Mary Landrieu

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. On rollcall vote 382, I voted yea. It was my intention to vote nay. Therefore, I ask unanimous consent that I be permitted to change my vote since this will not affect the outcome.

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, the amendment establishes the Iraq Reconstruction Finance Authority. The amendment states the United States will not commit further grants toward Iraq's reconstruction beyond the $20.3 billion requested by the President. Any further monetary commitments by the United States should be secured through the Iraq Reconstruction Finance Authority using Iraq's revenues from oil production. This amendment does not cut the $20.3 billion requested by President Bush. There can be no doubt that America must participate in Iraq's reconstruction. However, direct grants are not the only means of providing reconstruction dollars. RAND reports that U.S. post-war reconstruction efforts in seven conflicts since World War II have averaged 7 years in duration. We must develop a sustainable means of financing Iraq's reconstruction. The American people will not support giving money to Iraq for 7 years when Iraq possesses well over 112 billion barrels of oil, valued at least $2.5 trillion at $22 a barrel, that could be used to finance Iraq's reconstruction. RAND and the World Bank report Iraq's reconstruction will cost at least another $36 billion. The Institute of International Finance says the price tag will hit $75 billion. Ambassador Bremer testified before the Appropriations Committee that the administration will ask for little or no money next year for Iraq's reconstruction, yet non-partisan studies indicate more funding will be necessary. Conservative estimates say Iraq has 112 billion barrels of oil in its reserve, with possibly the same amount undiscovered. Conservative estimates say Iraq will generate $28 billion in oil revenues in 2004, 3.5 million barrels at $22 a barrel. Oil closed at $32 a barrel last night. Iraq is capable of generating billions in revenue each year so that Iraq can be a partner with the United States and the international community in its own reconstruction. What worked in the Marshall plan should work in Iraq's reconstruction. Germany's vast coal resources were pledged to secure the matching requirements of the U.S. Government contained in the Marshall plan.

