Mary Landrieu

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I will speak on the underlying bill for 15 minutes. I wanted to take this opportunity to come to the floor and speak for a minute about the important subject of education and, in particular, special education, which we refer to around here as IDEA. We authorize this very important piece of legislation every 5 or 6 years. In the midst of all that is going on with Iraq and with our debate over tax policy regarding the economy, some would not consider this the most important issue before us. But for our students, our families, and for our educators, in particular, it is a very important issue. I say on the eve of our commemorating the 50th anniversary of the Brown v. Board of Education decision, it is appropriate that we would spend a couple of days in the Senate and in Congress speaking about an issue that really does affect millions of our families. I know people in Louisiana are very concerned about special education. I commend the chairman and the ranking member for bringing us a bill that, in the midst of all of this rancorous debate and gridlock--some of it, from my perspective, deserved because there are some things that our side doesn't want to move forward, so we appropriately stop those actions. Nonetheless, in the midst of all of this, we should take some time to work in a bipartisan way to move the agenda of special education and make some very needed improvements. I also commend the administration and the commission that worked very hard to try to outline for us a focus regarding special education. Some of the findings of the recent study that was concluded are worth repeating. They were mentioned earlier on the floor. I want to say again how important I think the work of this commission was when they noted that we as a Congress, as the educational leaders, should focus more on student outcomes. We have been, since we created this provision of the law in 1975, in my mind--and I think the Chair shares this opinion--too much focused on the process of making sure that each of our special needs students and their families and schools were following things step by step, paper trail by paper trail, and taking our eyes off the outcomes. What do we want these students, who are called special needs students--but they are just students who need special attention. Every student needs special attention, and some students because of where they start, with challenges or disabilities, need extra attention. I know that is true in Louisiana. We have been, for these 30 years or so, too wrapped up in the process and not focused on the outcome. Are we, in fact, teaching children to read at grade level? Are we, in fact, intervening in the case of gross neglect or abuse to make sure that the proper outcome is that the abuse and neglect is stopped and children are placed in an environment that is more suitable to their needs, or are we focused on process, such as if the pink slip was turned in on time to match the yellow slip, or if the money was appropriately recorded. I am proud that study is moving up toward outcome and results. I also want to say that the study has been good about suggesting to us--and this bill outlines some of the new thoughts--that we should be focused on prevention. Yes, we want to identify our students who need special attention, but if we could put in place better teaching techniques, early intervention strategies that would prevent young children from being labeled as special education, not only would that be better for the student, it would be better for the parents, the school districts, and it would also save the taxpayers some money. Today, taxpayers would like to save money where and when they can. The third finding I thought worth noting was that we should begin to embrace more fully the concept that we only have one educational system for all of our children. We don't have, and should not have, a two- tiered system or separate system--one for ``regular'' children and one for ``special needs'' children. They are all our children. They all need special attention. But special education, or IDEA, is to give added resources--we, in Louisiana, call that ``lagniappe,'' a little extra--to a certain group of students who might need it because of their physical or emotional or mental circumstance. Those are the three very important findings of the commission. I commend our leadership for helping us to focus on that. Let us not focus so much on the process, let us focus on the outcomes. Are we succeeding with these children? Let us not just continue to label children as the need arises, but let's focus on preventing the labeling at the earliest stage. Let us stop talking about two separate systems and realize that we are talking about one system and embrace that notion. There are four other short points I want to make regarding the underlying bill and, in general, they are positive comments. There has been great concern in Louisiana about the issue of discipline in our schools, and I think rightfully so. We want to support our teachers and our administrators. We want to empower them to make good choices about maintaining an atmosphere of discipline in a school so all children can learn. If 1, 2, or 3 children are disruptive--it only takes 1--but if 1 child is disruptive in a classroom, it wrecks the opportunity for those other 25, 20, 18, 15--whatever the number is--children to learn, and it robs them of an opportunity to have a full and productive day. Because our laws have been perhaps not as carefully written as possible, maybe our regulations have been too onerous, and perhaps some court decisions have led us to a place where in America today--and I know in Louisiana because my teachers and superintendents tell me: Senator, we are afraid to discipline a child. We are afraid of a lawsuit. Or we don't know where to stand on this issue. As an example, as hard to believe as this is--and I am going to submit for the Record information to document it--we actually had an incident a couple years ago where two students--I know those listening will find this hard to believe--actually burned down a school, and because they were labeled special education children, the actions taken against them were not what you and I would think would be appropriate in that they were basically allowed to go to a temporary school because they burned down the original school. People of that community did not think they could take appropriate action because they were prevented by some Federal law or regulation. I am happy to say, in large measure that discipline issue is addressed in this bill. That is why I am happy to support it. We can now, under this new bill, suspend or expel a child with no questions asked and no hearings necessary for bombs, guns, drugs, or bodily injury to another student or a teacher. Then for issues that are not as clear as bombs, guns, drugs, and bodily injury to a student or teacher, there is a more streamlined process that does not get everybody tied up in legal knots and provides discipline in the classroom, in the hallways, in the gym, and in other places in the school environment so that learning can take place. I commend this leadership. Perhaps we do not go as far as I would have liked on this issue. I know the Senator from Alabama, Mr. Sessions, and I have talked about even going further than this bill. But at least this is a step in the right direction to return discipline and empower our teachers to take appropriate actions. Let me be quick to say, we do not want any child who is suffering from a physical injury or disability, particularly if a child is deaf or visually impaired, to suffer in any inappropriate way by disciplines that might come. But it has gotten out of hand in the sense that our regulations have tied the hands of our principals, superintendents, and teachers. We have addressed that situation. On the labeling issue, we have made some progress. I am going to put up a chart in a few moments to show that we have a long way to go. One of the other issues is funding. This bill gives us a new authorization level. It does not give us a funding level. This is where I want to express some disappointment. We just had a vote to authorize this bill at $13.5 billion for 2002, $16 billion for 2003, $18.5 billion for 2004, and $20.5 billion for 2005. But the numbers appropriated are $20 million for 2002, 11.69 for 2003, 12.34 for 2004, and 13.3 for 2005. There is a difference between authorized levels and appropriated levels. For No Child Left Behind and IDEA, authorized levels are promised levels. Authorized levels are what we promise to fund; appropriated levels are actually what we do. For today, this is a serious issue, and there is a serious differential. If we were truly funding IDEA the way we promised when we initially created it and the way we continue to promise each time we authorize it, Louisiana, just our State, would be getting an additional $240 million a year. With 15 percent of our total population labeled as ``special education,'' and with one out of every four children in poverty and with two out of three African-American children in poverty in our State, this $240 million would go a long way to helping us correct the inequities, to close the achievement gap, and to provide a quality education for all of our children. When we add the shortfall in IDEA with the shortfall in No Child Left Behind, it comes to an astonishing $440 million shortfall for Louisiana alone. I have not calculated the shortfall for Maine. I am sure the Presiding Officer, because she is a leader in this issue, is familiar with what that number would be. For the large States, such as California, Florida, and Texas, it would have to be millions of dollars short because Louisiana, with only 4 percent of the Nation's population, is short $450 million. With $440 million, we could do a lot better job helping every child in Louisiana learn to read at an early age and live up to the call of the special education report that says an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. If we could prevent the labeling and teach children to read at age 6, 7, or 8, it would go a long way to preventing the labeling of ``special education.'' Let me go to this chart that will show my point. There are almost 3 million children who are identified around the country as special education children. I am almost getting uncomfortable using that term because the more we use it, the more people get the idea that these children are damaged goods, that there is something wrong with these children. They have special needs. I think it was the Senator from Maryland, Ms. Mikulski, who said it so beautifully: That might be true, but what these children really need is special attention. I give my daughter special attention every night. I read to her for almost 30 minutes, and I try to do it every night. She needs special attention, and I try to provide that because she is at a critical stage of learning to read. Most of these children who are in special education, as you can see, the vast majority of them, have speech or language disabilities. That is not to say there is something wrong with their God-given, innate intelligence. There is nothing wrong with the way God made their brain or fashioned it. He actually did a magnificent job. But we have not done our job as they grow to be little humans teaching them speech or language. So they come to school underprepared. Not mentally retarded, not visually impaired, not deaf, not autistic, but they just have difficulty speaking and with language. Madam President, as you know, we are learning so much about the early brain development of children from 0 to 3. We understand how critical it is as parents raising our own children to look directly in the eyes of a child, to speak with clear diction, to actually show them how to speak and to talk to children, and to have a conversation with them, even if they are unable to speak but just hearing the language. So many of our children from poor and disadvantaged backgrounds and some children from actually wealthier backgrounds who are neglected, but in large measure from poor and disadvantaged backgrounds, come to school not hearing the language properly, not having been spoken to in a direct way. So they start out at a tremendous disadvantage. In criticism of this administration and our actions here, if we would put our money where our mouth is and start funding early childhood education, which could be done through either funding No Child Left Behind fully so States have choices about where to spend their money-- in large measure, they could spend it on early childhood education--or fully funding IDEA, we could eliminate 80 percent of the children because we could catch their speech or language earlier with effective programs. How do I know this? Because we are doing it in Louisiana. Our superintendent, even being short of Federal dollars, even after the years we promised to give the money and we have not, has taken the bull by the horns with our Governor and our board of elementary and secondary education and with State dollars are creating what we call Louisiana Four, LA Four. We are trying to identify every 4-year-old in our State who needs help, who wants help. It is voluntary. Children are not forced to go to school at 4 years old, but for the parents who do want to enroll their child in a quality education, with parental involvement, we are providing our own State money. Just think what we could do with $440 million. The results are astonishing. Children who are taught to read at the earliest ages and given the basics of phonics and language avoid being labeled as special education. So then we could focus our attention on those children who really are challenged by things that, in large measure, are out of our control. The jury is still out on autism. We are not sure what causes autism. We do not believe, with all the studies I have read, that it is anything that is caused by human activity or inactivity. It seems to be a brain malfunctioning or a nerve malfunctioning. As I said, we are not clear yet on the research. Such a small percentage of the children who are in special education are autistic and that is an appropriate place for them to be, because autistic children have real special needs. It takes skill to educate and deal with them. Deafness and blindness, obviously, bring their own challenges. Traumatic brain injury, our children are sometimes in accidents, sometimes it is a birth defect, but we can hardly even see this graph because it is such a small percentage of children. If we could take care of children coming to school unprepared, which is in our power to do, if we could take care of speech and language impairment, and if we would properly diagnosis mental retardation--and I am convinced, because I have seen studies that indicate we are not accurately identifying or overidentifying children who are mentally retarded, in other words saying they are mentally retarded but they are not really; we are just testing them in that way or making that judgment when really they have been grossly neglected and abused and their IQ is perfectly fine. Our testing measures are just not what they need to be. If we could take care of speech or language ability, which is in our control, we would dramatically reduce the number of children who would need this special intervention and therefore do a better job of educating them, reducing labeling, reducing the cost to the taxpayer, and making our children and their families much more satisfied. We would not be labeling them and putting that moniker on their back for their life. When children are labeled and told they are special education, most children receive that as there is something wrong with them. They lower their own expectations for themselves. I will conclude on a couple of points. I guess having low expectations from your parents is very difficult to deal with. If one has a notion about themselves and their parents did not go to college or they did not finish high school, they set low expectations. Also, having low expectations from one's teachers is difficult, but the most difficult expectation to overcome is if someone has low expectations of themselves. That is almost impossible to overcome. When we put labels on our children unnecessarily at an early age, thinking we are helping them but we are actually hurting them, those children lower their own expectations for themselves. That is very damaging to them and to our society. So let us do a better job of intervening early. The best way to do that is to better use the funding we have and to demand of ourselves full funding for special education and No Child Left Behind. The final point I wish to mention is this bill again focuses on outcomes. Leave No Child Behind also attempts to focus on outcomes. That is where we have to stay the course. There are some who are suggesting that testing is too high stakes. Well, I say to them that life is a pretty high stakes game and nothing we do is worth doing if it cannot be measured. All action that we undertake, in almost every aspect of our life, is measurable. So schools, in their outcomes, in their processes, can be measured. We are on the road and let us stay the course. Of course, it would be helpful, and I think imperative, that we fund these efforts. In conclusion, we have made great progress with this bill. We have taken some good steps in the area of stronger discipline. We are trying to address the discrepancy in funding, although we are still short in this effort. We still are overlabeling our children when early prevention would do so much. I thank the Members for allowing me to speak on behalf of the thousands of teachers in Louisiana and our families that are greatly concerned. We see some hope in this underlying legislation that we are moving in the right direction. I yield the floor.

