O'Connor, framed the delicate balance our society has reached in the Casey decision when she stated: While [Roe] has engendered disapproval, it has not been unworkable. An entire generation has come of age, free to assume Roe's concept of liberty in defining the capacity of women to act in society, and to make reproductive decisions . . . and no changes of fact have rendered viability more or less appropriate as the point at which the balance of interests tips. Viability presents a bright line--a legal standard--that we can use to govern our decisions about regulating abortion. Mr. Santorum's bill violates the viability standard and does nothing to end late-term abortion. On the other hand, Mr. President, Senator Daschle and Senator Snowe's alternative method would indeed make clear that all late-term abortions by any procedure are prohibited. I thank them for their leadership in bringing this alternative to the floor. They have both displayed a willingness to reach across the aisle and provide us with a bill which reflects the consensus that the American people have already reached. A 1996 Gallup Poll indicated that 64 percent of Americans support a woman's right to have an abortion during the first 3 months of pregnancy. This is a strong indication of a national consensus that abortion should be an available, legal, and safe option for women in the early stages of pregnancy. When you ask those same people how they feel about abortions in the third trimester, the consensus flips the other way. Only 13 percent of those surveyed supported abortion, 82 percent would prohibit it. Those 82 percent of the people who oppose abortion in the third trimester are not just opposed to a particular procedure; they are opposed to all procedures. They believe that once a fetus reaches the point where it could sustain meaningful life, they are opposed to abortion. That is precisely what is accomplished by the Snowe-Daschle amendment. We make clear, with appropriate penalties, that late-term abortion by any procedure will not be allowed, except in the rare and extraordinary circumstances when a woman's life or physical health is gravely threatened. Yes, a doctor would certify the viability and health risk to the mother, but who else would be qualified to make such medical decisions? The local judge or city council? Without this amendment, S. 6 would accomplish very little. The partial birth abortion ban concentrates on banning only one procedure, it does nothing to stop late-term abortions. What possible good is accomplished by bringing this very heart-wrenching subject before the Congress and the American people, only to pass a bill that does not affect abortions? As written, this bill is simply an opportunity for people to congratulate themselves on having done something important, when in fact they have accomplished nothing. If we pass S. 6 unamended, it would be like outlawing armed robbery with an Uzi, but allowing criminals to hold you up with a handgun. The American people will see through this facade and be even more disillusioned with this institution and its members. Maybe the most significant advantage of the Snowe-Daschle amendment is that it can be passed, signed by the President and will meet constitutional scrutiny. The bipartisan approach of this amendment is our best chance to address post-viability abortions, while also preserving our understanding of liberty in the 25 years since Roe versus Wade. I would be remiss if I did not add that when the government acts to restrict abortions, as is its right in certain circumstances, it has an increased obligation to make the choice to support life more compelling. We cannot on one hand require women to forego the option of abortion and at the same time undermine all the programs that support a woman as she struggles to bring a child into the world. Since the Roe decision, a number of steps have been taken to make abortion safer and more accessible. We need to act affirmatively to make abortion more rare and less necessary. We can do that by vigorously supporting pregnancy prevention strategies that would minimize or preclude the need for abortion. A key component of this effort must be adoption. This Nation needs to make adoption more affordable through tax credits and Congress should work to implement State and Federal laws and regulations that encourage families to build through adoption. We must continue to reform our foster-care system to make permanent placement for children a reality and a loving family for every child an achievable goal. We should invest more in prenatal care and health insurance for our children so that young mothers deliver healthy babies, taxpayers save money, and children have a real chance at a decent life. We ought to concentrate on effective pregnancy prevention efforts in our schools. Our children need to understand the serious ramifications of sex outside of marriage so that we are faced with fewer unplanned pregnancies. We have had years of experience with sex education programs in this country. We should, state-by-state, replicate those successful programs nationwide. It is important that we in the Congress and in this Chamber understand that a commitment to life means more than just talk. In a time of tight budgets, the true test of peoples' priorities is where they are willing to commit scarce resources. We can all agree that we should make every effort to preserve human life. However, it is a hollow promise to bring life into the world and then abandon it when it arrives. If life is a priority for this Congress, we should reflect it by making our policies and pocketbooks available to nurture young lives. Mr. President, the debate surrounding late-term abortions has been a valuable opportunity for the American people to take stock of what we mean by liberty. I believe that the Snowe-Daschle amendment is an excellent reflection of what our experience has taught us since Roe. It restores a balance to our national dialogue about abortion and premises it upon the clear standard of viability. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. Thank you very much.