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I wanted to add a couple of thoughts this morning regarding the plan for nation building in Iraq. I had supported vigorously the amendment by Senator Dorgan last evening, but because of the time constraints I was not able to speak on that particular amendment. I plan to offer a similar amendment--and there are others--that will try to help the Senate focus again on the opportunities and possibilities for sustaining a successful effort in Iraq--a successful effort of nation building--by shifting the burden from the American taxpayers to the Iraqi people and their great resources. As you know, Mr. President, I supported the use of force; I supported the overthrow of that regime. I believe that a lot of the information that was given to us has proven not to be true and accurate; nonetheless, I support the effort because this was a regime that needed to be overthrown. I am also here to say and agree that in order to be successful we have to sustain a long-term commitment, not cut and run, not window dress, not put lipstick on a pig, not pretend that things are going well--but have things really go well. The verdict is still out. I am sure it is not as bad as it is portrayed by the media. Usually nothing is as bad as that. The stories tend to be one-sided in many instances. The fact is, this is a very difficult undertaking. We have undertaken it only seven times since World War II. There is a very interesting report that I want to mention at this time. I will give more detailed comments about it later. It is an extensive Rand report just finished on nation building. The title is, ``The Inescapable Responsibility of the World's Only Superpower.'' This is bipartisan; it is not a Republican plan, not a Democratic plan. This is a bipartisan American view of this issue, a very balanced approach. It says, basically, there are seven lessons that we have learned since Germany and our successful Marshall plan effort. I will read excerpts from them quickly and talk about it later. It says that: Multilateral nation-building is more complex and time- consuming than a unilateral approach. But the multilateral approach is considerably less expensive for individual participants. So there are tradeoffs. We are doing this in a more unilateral way. I don't necessarily have a problem with that. I understand we have made efforts to reach out to our multinational partners, and we have not been able to reach agreement. Sometimes the United States has to lead alone and lead decisively. I am, for one, not opposed to that. I just understand that it is more expensive. So let's find a way to pay for it. Further, the report says: Multilateral nation-building can produce more through transformations and greater regional reconciliation than can unilateral efforts. That is an argument for multilateral involvement. It also says: Unity of command is essential. . . . I believe unity of command is one element we have to preserve in Iraq. It seems as though we are on the path to that end. There are problems, though, that this report points out. One of them is: There appears to be an inverse correlation between the size of the military stabilization force and the level of casualties. In other words, the more troops and peacekeepers you have on the ground, the less soldiers you lose. One of the objectives I have as a Senator from Louisiana is to lose as few soldiers as possible. I want to show you a picture--of course, we are touched by many pictures that we see, but I hope the cameras can pick up SGT Rich Armstrong of Lynchburg, VA. This man is not from Louisiana but from Virginia, right across the river. He is a staff sergeant who is saying goodbye to his wife Beth and his 8-month-old daughter Olivia. I hope this soldier can be brought back home so he can spend the rest of his life with his daughter and wife. This is not about campaigns or politics. This is about trying to lay down the best plan to bring these soldiers home. The more troops you have there and the more police you have there, the less soldiers will come home either wounded or ``not'' at all. This reports goes on to say: Neighboring states can exert significant influence, for good or bad. It is nearly impossible to put together a fragmented nation if its neighbors try to tear it apart. One of the amendments in the House, I thought, took us a step backward. It took aid away from neighboring states, when we need to encourage them to help in this effort. I continue to quote: Accountability for past injustices can be a powerful component of democratization. Such accountability can be among the most controversial aspects of any nation-building endeavor, however, and therefore should be attempted only if there is a deep and long-term commitment to the overall operation. My contention is that we are going to be there as long as we need to be, but the American people are not going to sacrifice their children or grandchildren's education, or the solvency of the Social Security trust fund, unless we find a better way to pay for it. If we do, then we can be there not just for 2 or 3 years, but like this Rand study says: None of our cases were successfully completed in less than seven years. So one of my questions is, How many times is the administration going to come back and ask us to forego college education for our children, support for public schools, and the establishment of a good health care system in Louisiana to rebuild Iraq, when we have the resources in Iraq to do it; when the people of Iraq, in partnership with the United States--friends and allies in a strong partnership--using our know-how and their resources, can rebuild the country? This is not new; this is not Mary Landrieu's idea. We did this during the Marshall plan. We used Germany's coal reserves. It was one of the principles of the Marshall plan--how to rebuild Europe. Thank goodness we were dealing with a country--Germany, the aggressor in that situation--that had vast coal reserves. It was one of the reasons we could build the Marshall plan. That was very different from this. The Marshall plan said that for every dollar the donor nation put in, the recipient nation would put up one. It structured a bipartisan, comprehensive, sustainable program. What this administration is doing, even if this bill passes this week, is not sustainable because the people in your States and in my State are not going to dig down, putting the debt on the American taxpayers to pay for this. The one way to do it correctly is to use the great oil resources. This is not my idea. This is not just something based on the Marshall plan. I will show you what Paul Wolfowitz said. Paraphrasing, he said the oil revenues of that country could bring between $50 billion and $100 billion over the course of the next 2 or 3 years. He said that we are dealing with a country that can really finance its own reconstruction, and relatively soon. This is not the Democratic leadership, Mr. President, and this is not Senator Landrieu saying that; that is Paul Wolfowitz, on March 27, 2003. Let's see what Vice President Cheney said only a year ago. People say, what is the confusion? Why are we not using the oil resources? It is not because it was a bad idea. The administration put forward this idea. Yet for some reason they have changed their minds. Paraphrasing this, Tim Russert said every analysis said this war would cost about $80 billion for the recovery of Baghdad, perhaps of Iraq, about $10 million. Vice President Cheney said he can't say that, and that in Iraq we have a nation that has the second largest oil reserves in the world, second only to Saudi Arabia. He said it would generate billions of dollars a year in cashflow if they get back to their production of roughly 3 million barrels a day in the relatively near future. That was before the war. That is the plan the people were told. We would use the oil. Now we have to use our kids' trust funds for college. It is not right. Let me show the amount of oil that is in Iraq. I know something about this because Louisiana produces a lot of oil. If we export from Iraq 1 million barrels a day, that is $8 billion a year at $22 a barrel. The range for OPEC is $22 to $29. These are using the most conservative figures. If we would get up to 10 million barrels a day--it is not only possible, it is likely--we could be generating in Iraq $80 billion. Why would the American people be picking up the tab when the Iraqis have their own resources, building pride, dignity, independence? Why? I don't understand it. Maybe someone else has their eyes on the profit. I think the Iraqi people should benefit from their reserves. I think the American taxpayers should benefit from these reserves, not a handful of companies, if that is the idea. I am not saying it is, but we are very confused about why the administration said they wanted to use oil and now they don't. I have an article titled ``Iraqi Plans to Increase Oil Output in 2004.'' This article was in the Wall Street Journal this morning. This is quicker than they thought. Trust me, horizontal drilling and new technologies can produce a lot of wealth. I am going to finish this speech later in the day. The question Louisianans have is, Why can't we use the resources and riches of that nation to help rebuild it and stabilize democracy in a part of the world that desperately needs it? I thank the Chair.

Ms. LANDRIEU. I yield to the other side, and I reserve the 2\1/2\ minutes for closing this morning on our side.

Ms. LANDRIEU. If that is the understanding, I have to ask the Chair-- I know the time was equally divided--was it also established which side would speak in the last 2 minutes?