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

Ms. LANDRIEU

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

Ms. LANDRIEU. I can appreciate that. I appreciate the comments of the chairman. He has shown himself to be a great leader, a man of his word. I know he will uphold and fight for our position. I think it would be a real shame to move a $120 billion tax bill through this Congress at this time and have not a part of it specifically directed to some of the men and women who are carrying the greatest burden right now. I know our businesspeople of all sizes and shapes are contributing to the overall economy and creating jobs, but there would not be any country to create jobs for if it were not for the men and women in uniform who protect us here and abroad. I appreciate the remarks of the chairman. I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record three articles involving enlisted reservists of the National Guard, and a letter from the National Guard Association that represents thousands of current and retired guardsmen and reservists.

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, the underlying bill moves around about $120 billion in tax relief, tax increases, changes in our Tax Code to hopefully increase employment opportunities, increase and strengthen employment across the board, and strengthen our economy here and abroad. That is the intention of the underlying bill. This amendment moves around only $2 billion of that $120 billion. Every Senator could come here and argue that section A is more important than section C or section D. But I can tell you that, to my knowledge, this is the only section of $120 billion that deals specifically with tax credits for guys and gals who are putting on the uniforms, who are not working for the pay but are working because of their patriotism, and working in some of the most horrific and very difficult situations. The least we can do while we are debating a tax bill is to provide some much needed relief. I could give you 2,000 stories. Because time is short, let me give you 2. This is a family from Louisiana. It is the subject of an article. There were hundreds of articles written. This one happens to be from the Washington Post. Kathy Kiely did a beautiful job of writing this article. She starts off: Drastic pay cuts. Bankruptcy. Foreclosed homes. They aren't exactly the kind of challenges that members of America's military reserves sign up for when they volunteered to serve their country. But for many, the biggest threat to the home front isn't Saddam Hussein or Osama bin Laden. It's the bill collector. Janet Wright is from Louisiana. Kathy Kiely writes: Janet Wright says she ``sat down and cried'' when she realized how little money she and her children, Adelia, 5, and Carolyn, 2, would have to live on when her husband was sent to the Mideast. In his civilian job with an environmental cleanup company, Russell Wright makes $60,000 a year--twice what he'll be paid as a sergeant in the Marine Forces Reserve. Back in Hammond, LA, his wife, who doesn't have a paying job, is pouring the kids more water and less milk. She is trying to accelerate Carolyn's potty training schedule to save on diapers. Let me ask: Could we do a little better for our Guard and Reserve members who have to take a cut in pay to serve in the military for us? They knew the responsibilities when they signed on to the Guard and Reserve. They understood their commitment to training. They understood their commitment to their monthly responsibilities. And, yes, they understood it wasn't going to be a ``paid vacation,'' but because our policy in Congress is relying on their work and relying on them for longer periods of time than either they or, I might add, at least according to the generals who have testified before the Armed Services Committee, we anticipated, the least we could do in a tax bill is to give them some minimal relief. This amendment helps families just like the Wright family in Hammond, LA, by allowing the employer to pay the difference between the $30,000 that this Marine Reserve officer will earn when he is serving our country and putting himself in harm's way, and if they pay that gap up to $30,000--it is not mandatory; it is voluntary. Many of our companies, but not all, are doing it for obvious reasons. There is a strain particularly on small businesses. But for those employers that-- and I note Boeing is a good example of a very large employer with a wonderful policy, and much better, I might add, than our own Government which today has refused to adopt this policy. But at least there are some employers out there that are doing more than hanging the flag and saying the Pledge of Allegiance. They are actually taking out their checkbook in a very patriotic manner and keeping their Guard and Reserve families whole. The least we could do is give them a 50-percent tax credit, which is what our amendment does. Let me read another example. I have 2,000; I am only going to read 2. This is a firefighter from the Pacific coast. He earned a decent living before being called up in 2002, but active duty meant a $700 or a $1,000 a month pay cut and some very painful choices. He said: My wife said ``We cannot live here anymore. It is too expensive.'' He said he rented a 12,100 square foot home. He moved the whole family into a two-bedroom apartment where his wife has to sleep on a couch. I understand we all have to make sacrifices. Most certainly the men and women who sign up for our All-Volunteer Force don't sign up because they think they are going on vacation or for the pay or the benefits. They sign up because they are patriotic. They believe in the ideals of this country. When we are passing a $120 billion bill, if we can't take $2 billion or $3 billion or $4 billion and support the hundreds of thousands of men and women who are away from their jobs stateside and away from their businesses--not 3 months, not 12 months but 18 months under very tough conditions--so their children don't have to drink more water in their cereal in the morning and the wives have to sleep on couches, I think we can do better. That is why I have waited for several months actually to offer this amendment and to have support from both sides of the aisle. There is a cap on the credit. So the cost is very reasonable. We have taken the necessary precautions to make sure this amendment is affordable. According to DOD, 98 percent of the reservists have a pay gap. Sometimes it is only $1,000 a month. Sometimes it could be $500 a month. But in some cases it is more than that. But 98 percent have pay gaps under $30,000. This amendment will cover almost the entire Guard and Reserve population. Our Guard and Reserve on deployment would not have to worry about their bills being paid and could focus on the job before them, and do it well, as the vast majority of them do day in and day out, night in and night out. That basically is what amendment does. There is also a replacement worker tax credit for small businesses, many of which would be affected in the State of the Presiding Officer, with 50 employees or less. It is not just helping to fill the pay gap for employers that continue to pay the salaries, but it also gives some help to small business owners that in many instances take the brunt from their service, particularly when it is extended. I will end my remarks. I see some of my colleagues on the floor who may want to add some comments. This affects thousands of people in all of our States. I am proud our Guard and Reserve are right there stepping up on the front lines. We have an outstanding Guard and Reserve unit. In about a month, we will have over 5,000, almost 6,000, men and women serving in Iraq; again, some of them for much longer periods of time than they were initially told. I understand the chairman is prepared to accept the amendment. But before I waive my right to a recorded vote, I would like to have some comments from the chairman, who has negotiated this bill beautifully through this process. If he could, I would like for him to comment about the importance of this amendment and the outlook for keeping this amendment in the conference report as we move this bill to the President's desk for his signature.