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, as we have engaged in this debate on the nation's strategy to deal with temporary storage of high-level nuclear waste, I have come to several conclusions. Certainly storage is a troublesome issue that has remained unresolved for the past 16 years. As time has gone by, it has become clearer and clearer that the Nation needs a more comprehensive strategy, not a piecemeal strategy, to handle all the issues associated with long-term storage of nuclear waste. Furthermore, given the vehemently strong opinions expressed by citizens, administrators, State and local officials, and others who would be affected by a centralized storage plan, I believe we need to have the utmost confidence in the way we choose to dispose of spent fuel. When we began to consider the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1997, I was optimistic about our ability to work toward the common goal of providing guidance on this issue. Supporters of the bill made an extremely credible case to me that something needs to be done. The Nuclear Waste Act of 1982 set up a trust fund to help pay for the cost of a permanent geologic repository. As part of the deal, the Department of Energy was directed to contract with utilities to accept spent fuel at a permanent repository by 1998, but now it cannot. The Nation's nuclear reactors have begun to run out of space for spent fuel in pools at reactor sites. Soon, more and more utilities will have to build above ground storage casks. I am sympathetic to the frustrations expressed by State governments and utilities over this breach. I am sure many of my colleagues agree with me. Another issue that demands attention is the Nuclear Waste Fund. Congress has established 172 trust funds financed by taxpayers for specific purposes. Few have maintained their integrity in the spending process. The Nuclear Waste Fund is one of the few where the Government entered into an actual contract to perform a duty--to take on spent nuclear fuel by a time certain. Considering the history of this issue, I am opposed to the idea that ratepayers, who have already contributed over $12 billion to the Nuclear Waste Fund for the construction of a permanent repository, should also have the cost of on-site storage passed on to them. Louisianians have paid over $140 million into this fund since 1982, with no results. This is unacceptable. The public should be getting its money's worth. Otherwise, the money should not be spent. Conversely, and most importantly, I am hesitant to commit to the construction of an interim storage facility if there are uncertainties associated with the designated permanent repository site. So much rests on a decision to place an interim site near Yucca Mountain. Will we transport the waste more than once if Yucca Mountain is unsuitable? How wise is it to ignore this possible outcome? This body several years ago requested a study from the Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board. Their findings were illustrative of the complexity of this effort. It seems that a particular element was found in the exploratory tunnel at Yucca Mountain. This element is generally present when there is fast flowing water in a location. No one expected this finding. Nor did anyone expect the Board to determine that utilities could go on safely storing nuclear waste at reactor sites for another decade. Both these findings show that certainties are hard to come by, even when from all indications, a clear outcome is expected. Mr. President, we should not create a nuclear waste policy based on incomplete information. This issue is just too important. For these reasons, I am unable at this time to support S. 104. I believe that the rationale for a comprehensive approach to waste storage is evident. The working process I have witnessed over the last few weeks between the leaders on this issue, if continued, could result in a measure that addresses all of the concerns raised by industry, State and local administrators including tribes, and the administration. I have felt for some time that a compromise on the provisions of S. 104 exists. In fact, a compromise was nearly achieved. Mr. President, it is said that a rolling stone gathers no moss. I submit that we cannot afford to let moss grow. We need to adopt a clear policy sooner rather than later on this question. I am disappointed that compromise could not be found at this time, but I urge my colleagues to continue to work on finding solutions so that we can have a sensible nuclear waste policy for this Nation. In closing I will say that permanent storage of nuclear waste is something that we need to do--we need to do it once and only once. It is of paramount importance that it be done correctly and to the satisfaction of all.