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, there is hardly any point that my colleague from Kentucky so ably made this morning that I disagree with, or that most people on this side--not all but most--would disagree with. The issue is not whether we can stay and finish the job. Obviously, we have to do that, for any number of reasons, for our own security, for the stability of the region. We are a powerful nation that makes promises and keeps promises. That is not the question. The question is, How should we pay for it? This administration has basically said it is our way or the highway: no loans, no modification of the tax cut, and no oil revenues can be used. The President is telling the American people, and the Republican leadership is saying to the American people, basically, that there is only one way to pay for this, and it is to dig deeper into our own basic deficit: borrow against our children's trust funds, borrow against paying for schools, hospitals, or colleges, and pay for it by increasing the deficit to our children and grandchildren. Some of us are saying there is a better way. We could lend the money and establish a way for Iraq to build itself out of its own situation with our help and support, not by indebting Iraq, but by freeing up their natural resources to pay for a reconstruction that can sustain itself. The point I want to make is there is no quick fix for nation building. The Rand study, a balanced independent study--they are not Democrat or Republican--says no previous case of nation-building was successfully completed in less than 7 years. We will need something that we can sustain. This is a democracy in the United States, not a dictatorship. The people will need to support this effort. They are not going to support going into greater debt. They are not going to support having our children make sacrifices for Iraq's reconstruction. If someone has to make sacrifices, let the adults in this country make the sacrifices, not the children. And our greatest generation has already made enough sacrifices, let's not rob their social security trust fund. This is a chart depicting Iraq. This is the southwestern portion of the country. We have not even explored for oil there and the experts-- again, Louisiana knows something about oil because we have a lot of it--say there is more oil in the southwest section than here. Here are the fields. They are not even fully developed. This has not even been explored, yet the President wants us to use the Social Security trust fund instead of these reserves. I think that is wrong. I think there is a better way. I yield the floor.

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. Will the Senator yield?

Ms. LANDRIEU. Will the Senator yield for a question?

Ms. LANDRIEU. I believe we have 1\1/2\ minutes. I wanted to ask the Senator----

Ms. LANDRIEU. I ask unanimous consent to speak for 5 minutes.

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. We look forward to a great year. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to print in the Record the following information which I referenced in my remarks.

Ms. LANDRIEU. Madam President, last night the Senator from Idaho, Mr. Craig, and I were pleased to host, as cochairs of the Congressional Coalition on Adoption--with two of our colleagues from the House, Congressman Oberstar and Congressman Camp, and with the help of over 70 congressional offices--a celebration of the fifth annual Angels in Adoption Campaign. I wanted to take a few minutes to speak about what a wonderful evening it was. Last night there were angels surrounded by stars on Pennsylvania Avenue as we celebrated and honored 165 individuals from 48 States for their work on behalf of children. Seventy Members of Congress and a total of almost 1,000 individuals were there as we awarded the national awards to Mohammad and Lanni Ali, who appeared in person. He is challenged with his physical abilities right now so we were so pleased to have him. Bruce Willis, who is the national spokesperson for foster care children, as asked by President Bush, was also with us. The Angels in Adoption Campaign is a very powerful way of celebrating the miracle of adoption. We do work right on the Senate floor, through all of our work individually and collectively, to make the dream of adoption possible for so many children in the United States, as well as internationally. From Louisiana we were pleased to be joined by Beverly Lewis of Alexandria. She was nominated and received an award because she, as a single mother but with a wonderful career, adopted three children from Russia and is now fostering an 8-year-old girl. Pam Bolke of Baker was nominated by my colleague, Senator Breaux. After reading a newspaper article about two young girls who had been abused, she and her husband stepped up and adopted the two little girls. Although they were filled with rage, they are now growing to be beautiful, loving little girls because they have unconditional love. Louise Bourne of Lafayette was nominated by Chris John from our State. And I will submit the details of that for the Record. And Karen Caldwell of New Orleans, who was nominated by Congressman David Vitter, joined us last night. As you can see, we had from the State of Maine many individuals, and from almost every State in the Union, because the Senators in this Chamber took it upon themselves--the Senator from Nevada joined us; Senator Bill Frist from Tennessee was with us--to seek out someone in their State, ordinary individuals but doing extraordinary work. Truly it was a wonderful evening to celebrate. I will submit for the Record all of the angels, 165 individuals from 48 States, who were honored. They all received, besides a standing ovation from all of us, the beautiful angels pin I am wearing today and went home inspired and encouraged to do more for adoption. It is an area on which we can agree, Democrats and Republicans. There is little disagreement among us on this issue. We have thousands of children in the United States waiting to be adopted, children whose rights have been terminated or the parental rights have been terminated. We have waiting in the United States over 100,000 children of all ages. I will submit those numbers for the Record. I see my colleague from Idaho, Senator Craig. I thank him publicly for all of his leadership and the great work he did to make last night and the work that our coalition does truly bipartisan and truly effective.

Ms. LANDRIEU. I will.

Ms. LANDRIEU

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

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to print the following letter from Paul Strauss, District of Columbia ``shadow'' Senator.

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I also have some letters from other African-American leaders in the District who are opposed to the voucher plan, most notably the DC Delegate to Congress, Congresswoman Norton, who gives a long and detailed explanation of why she is opposed. Particularly of interest in her letter: First, the city has the largest number of public charter schools per capita in the nation. She continues: Charter schools are so popular here with residents that they have long waiting lists, and many are housed in inadequate facilities and need federal funds. I am pleased to say part of this proposal is, in fact, for charter schools, except we have no guarantee the administration would veto anything if charter schools were not in the proposal. We are waiting for clarification. I ask unanimous consent to have this letter printed in the Record.