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 3123.

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I appreciate the opportunity to speak for just a few minutes on a very important amendment to this underlying bill, an amendment I offer on behalf of Senator Murray, Senator Johnson, Senator Cantwell, Senator Corzine, Senator Kerry, Senator Durbin, and Senator Dodd. They offer this amendment with me. It is an amendment I understand the chairman and ranking member have looked at and both support. In just a moment, I want to ask each of them, if they would, to make some comments about this amendment. We have to dispose of it one way or the other in the next few minutes. We may not need a rollcall vote. I understand their wishes to move through this bill, but I am anxious to hear from the chairman and the ranking member about the importance of making sure this amendment is carried through the process. This amendment has to do with the Guard and Reserve and the people who employ them stateside. It has to do with our responsibility as a government--or our obligation, if you will, our commitment to the concept of a total force that relies, now, heavily on our Guard and Reserve. This amendment provides some much-needed tax relief to patriotic employers who try to help fill the pay gap between what a man or a woman might earn when they are stateside at their regular job--and then they put on the uniform to defend us and to fight this war that we are engaged with today. There are maybe 1,000, maybe 2,000, good, compelling stories I could share with you about our current situation. But let me begin by saying the underlying bill moves around about $120 billion. The underlying bill doesn't cost the Treasury because we are raising some fees and taxes and modifying others. Amendment No. 3123 (Purpose: To improve the credit for Ready Reserve-National Guard employees, to provide a credit for replacement employees of Ready Reserve-National Guard employees called to active military duty, and for other purposes)

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I take this opportunity to focus attention on primary immune deficiency diseases, PIDD, a problem that affects thousands of people across our Nation. Primary immune deficiency diseases are genetic disorders in which part of the body's immune system is missing or does not function properly. The World Health Organization recognizes more than 150 primary immune diseases that affect as many as 50,000 people in the United States. Fortunately, 70 percent of PIDD patients are able to maintain their health through regular infusions of a plasma product know as intravenuous immunoglobulin. IGIV helps bolster the immune system and provides critical protection against infection and disease. I am familiar with primary immune deficiencies because one of my constituents and long-time Shreveport, LA, residents, Gail Nelson, is a PIDD patient. Gail and her husband Syd Nelson have become tireless advocates for the primary immune deficiency community as volunteers for the Immune Deficiency Foundation. IDF is the Nation's leading organization dedicated to improving the quality of life for PIDD patients. Recently, the foundation entered into a historic research partnership with the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases at the National Institutes of Health. The establishment of the US Immunodeficiency Network represents the most significant advancement in primary immune deficiency research in our Nation's history. I was pleased to work with the Nelsons, the foundation, and my colleagues in the Senate to make this research consortium a reality. Despite the recent progress in PIDD research, the average length of time between the onset of symptoms in a patient and a definitive diagnosis of PIDD is 9.2 years. In the interim, those afflicted may suffer repeated and serious infections and possibly irreversible damage to internal organs. Thus, it is critical that we raise awareness about these illnesses within the general public and the health care community. I commend the Immune Deficiency Foundation and Gail and Syd Nelson for their leadership in this area, and I am proud to join them in raising awareness of these diseases. I encourage my colleagues to work with us to help improve the quality of life for PIDD patients and their families.