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I believe that we should adopt a capital budget and I strongly urge its incorporation into Senate Joint Resolution 1. This amendment offered by my distinguished colleague from New Jersey, Mr. Torricelli, establishes a capital budget and should receive the support of every Member of this Chamber who truly wants to see a balanced budget become a reality. A capital budget will help us achieve that end and will bring more financial accountability to the Federal level. Many supporters of a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution believe that the Federal Government should manage its funds like many hard-working families across our Nation. Families must balance their checkbooks or they face serious financial consequences. Why, amendment supporters ask, should the Federal Government be any different? The reason is clear, Mr. President. Families do not balance their budgets, they balance their checkbooks. They sit at the kitchen table once or twice a month to make sure that there is enough money to pay the bills. However, not all of their expenses are paid in full at the time they are purchased. Most Americans can only afford such items if they spread their payment obligations over a longer period of time, sometimes with the help of loans. People do not receive the benefits of such expenditures at one time, either--they drive their cars and live in their homes for years, perhaps decades. Most States operate in the same manner. While almost every State has some type of constitutional or statutory requirement to balance their budgets, such limitations normally apply to a state's operating budget--like a family's checkbook. State expenses for constructing such items as roads and buildings or purchasing land do not fall within the balanced budget requirements. The Federal Government, however, is being asked to balance its budget without a distinction between capital outlays and operating expenses. In fact, were the balanced budget amendment to pass without providing for the establishment of a capital budget, this country would place upon itself a restriction not followed by families, businesses or States. Furthermore, such a limitation would make the United States unique among the major economic powers in the world--not a single nation among the G-7 has such budget constraints. Federal outlays for capital investments are significantly different from outlays for operating expenses because they represent asset exchanges. When the United States spends money to purchase a building or land, the United States receives an appreciable asset in exchange for that expense. That asset will produce future streams of revenue to the United States either through the increase in the value of the property or simply as a place to conduct the Government's business. Such expenditures do not contribute to the deficit wholly because the resulting purchase or investment leaves the Government with calculations on both sides of the ledger. Additionally, a lack of such a distinction is an inadequate way for the Government to manage the Nation's funds. To use the example provided by Bruce Bartlett, a conservative economist who served in both the Reagan and Bush administrations, a ``$10 million building that will last 30 years must be fully accounted for in a single year's budget, the same as a $10 million outlay for airplane fuel or some other operating expense.'' In Mr. Bartlett's view, in my own view, and in the opinion of hundreds of economists nationwide, ``the lack of a [Federal] capital budget creates biases in the budget that lead to uneconomical decisions.''

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, today is indeed a historic milestone for our Nation. For the majority of this country's history, a full half of our citizens were left without the right to vote therefore they were left without a voice, without a collective voice in the direction of domestic affairs or international affairs for our country. With the passage of the 19th amendment in 1920, this flawed policy was corrected, however since that time progress and change in this area has come, but very slowly. Today we take a great step forward for our country and the world in approving the nomination of Secretary of State designee Madeleine Albright. Although there is little controversy surrounding our vote today on this confirmation we should take a moment to note the historical significance of this occasion. There was a time not long ago when the nomination of any woman regardless of how qualified or experienced to lead our Nation's foreign policy would have been at the least controversial, and at the most unthinkable. Today, that time is over. Ambassador Albright's confirmation is all but certain in just a few moments with the vote of this Senate. She is a tribute to her gender, but it is not to her gender that this accomplishment is due, it is through her exemplary career in foreign service. To be here today on the floor of this historic Chamber to cast my first vote as a U.S. Senator is in itself a exhilarating experience, but to be able to cast that vote for Madeleine Albright the first woman ever to serve as Secretary of State of this great Nation makes it even more memorable. Thank you Mr. President for the opportunity to share these thoughts.