Ms. LANDRIEU. Parents United for D.C. Public Schools sent a long letter opposing the use of precious dollars--although they are new to the District, they are not new dollars to the Federal Treasury--saying they would prefer to use that money in other ways. Their letter warrants a great deal of thought and I ask unanimous consent it be printed in the Record.

Ms. LANDRIEU. And from Kathy Patterson, who represents Ward 3, I have another thoughtful letter. She states in her letter: There are several other education reforms proposed previously in the District of Columbia schools. I urge you to consider one of these alternatives when the D.C. appropriation comes before the Senate. Pre-kindergarten education. Today, District of Columbia policymakers allocate sufficiently locally generated tax revenues to provide pre-kindergarten education for roughly half of the 4-year-olds in the city. Many of us view expansion of pre-K education to ALL district 4-year-olds as a top priority for funding. . . . Not one of the priorities, it is a top priority. So, again, we can understand why voucher opponents would say why are we so intent on taking this $10 to $13 million to spend on a voucher program, not limited to children in failing schools, saying it is a demonstration project but not really having the evaluation mechanisms to support that contention when you could ask a broad range of liberal to conservative, the whole range of people, what would be the most important thing we could do for education in the District. It would be to fund pre-K and early childhood education. Why? Because we know the benefits of quality early childhood education. She goes on to say the second great use of this money would be additional bilingual schools. The Oyster Bilingual Elementary School provides an excellent education to District children, with English and Spanish-speaking teachers in each classroom. While Oyster is located in my Ward, Ward 3, it serves a broad cross-section of children throughout the District. The D.C. Board of Education has fought to replicate the successful program in other areas, an effort that requires additional funding. The Congress could earmark $10 million in support of a second bilingual elementary school within D.C. public schools. I understand that school is about 40 percent Hispanic and Latino, perhaps 20 to 30 percent African American, and 20 to 30 percent Caucasian children. It is a diverse, excellent school with a wonderful bilingual curriculum. We could create one or two other models based on that with this money. Finally, she discusses elementary English and math instruction, describing a well-received former initiative of a previous administration of a grant program through the Department of Education designed to provide reading specialists and math specialists to each District elementary school to strengthen instruction in these key areas. The grant was not continued. I ask unanimous consent that letter be printed in the Record.

Ms. LANDRIEU. There is actually a reason. I am sorry. After the vote, we would be pleased to have the Senator speak.