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, today I wish to recognize three outstanding teachers from my home State of Louisiana who will be honored by the Milken Family Foundation with the Milken Educator Award at their National Educator Conference here in Washington. The Milken Family Foundation was established in 1982 with the mission to discover and advance inventive and effective ways of helping people to help themselves and those around them lead productive and satisfying lives. On May 4-6 they will be holding their National Educator Conference in Washington, DC. With a major focus on education, the Milken Family Foundation is committed to recognizing and rewarding the Nation's most outstanding educators and helping them to expand their leadership and potential. This year, the Milken Family Foundation has recognized Amanda Mayeaux, a math teacher at Dutchtown Middle School, Phyllis Diecidue, a reading teacher at St. Bernard High School, and Josh Michael Burton, a biology teacher at Albany High School, all from the State of Louisiana. They are among one hundred teachers who were selected from across the country to receive this very prestigious $25,000 award. When I think back to my education, I remember many inspiring teachers who helped make me who I am today. Without highly qualified teachers who are dedicated to the success of every student, my colleagues and myself would most certainly not be where we are today. Today, research is confirming what common sense has suggested all along. A skilled and knowledgeable teacher can make an enormous difference on how well students learn. As we look towards the future of our country and the sustainability of our democracy, we must look to our children, the future leaders. The future of our workforce and our country depends on our ability to recruit and retain qualified teachers in our classrooms, who will help our children become active and responsible citizens. Often times teachers are not recognized for the challenges and struggles which they encounter each and every day and tremendous significance of their work. We must remember that it is our Nation's teachers who are in the trenches each and every day ensuring that our children gain the knowledge and skills that they will need to be successful. As we in Congress continue to focus on education reform and ensuring that all children have access to the same quality education, it is important that we also take a moment to recognize the teachers who work hard every day to ensure that our children are succeeding. It is because of the hard work and dedication of these teachers that our children can set their sights towards a bright future. I know that my colleagues here in the Senate join me today in congratulating these exceptional educators and the other ninety-seven teachers from around the country who were recognized with this high honor.

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, today I join my colleagues in introducing the American Horse Slaughter Prevention Act. This bill will prohibit the slaughter of horses for human consumption, a practice which many Americans oppose and of which many more are completely unaware. As a life-long admirer of these beautiful and noble animals, I was shocked to learn that tens of thousands of horses are slaughtered and exported each year for human consumption in other countries. Aside from the fact that there is virtually no demand for the human consumption of horse flesh in this country, the absence of humane treatment of these horses is very disappointing. We must ensure that this beloved animal is treated in an appropriate manner and that this deplorable act, which many Americans find unconscionable, is prohibited under Federal law. Therefore, I am proud to join my colleagues as a cosponsor of this legislation. I would like to take this opportunity to highlight a few issues about this important measure. The need for the humane euthanasia of horses is a sad reality for all horse owners. Each horse's life has inherent value and it is usually with great sadness and care that horse owners face the realities of infirmity, age, or other reasons which call for the putting down of their animal. However, the current practice of horse slaughter is void of the human compassion involved with appropriate euthanasia. The export of horses for slaughter and the slaughter of horses in the United States by unskilled and careless workers increase the suffering of these animals. These slaughter houses appear uninterested in the welfare of these animals, and take little note of the objections of the millions of Americans who find the consumption of horse flesh to be inappropriate. Throughout the development of this country, the human consumption of horse flesh has never been a widely accepted activity. This societal taboo is undoubtably due to the unique relationship enjoyed between mankind and horses for thousands of years. Horses have tread many steps with American men and women. They were there in our work, on our farms, for transportation and communication, in the taming of a vast American frontier, and on every battlefield prior to World War II. They have proven themselves loyal and gentle animals, without which the development of our country may not have been possible and certainly much more difficult. Horses demand the basic humane treatment that we should extend to all of God's creatures, and above that--our society has developed a heightened sense of respect and love for these indispensable animals. In modern times, horses have brought joy and entertainment to many. Through racing, recreation and even therapy to the handicapped, horses have touched the lives of many Americans. Clearly, they hold a special place in our lives and it is for these reasons that so many are strongly opposed to the slaughter of horses in this country for human consumption. I am very encouraged by the leadership and hard work of Senator Ensign, who is himself a veterinarian. His expertise in this issue has brought many groups together in support of this legislation, and has facilitated understanding of the bill's provisions. Having garnered broad support in the House of Representatives, I am firmly committed to seeing that this bill is brought to the attention of all of our colleagues here in the Senate. I look forward to working with Senator ENSIGN and other colleagues, to ensure that we address these important issues and pass a common sense bill that reflects the desires of many of our constituents, who support the humane treatment of horses and the prohibition of their slaughter for human consumption.