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Ohio who has been a great partner in this effort. He and I share a great deal of pride in the underlying bill. It was built and crafted with a tremendous amount of bipartisan support. As he mentioned, one of the cornerstones and key provisions is a push, an initiative, to help support, change, and transform the foster care system in the District. Although it is not a Federal responsibility directly, as the District of Columbia, and as a major city in our country, we hope to have a model that is beneficial not only to the District and the residents in the region but also a model that shines as a bright line around the country as jurisdictions all over the country, including many jurisdictions in Louisiana, are struggling with this same question of how to give the taxpayers the accountability they deserve, how to give the parents and families the respect they deserve, and how and when to step in and separate children, for their own protection, safety, and health, from a family situation that is disintegrating or dysfunctional and try to heal the situation, reunite the child with the family, or, if that cannot happen, move that child through a temporary nurturing foster care situation until that child can either be reunited with the family or placed with an adoptive family. I commend the District leadership publicly for the improvements that have been made, although we are a long way from where we need to go. With Senator DeWine's leadership, we were able to put millions and millions of dollars in last year's bill--as I recall, somewhere around $70 million--for a new court system to redesign the superior court, to actually identify--and Senator DeWine and Senator Durbin led this effort--and design a special court for domestic cases, for family cases, for child welfare cases, so hopefully we now have coming into play one judge--one child and one judge, one family, so children do not get lost between courtrooms or their files are not lost between social workers. We have one team, one judge working with the child for good resolution. It takes not only good planning but it takes money. It takes resources. The mayor and the locals have stepped up to increase their budgets. We have stepped up to try, even with things as tight as they are, to find additional funding to support that foster care reform. That includes the courts, in getting the social worker ratios tighter so we do not have 1 social worker for every 50 children but 1 social worker for a manageable 15, 20, or 30, which is still a heavy caseload. Those are two of the important initiatives. Having the right kind of database, having the right kind of people step to the plate to become foster care parents, to promoting adoption as a way to move children to a permanent, loving home--that takes the cooperation of the social workers, the families, the extended family, and the court. All of those initiatives are funded in this bill to some degree--not to the extent, of course, that we would like but I think to the extent we can begin to see some real headway in terms of improvement for the children of the District. There are anywhere from 6,000 to 8,000 children ranging in age from infants to 18 to 21 who need this assistance. The chairman has also been very eloquent regarding the needs of children aging out of the system, children who were taken away from their parents, where parental rights were terminated, and the system we created failed to find that child a new family. So at the age of 18 or 21, the child ages out and is literally handed a plastic bag with a few pieces of clothing and not much else other than good luck, good wishes, and goodbye. That, of course, is not sufficient. In this bill and other efforts this Congress is making, we are trying not only to help children aging out of the foster care system in the District of Columbia but all over the Nation. There are 25,000 such young children who age out each year. There are exciting projects underway to help these young people despite the fact that they got a short straw in terms of the way their first 21 years of life went. We are hoping to step in, in a more comprehensive way, and give these young people opportunities for college, for skill development, for social development. Of course, all the money in the world spent on the back end is not worth the effort that could be in the front end regarding prevention. That is what Senator DeWine has so correctly done and why I support him in his efforts. Now a word on the school reform proposal being considered and debated. There were a number of points I tried to make on this proposal Friday. I agree with Senator DeWine; we should have our Members present amendments to try to get some sort of idea in terms of time. Perhaps we will have today and tomorrow to discuss this issue. Senator Durbin and a few other Senators on our side will have amendments to lay down. One of the issues I will discuss is the issue of choice. It was one of the goals of Leave No Child Behind, and an important goal. It was not the central goal. It was not the underlying goal. It was a desirable goal. The goal of Leave No Child Behind was excellence through accountability--excellence for the children in the public school system and accountability to their parents and taxpayers who pick up the tab for that system. In that legislation, we laid down many ways that jurisdictions can provide more choices for students all over this country, for the millions and millions and millions of children who are in public education. We want real choices, not false choices. I am afraid some voucher proponents who continue to talk about vouchers for private schools say the real issue is choice. It is not choice; it is real choice. It is informed choice. It is not just choice. And it is affordable choice. Senator Carper and I, in one of eight points in an amendment we have discussed, tried to point out to the proponents that the $7,500 voucher, while it sounds like a lot of money--and $7,500 is a lot of money--the average private school tuition in the District of Columbia is $10,800. We are trying to point out, as written in the proposal being considered, there is no guarantee that $7,500 voucher would actually get a child into the school of their choice for that amount of money because the school of their choice might have a tuition of $20,000 or $18,000 or $12,000. One of the aspects of our amendment is, if you are for choice, then be for a real choice; make the voucher real, not fake. We have been criticized as having a filibuster on the cheap. I say that proposal is like vouchers on the cheap. It is not going to work if the tuition is $20,000 or $15,000 or $12,000. The proponents want to say the taxpayers should be prepared to pick up whatever to give a real choice. Well, that is an expensive whatever. But the opponents want to say we will pick up a voucher for a child to go to a private school, then pick it up. That is what I say. Pick it up. Why stop at $7,500? One of the parts of our amendment is to have the voucher basically be accepted by the private school--this is all voluntary on the private schools' part, which is a very good part of the underlying bill. This is not mandatory. No private school has to participate, and there would be many reasons, as written in many newspapers in the country, why many private schools in the District would not want to participate. If they are going to participate, they would have to follow certain guidelines--not cumbersome and, in my mind, not anything that would be very difficult to follow--again, just trying to meet the minimum accountability standards. But if we are going to give children a choice, let's give them a real choice and not vouchers on the cheap, No. 1. No. 2, one of the most important things about creating any system of choices, whether you create more choice in a public school or more choice for children to go