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, today I join my colleagues in introducing the American Horse Slaughter Prevention Act. This bill will prohibit the slaughter of horses for human consumption, a practice which many Americans oppose and of which many more are completely unaware. As a life-long admirer of these beautiful and noble animals, I was shocked to learn that tens of thousands of horses are slaughtered and exported each year for human consumption in other countries. Aside from the fact that there is virtually no demand for the human consumption of horse flesh in this country, the absence of humane treatment of these horses is very disappointing. We must ensure that this beloved animal is treated in an appropriate manner and that this deplorable act, which many Americans find unconscionable, is prohibited under Federal law. Therefore, I am proud to join my colleagues as a cosponsor of this legislation. I would like to take this opportunity to highlight a few issues about this important measure. The need for the humane euthanasia of horses is a sad reality for all horse owners. Each horse's life has inherent value and it is usually with great sadness and care that horse owners face the realities of infirmity, age, or other reasons which call for the putting down of their animal. However, the current practice of horse slaughter is void of the human compassion involved with appropriate euthanasia. The export of horses for slaughter and the slaughter of horses in the United States by unskilled and careless workers increase the suffering of these animals. These slaughter houses appear uninterested in the welfare of these animals, and take little note of the objections of the millions of Americans who find the consumption of horse flesh to be inappropriate. Throughout the development of this country, the human consumption of horse flesh has never been a widely accepted activity. This societal taboo is undoubtably due to the unique relationship enjoyed between mankind and horses for thousands of years. Horses have tread many steps with American men and women. They were there in our work, on our farms, for transportation and communication, in the taming of a vast American frontier, and on every battlefield prior to World War II. They have proven themselves loyal and gentle animals, without which the development of our country may not have been possible and certainly much more difficult. Horses demand the basic humane treatment that we should extend to all of God's creatures, and above that--our society has developed a heightened sense of respect and love for these indispensable animals. In modern times, horses have brought joy and entertainment to many. Through racing, recreation and even therapy to the handicapped, horses have touched the lives of many Americans. Clearly, they hold a special place in our lives and it is for these reasons that so many are strongly opposed to the slaughter of horses in this country for human consumption. I am very encouraged by the leadership and hard work of Senator Ensign, who is himself a veterinarian. His expertise in this issue has brought many groups together in support of this legislation, and has facilitated understanding of the bill's provisions. Having garnered broad support in the House of Representatives, I am firmly committed to seeing that this bill is brought to the attention of all of our colleagues here in the Senate. I look forward to working with Senator ENSIGN and other colleagues, to ensure that we address these important issues and pass a common sense bill that reflects the desires of many of our constituents, who support the humane treatment of horses and the prohibition of their slaughter for human consumption.

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. In my State of Louisiana, 23,540 new cancer cases will be diagnosed this year and 9,700 members of my community will die from cancer. Children will lose mothers to breast cancer. Wives will lose husbands to prostate cancer. These tremendous losses are devastating to both families and communities. Despite all of the progress that has been made in the battle against cancer, some populations are disproportionately affected by the burden of this disease. African Americans have the highest death rate for all cancers. Cancer is also the leading cause of death for Asian-American women. African- American, American-Indian, Alaska Native, Asian-American, and Pacific Islander men all have a lower 5-year survival rate than non-Hispanic white males. This disparity is partially attributed to the fact that preventive services are not as easily accessible for these populations. The consequences of inadequate access to preventive services and early detection are that diseases like cancer are more often diagnosed at later stages when the severity is likely to be greater and options for treatment and the odds of survival are decreased. The demographic changes expected over the next decade will only magnify the urgency of addressing these health disparities. The future health of America as a whole will be influenced substantially by our success in improving the health of minority and other medically underserved populations. To address these disparities, Congress must provide adequate funding for screening, prevention, and treatment services for minority and underserved populations. We must continue to fund research through the National Cancer Institute that will help to provide better prevention, diagnosis, and treatment of cancer in all populations. There are many organizations and individuals in my State of Louisiana working tirelessly to address these health disparities and to improve the quality of life for all Americans. Because last week was National Minority Cancer Awareness Week, I would like to take this opportunity to commend these organizations and individuals for all of their efforts. Together with my colleagues in Congress, I am confident that one day we can reduce and ultimately eliminate the disparate burden of cancer and all other diseases on minority and medically underserved communities.

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. As a wonderful Senator from New Mexico, and also as a father of many girls and a grandfather, I know the Senator can appreciate the day we are celebrating today, which is Take Our Daughters and Sons to Work Day. We have literally hundreds of young people who are in the Chamber today. They have been around the Senate and the House celebrating this very special day, seeing their parents at work in the Senate and in the Capitol, not only as elected officials but as the staffers and support staff. I have 20 young ladies with me today, nieces and friends from Louisiana, from Alabama, and from the Washington area. I am going to submit all of their names for the Record to show that they spent a day working in the Senate with me and with some of the other Senators and have seen firsthand the work that goes on. I want to acknowledge MS Magazine Foundation that started Take Our Daughters and Sons to Work Day to thank them for organizing this effort where there are thousands, maybe perhaps millions, of young people who have taken a day out of their school work to go to the various places where Americans are working to contribute to making this country of ours a better country and this world a better place. As we celebrate Earth Day today, which is also very important as we focus on the environment, I wanted to acknowledge this day. I thank my friend from New Mexico for giving me this time and I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the names of these young ladies and thank them for being a part of this special day and taking their time to come and learn about the workings of the Senate.

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. I thank the Senator from New Mexico, and I thank my colleague from Nevada.

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for 1 more minute.

Ms. LANDRIEU. Madam President, can I simply inquire from the Senator from Iowa, who I know wants to speak in favor of the bill, how much time he may take, because there are other Senators who want to speak on our side.

Ms. LANDRIEU. Yes, I will.

Ms. LANDRIEU. Reserving the right to object, I want to make sure that time is not applied to the Democratic side that remains on the underlying bill.

Ms. LANDRIEU. Madam President, may I inquire how much time is remaining on both sides?

Ms. LANDRIEU. I now suggest the absence of a quorum.

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the quorum call be charged to both sides.

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, if it works for these big guys, why can't it work for the little guy, the little contractors, for the union guys? We better get past the politics of deciding something is good or bad, whether it helps people who vote Republican or vote Democrat, and start thinking about the country, start thinking about America, start thinking about our troops and get serious about creating jobs. When this White House says they are serious about creating jobs, I am going to bring this up to the White House at every point. You could have created jobs. It didn't cost you a penny to do it. In fact, it would have added money. But you turned your back, you walked away, and you left them standing there. I hope those who were thinking maybe they would not get active might get active because of this, because it would sure wake me up if I wasn't paying much attention to what was going on. I don't want to take any more time. I know the Senator from Pennsylvania has been very patient. I will yield the floor but reserve the time that is remaining for debate on this side, according to the unanimous consent agreement. I think it is the Senator's time to speak.