to private schools, is to have informed choices. I would think that we could be spending more money--or more effort and money than we are, and I would be surprised that the proponents who have argued for choice, choice, choice, have not put forward a proposal to try to help the parents of the District of Columbia to have more informed choices about the choices they have now, which is completely public school choice. In order to make good choices--as we have seen, the choices you make are only as good as the information you have with which to make them. We are experiencing this with our foreign policy as we speak. If your information is not as secure and as thorough and deep and as tight as you would like it, maybe sometimes the choices you make would be different if you had the right kind of information. It is the same thing about public schools and about school choice. If you could have a consumer report, like many of us get for the appliances that we purchase, you could tell what kind of washing machine or dryer you would like, or what car you would like to buy. It is quite easy. Not only can you view the product in a number of different locations without a lot of pressure, but you can read in detail about the way the product carries out its work or the way the product functions. The same effort should be underway here. That is one of the things that Leave No Child Behind put forward in its reform effort, trying to help improve choices, increase choices but informed choices, and why is there now a report card, a report, accountability? It is so parents can know. If I have a choice to send my child to this or that school, it is not just walking in the front door and shaking hands with a few individuals and observing if the school looks like it is in good repair and observing the children in the school; but it is also looking a little beneath the surface. What are the teacher/parent ratios? How large are the classrooms? Is my child getting this kind of attention? What do the records show? How many children have become national merit scholars at this school? How many things do parents want to know about their children? If we are interested in choice--of which I am a strong supporter, which is why I have supported charter schools and this kind of accountability and information--then I would think that the voucher proponents would be interested in that kind of information. But, again, the amendment we have discussed, laid down--the necessity of gathering that kind of information and evaluation, not telling the public schools what they have to do, or ratios, but reporting mechanisms that would allow parents to make wise choices and would also allow the taxpayer who is picking up this tab to have some sense of whether their money was being used for a good purpose or not. Maybe the taxpayers would have a different view. But no matter what we do, whether we have a voucher that goes--which I have argued goes only to children in failing schools, not a broad-based voucher--to have an opportunity to put the system in place for those children to leave that school and to move to a different school, you are going to have to have better information than the proposal that is before us. So the issue of basically voucher on the cheap choice might sound good but it is not real unless you have the right kind of information. The third point I wish to make is this. My colleague just said this, and you could argue--and I hate to argue with him on any point because he and I have agreed on so many issues for this bill. But I have to take issue with one statement, and he is not the only one who said it. The other Senators have talked about the concept of extra money or new money. This $40 million that exists in the Senate bill, which is a third for vouchers, a third for charters, a third for traditional public schools, is not new tax dollars. There was no new revenue stream created to pay for this. Part of the money came from the Defense allocation. Part of the money came from Commerce-State-Justice and part of it came from the allocation for the District of Columbia. So this money has come from other places in the budget to come to the District of Columbia. It is not new money. It was here before. It is here now. It is just now shaped for this education initiative. I agree that the District should get $40 million for a demonstration project for any number of reasons. I don't agree with all of the details of the voucher proposal, but I hope we can stop saying this is new money because, in my mind, unless there was a proposal like everybody is going to pay one more dollar for their parking tickets or one more penny for sales tax or everybody is going to pay one more something, it is not new money; it is coming from somewhere else to fund this initiative--not from the education budget, that is true, but it is coming from other budgets. The Wall Street Journal writes about this every week in a very critical way of my position. I say to them, as they wrote again today, several of us who have supported the modification, they want to remind me--they say: Senator Landrieu should remind herself that this is extra education money. Let me say to the Wall Street Journal and to any other newspaper that would be reporting on this, I don't know if you can convince any educator in America that there is any extra money anywhere for education. I don't think you could argue with any educator anywhere and say there is extra money. People may say we are spending too much in this area, and our money is not being spent well, so let's move it and repair schools; or we have too much money in the repair school budget, so let's move it to buy computers; or we have great computers but we don't have the teachers who have the training to operate the computers and to teach them, so let's take that money and move it. But I don't know anybody who thinks there is extra money in education, and especially extra money for a program that doesn't accomplish the goals that you have outlined and doesn't meet the objectives of Leave No Child Behind. I will have some other things to say about this article as the day proceeds. I wanted to talk for a minute about the concept of new money, extra money, about choice and the difference between real choice, informed and uninformed choices, and, again, the issue of vouchers on the cheap, because $7,500 will not get many children in the District much because the schools here are quite expensive--not just in the District but in the region and throughout the country. There are many expensive schools that are much more than $7,500. If we are going to try to help children who are in failed public schools to get a real informed choice, then at least give them a voucher that will get them through the front door and they will not have to go out and have a bake sale in their neighborhood to get the extra money to go because that is not a real choice. Those are the comments I wanted to make. There are other Senators who will be coming to the floor to speak. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Ms. LANDRIEU. Yes. Mr. President, I do have a statement of administration policy. I appreciate my colleague raising that issue. I know we are scheduled for a vote at 5:30. We only have a few more minutes for this discussion. But as my colleague from Delaware has stated, there is a statement of administration policy that basically focuses on the $13 million voucher proposal. It does not mention charter schools. It does not mention additional funding for traditional public schools. We subsequently received a letter from Secretary Paige after this document was presented indicating that his Department is in support of the three-sector approach. But the Senator from Delaware is correct. Until we have a more definitive statement from the administration and our Republican colleagues, even if we accept that language in this bill, there would be really no confirmation.