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, until some other Members come to the floor, I want to add for the Record that, for Louisiana, there are 56 electrical contracting companies that participate in the National Electrical Workers Plan that will receive no relief in this bill. There are 18 Louisiana sheet metal contracting companies that have joined the Sheet Metal National Plan that will have their pensions in jeopardy, perhaps. But whether their plans are in good shape, they came here to ask for relief that would not have cost a penny, and they were turned away. There are 1,200 Louisiana workers who belong to the grocery store workers plan. They perhaps need to start worrying about when they will be able to retire because they were left out of this plan. Mr. President, 32,000 construction workers in Louisiana who have multiemployer pension plans have been excluded. Let me repeat, all of these workers--the thousands--the 18 Louisiana sheet metal contracting companies that employ thousands of people; the 32,000 construction workers; the 1,200 grocery store workers; and the 56 electrical contracting companies, which probably together employ, I am going to estimate, at least over 5,000 workers--all of those workers were included, along with these multinational corporations and large businesses. They were all included because they all need help. They all have legitimate requests that could be given by the Senate. When we debated this in the Senate, they were all included. And 87 of us-- Republicans and Democrats--voted to keep them in. So I am going to be on the floor. If someone would come to tell me why these thousands of workers in Louisiana have been left out, I would be happy to know the answer. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I will leave the question out there. I appreciate the clarification. As we debate for the next 4 hours, I hope someone might come to the floor who is arguing that this bill is as good as it can get. I happen to believe this bill was pretty good when it left the Senate, and it has come back fairly effective. I would like to leave that question open to any of my colleagues who would care to come to the floor and explain in front of the cameras and for all to review why when it left here everyone was covered--all of the single employers and multiemployers--and as it has come back, why they have only received partial relief. I have a reason, but I am not sure my reason is correct. I am going to leave that question out there and hopefully my good friend from Massachusetts and I can get an answer to that question before this debate concludes in 4 hours. I am going to begin by refreshing our collective memory about what the President said. When President George Bush was elected in one of the closest elections ever in our Nation, he said it was time to rise above a house divided and to move together to create economic opportunity and economic hope. When this bill had as its core very good purposes, when it left the Senate we were united. It had 86 votes, a majority of both the Democrat and Republican caucuses to give relief to every pension. Times have been tough. There were certain rules that were in place that prevented some of these multiemployer pension plans from stashing away money in the good times. They were prevented from doing that by our laws, rules, and regulations. When the market turned down and they started losing some of their investments, they had to kick in extra contributions, which caused them to take money away from employment and put it into their pension plans. They asked for relief. Our Senate Republicans and Democrats said that large corporations as well as multiemployer pension systems deserve that relief. It left here with 86 votes a couple of months ago. It has come back, however, with only one group included and the other group left out. I am concerned and worried. I am not confused. The answer is not pretty. I am told by the experts there is no economic justification for this. There is no cost to the Treasury to have those plans included. Although their plans are not run the same way, they deserve the same help and same relief because they are invested in the same stock market. I don't think there are two separate stock markets, one where the large corporations are invested and then another for everyone else. They have suffered the same up-and-down swings of the market. However, I have to believe, unless my question is answered, the only reason they did not get help is simply because the White House did not want to help them. It would not cost the Treasury anything to give help to these plans. It would not cost the Treasury a nickel. It is a change in the law that buys them additional time that the actuaries and the experts believe would be responsible and safe, that would still make sure the pensions are safe and the money is there. The bill left the Senate, with Democrats and Republicans working together. It went to what is seeming to be every day the most politically driven White House, where they were simply eliminated from the bill. I ask, during the four hours we are discussing this, if any Member would be willing to come to the Senate and state why this has happened to 9.5 million workers, many of whom are union workers but not all, and some businesses that are affected, that are employing people, not minimum-wage workers? These are workers who wake up early before the sun comes up, construction workers. Even when the temperatures go below freezing, they put their gloves on and an extra jacket and they go out and work. These are the workers we see on tops of buildings. These are the workers we see digging deep holes under the ground, driving electric lines, making sure the infrastructure in this country is what it should be, making sure when buses go over a bridge, the bridge does not collapse. I ask anyone in the Senate to tell me why these workers have been left out. The only reason I am given is it is a political directive from the White House. These are evidently Americans who the President either does not like, does not want to help, does not think they deserve it, does not think they need help. If this is the kind of administration we are a part of, then I don't want to be a part of this kind of administration. I want to be part of an administration that helps everyone when everyone can be helped unless there is some real good reason not to. I can understand we cannot afford to give everybody the same kind of tax cuts when there is money coming out of the Treasury. I understand about making priorities. It is my understanding that does not cost the Treasury a penny. It is my understanding, having served as State treasurer of my State for 8 years and served on my pension boards, and having some knowledge of the way pensions are made and the estimates and assumptions actuaries make in terms of pensions that control how much contributions are put in and taken out of a pension plan, it is my understanding the experts agree everyone could use some help. One plan is helped, which is included in this bill, making a temporary adjustment to the rate of return to give them some relief. Another group said, We do not operate exactly that way, but we could use some help just stretching out our payments for 3 years so we could create more construction jobs. This White House, for some reason, said no to 9.5 million Americans. Maybe we are getting to a point--I hope my colleagues will come down here and correct me--maybe we are getting to some ridiculous point in this Capitol where before you can get relief you have to show your voter registration card. When Democrats are in control, if you are a Republican, if you do not show a Democratic card, you do not get relief. Most of the people who were left out were union members. Not all of them, but most of them were union members. Again, there are businesses that were affected. If it was the White House's intention to punish this group of people because they are not overwhelmingly supportive of administration policies, this is not an administration I want to be a part of. I would not for 1 minute walk to the Senate and say some of the corporations that are getting help in this business, because they are not overwhelmingly supportive of Democrats, do not deserve a fair shake by this body. They got a fair shake when it left the Senate. We had Democrats and Republicans come to the Senate and say, yes, these large corporations that have suffered terrible losses in the stock market--and we all did; whether you were a little or big investor, everyone took a big loss--yes, we want to create jobs. Yes, they deserve relief. Democrats came down. Senator Baucus from Montana argued passionately for this bill and 87 Members voted for it. It comes back with 9 million people missing, and they just happen to be part of multiemployer pension plans, most of whom are union but not all, and some small businesses have been cut out with no explanation. It is a very ugly way to do the people's business and it flies in the face of what this administration promised: to unite us and not divide us, to give help to everyone who needed it when it was in our power to do so, whether they were a little fry or a big fry, whether they were a little fish or a big fish, whether they were a union company or not. I don't know how others feel, but people in my State, whether they are for or against unions, are for jobs. We have lost almost 3 million jobs since this administration took office. I remind my colleagues that people want good jobs. They do not want jobs that pay $5.15 an hour. You cannot feed your children, pay rent, and put gasoline in your car for $5.15 an hour. We want to create construction jobs. My construction workers make good money. They usually build darn good buildings and they build them for little towns and big cities in Louisiana. They came up here asking for help--not a lot of help. It does not cost a dime. Not a dime. They are turned away because they might be Democrats? They might be union members? I have been to the Senate before on a number of other issues in my disappointment with this administration. Across the hall in some other building, Condoleeza Rice is testifying. We have marines being killed in Iraq. If the President were leading in the right direction, I think he would use every opportunity, even small ones such as this. This is not a huge deal, but it is a big deal to the 9.5 million workers who have been left out. I would think he would be using every opportunity to unite this country, to create jobs at home, to create goodwill so we can get through maybe one of the toughest times in recent history. But, oh, no, the bill leaves the Senate with 87 votes--of Republicans and Democrats--and comes back with Republican-only fingerprints all over it, taking 9.5 million workers out because they dared to ask for help in times of tough economic downturn. I have to hear the rhetoric coming out of the White House: They are trying to create jobs. Well, let me tell you, here is a good chance to create jobs, to help save those pension plans people have contributed to, to give them a little help that does not cost anything--and they were sent away emptyhanded. So I am going to sit here for 4 hours. I may have to leave for a few minutes, but I want my colleague from Massachusetts to know I am going to sit on this floor until I get an answer to my question: Why were 9.5 million workers left out, when it does not cost us a red penny to help them? If it was not done for political retribution reasons, I would like a good explanation as to why it was done. If I can get a good explanation, then I will change these remarks and I will acknowledge perhaps I was mistaken about the reason. But I know the way pension funds work. I know what they asked for was not much to ask. I know it would not cost us any money to do it. I know the experts said we could help them, if we had the will to. But we just willed a different way. We made other choices. Finally, I am going to tell you, these choices--we all make these choices. Choices have consequences. The choices the White House made to leave these 9.5 million workers out--and the businesses that employ them--are going to cost us jobs. They are going to make people more cynical. They are going to raise the anger level in this country, when we need to be pulling people together and not tearing people apart. For the little it would have cost to keep them in, I think there is going to be a big price to pay for taking them out. I yield the floor.