Ms. LANDRIEU. Right after the vote, we can agree to time, if the Senator wishes.

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I think the previous comments by our distinguished colleague from Utah merit a brief response. Again, I thank the chairman of the committee, my colleague from Ohio, for being so cooperative on this issue. As I often say, there is usually no disagreement between us, and this is an unusual situation where we have a slightly different viewpoint on this particular education measure. In reference to what the Senator from Utah said, I would like to make a couple of points. No. 1, I think part of the argument which he presented was that opponents to this voucher plan fail to accept the fact that the Mayor of the District of Columbia asked for vouchers. I want to again reiterate for the record that at no time, to my knowledge--and I have talked with the Mayor privately; I have heard him speak publicly; I have been at any number of meetings; I have heard his testimony; and I have read his testimony--did he come to the Congress and to the President to ask for voucher money. He came to ask for money for help with his school system and said he would be open to a variety of different suggestions. The administration said--and wisely when we passed Leave No Child Behind--no to vouchers for about 10 or 15 good reasons. It said: Mr. Mayor, we are happy basically to help, but you have to take a portion of this in voucher money. The original proposal was, as I said, $10 million in vouchers only, broad-based vouchers, no help for public schools, no help for charter schools, and vouchers to private schools. No mayor should be blamed for wanting to have additional money for schools--additional money which is not coming out of his budget, it is not extra to us, it is not new money to the Federal Government, but it is new money to the District--no mayor should be blamed for wanting to have additional funding. So the Mayor said basically: I believe in our charter school program, and I believe in our transitional program for public schools. So I will basically take the vouchers portion and make it the best I can. If the Mayor has a different position, I would like to hear that. But that is my general understanding. I have said that again. The reason that is important is because part of the amendment that Senator Carper and I wanted to lay down to clarify is one of the major issues in this debate, which is that some of us don't mind having a demonstration program if it is done in the right way for the District of Columbia. But under no circumstances do we want every mayor in this country--or every Governor or every school board president or every reform leader-- to think they have to come to Washington to ask for new money or additional money. The only way they are going to get it is if they give a portion of it to private schools for private school vouchers. We don't think there should be a Federal presence. I don't think there should be a Federal mandate, and certainly no Federal contingency, and in this proposal there is. That is not right. The hiding behind and saying the Mayor asked, the Mayor asked--I will tell you the Mayor asked, just as every mayor in the country is asking for help, and every Governor is asking for help, and every school board president is asking for help. Why? Because we raised the bar pretty high on them. We said if 50 percent of your teachers aren't certified by 2006, they have to be certified. We said we realize that you don't have a 100-percent graduation rate. By X time--not mandated but unified--you are going to have to improve your graduation rate or else; and your testing scores, or you are going to have to close your schools and reorganize. I supported that accountability. I am not complaining that we did that, although the responsibility now is very great on the local level. I also supported additional funding that would go along with those reforms. Unfortunately, this administration passed a law that left a lot of the funding, basically, on the cutting-room floor. It is not going to get to the communities around this country and in the District of Columbia itself. It fell short by $21 million. Yes. The mayor asked for help, but he didn't ask for vouchers. The second thing I want to say is that I agree with my colleague from Utah. That is one of the reasons I supported a middle-of-the-road, if you will, principled compromise, suggesting to the administration that if we really want to have a demonstration project, then I would be--as one of the cosponsors of this historic No Child Left Behind Act, not all Democrats, not all Republicans--most certainly interested in a true demonstration program that lasts for 5 years where the money was divided a third, a third, and a third between charter schools, public schools under improvement, and then, perhaps for children in failing schools to go into other opportunities in this District of Columbia, if the accountability were there and if the measurements were tight enough to show that truly at the end of 5 years we are making any progress. The reason I think that is compelling is because the situation in Milwaukee--the ``test'' in Milwaukee that has been underway for 13 years with private school choice and private school vouchers--is still inconclusive. The taxpayers in Milwaukee and in the United States want to know whether their taxpayer money is resulting in better academic achievement. There is some evidence to suggest that parents are more satisfied, and that is most certainly a worthy goal. We want parents to be satisfied with their children's education as consumers. But that is not the central focus of Leave No Child Behind. The central focus is academic excellence through accountability so that we can have a school system with as much choice, as much opportunity, and as much transparency for the taxpayer to see if we really get our money's worth through our school system. If we are going to have a test, the amendment that Senator Carper and I offer would basically guarantee that at the end of 5 years we would be able to say definitively there are voucher proponents who do not want to know whether a voucher works or not because they are not interested in the accountability portion. They are just interested in the choice or the freedom portion. As long as people have choices, as long as parents generally are happy, what does it matter if their children are failing? If they had real choices and if they could go anywhere with money and informed decisions, that might be something on which we could rely. But they do not have informed choices because the system doesn't allow for that kind of information. It is the same as if you are going to buy a car or an appliance. The vouchers are sort of vouchers on the cheap. You don't really get a voucher to go anywhere you want. Some of these schools cost $20,000. Some of these schools cost $15,000. The voucher they propose doesn't really give you that choice. It is a false choice based on absent information. But the final point that the Senator from Utah made warrants some comments as well. I have been searching for a way to describe this and to answer. I actually found a better way than I could have written myself in the newspaper last Friday. It is written by Jarvis DeBerry, an African-American columnist who has written on this exact question. Why not save a few, if you can? That was the story spoken of so eloquently by the Senator from Utah about walking along the sand and saving a starfish and being questioned: Why are you wasting your time? At least I can save one. I actually happen to agree with that philosophy. But I would like to read this article into the Record because it answers it in a way which I think helps frame this debate. It is entitled, ``Vouchers No Way Out of a Failing Society.'' It is not too long. I think I have the time to read it here. He says: If you had a child at a failing school, which person would you look toward for help? Harriet Tubman or Frederick Douglass? Let me state the question another way: If you had a child at a failing school, would your primary concern be helping your child escape or making sure the schools were improved so that escape would no longer be necessary? I understand that the question has the effect of reducing Tubman and Douglass to one-dimensional characters: One who escaped slavery, then subsequently worked for freedom by plucking slaves from bondage one by one; the other who also escaped but then became famous for taking the podium and urging the country's leaders to live up to the written promise of freedom and justice. But what about a better way to illustrate the crossroads at which many black people stand? Is it better to take one's promising child out of the system or stay put and make sure that the system gets better for everybody? Judging from the attacks that have been aimed at Sen. Mary Landrieu by a group called D.C. Parents for School Choice, it's clear that her opponents want black people to believe that Landrieu is indifferent to black people's interests. Why? Because she sends her children to the tony Georgetown Day and hasn't supported a voucher program that would give about 2,000 D.C. families $7,500 each they could use towards tuition and private parochial school. It further states: . . . the woman leading the charge against vouchers in D.C. is black, as is the woman who's pushing for them. The argument that support for vouchers is the more authentically black position is usually made by folks who aren't black. And what those people usually fail to comprehend is this: While deep down nobody wants a life of poverty and oppression, escaping such a fate often brings with it its own kind of guilt. Why do you think so many young black men who come into money are determined to ``keep it real'' or that poor black people destined for success are admonished to ``Remember where you came from?'' Because solo success seems empty. After she escaped from slavery, Harriet Tubman would have been perfectly justified if she'd never returned to the South. But she made 19 trips back and helped about 300 people escape. The fact that she had to pull out her pistol to keep some escapees on track used to make me think that the people at the end of her pistol were cowards. But now I wonder if some of them were simply eaten up with guilt because they were escaping and their loved ones weren't. If D.C.'s voucher program is to give private tuition money to 2,000 students, it does not seem to me to be anti-black to worry about the fate of the other 66,000 or so students who'd be left behind. But would I try to keep an individual student from trying to escape to a better school? No, I wouldn't. Even though that person's departure would further weaken an already struggling school, and I know vouchers for everybody would not be possible. This might sound like an argument for the scholarship plan, but I make two points: One, this columnist is writing about moving children out of failing schools, not just any school. And he is talking about only 2,000 slots, allowing children to move out of a system that is not their fault. That is not what this proposal does. This proposal is not limited to children in failing schools. Although some people argue we should not allow children to move out, I have not. I have argued that under certain carefully crafted circumstances, children could move out while we are fixing the system. But the problem with some voucher proponents is they focus on moving children out and not helping the children still there. As I have pointed out in this debate, although the proponents say they support charter schools and public schools, there is no guarantee that money will be divided the way it is represented. They state their intention, but there is no guarantee until the administration, the President, comes forward saying there will be no bill because I will veto it if there is not help for the kids left behind. Then the great efforts underway for reform, as well as giving these few 2,000 students an opportunity to a higher performing school; we actually know it is higher performing because we have accountability--the proposal pending before the Senate--continues to have many deficiencies. Again, Jarvis lays out in this article a key question to the debate. While fixing the public school system--and it is a system that needs fixing--it is not to be unaccounted for. It is clear how much work needs to be done in fixing that system, but it is being fixed. Some who have been working for 25 years to try to fashion the public spirit and focus for fixing the system--some, not all--have also come to the idea that if there are a few spots in schools that are available for these children and it can be done in a fair way with the right kind of evaluation and the right kind of parameters, am I going to stand in the way of a few children getting an opportunity? Not this Senator. There are other Senators who have a different view. But to say that because I am of that position, that I should be for a whole system of vouchers, which is what this voucher proposal is, hiding behind a DC demonstration project, then absolutely no. I ask unanimous consent that this article be printed in the Record. I hope it answers points raised.