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I rise to join with my colleague, the senior Senator from Louisiana, to urge the Senate to enact meaningful asbestos litigation reform this Congress. I am equally concerned about the impact that this escalating crisis is having in our own state of Louisiana. The example of just one company illustrates how this ongoing litigation is affecting Louisiana. In 1978, McDermott, headquartered in Louisiana, acquired Babcock & Wilcox, B&W, a premier commercial boilermaker and provider of other power generation equipment. B&W was the leading manufacturer of boilers in the United States. In line with United States government specifications, all of these boilers were insulated with asbestos. Now many years later, the company has been subjected to an avalanche of asbestos claims. In fact, B&W had no recourse other than to file for reorganization under Chapter 11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code. Because of the uncertainty of its asbestos liability and the resulting inability to satisfactorily reorganize the finances of the company, McDermott's union employees in my state are adversely impacted. Just last week, representatives from my staff and Senator Breaux's staff attended a meeting of the management and union labor at McDermott's facility in Morgan City, LA, to discuss this problem. We now have a petition signed by 1,000 of these workers asking that we solve this problem as soon as possible. Other industries and companies in Louisiana are threatened by the current litigation system. Louisiana's economy is dependent on trade and the maritime industry. Many of our U.S.-flag shipping companies have asbestos issues because certain parts of their ships' engines were insulated with asbestos. These companies are equally concerned about the uncertainty created by the current system and their long-term ability to maintain solvency. I do not have all the answers. I do know that legislation addressing this issue is very complex. Any bill should virtually guarantee that asbestos victims receive fair and adequate compensation and it should also give certainty to companies like McDermott. I realize that progress has been made during the course of negotiations, but we must build on this progress by continuing to negotiate. I think we can reach a bipartisan agreement and bring a bill to the floor as soon as possible.