Ms. LANDRIEU. I have to object. I am going to have to object.

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, another point I would like to make is that the Senator made a statement that needs clarification. As I started out this morning, I said the details of this are very important, because if you pursue the details and you dissect the details, you will eventually get to the truth. So there is one detail I must repeat. And I guess I am going to have to stand here, I don't know, every day or a month or a year to continue to say this until the other side cries uncle. This proposal is not--it never was, it is not today--limited or designed for failing schools. Let me repeat, this proposal is not--not when it was initially proposed, not last week, not yesterday, not last night, not today, not this morning at 5 minutes to 12--limited to children in failing schools. Although the proponents say they are interested in helping children in failing schools, the real issue for proponents of vouchers is they simply believe in choice. That, of course, is their prerogative. But to stand behind the visual of poor people struggling in schools that are failing is absolutely false. This proposal, as written, if anyone reads it, is not limited or directed to failing schools. It gives a preference to students in failing schools, but it is not designed to students in failing schools. That principle is worth fighting over because the whole accountability system we have put into place is about identifying schools that are failing, and then providing resources to those schools to make them better. If the other side gets away with saying, ``Well, that is what we said, but that is not really what we meant, because we aren't interested in putting resources into failing schools, we are interested in putting resources into all schools, because our job is to make parents happy,'' I think that is just such a foolish goal. Let me say why I think it is foolish. As much as I would like to see every parent happy, in my 25 years in public life I don't know how in the heck we would measure that because some parents are real happy, some parents are a little happy, and some parents are happy in some ways and not happy in other ways, and I would have no way of measuring what is a good measure for parental happiness. If someone in this Chamber has any way to measure parental happiness in a way that taxpayers could know if parents are a little happy, just a little happy, happy on Mondays and not on Fridays, and that was our goal, please tell me because I would be open to discuss it. It is foolishness. We should be directing revenues, if we are going to do that, to failing schools. This proposal is not directed to failing schools. They can say it 1,000 times. I ask you to read the details. Now my third point. I know my colleague has been very patient, but I have to make this point. My colleague from Missouri asked me, What difference does it make? What difference does all this make? It makes a huge amount of difference. We, as a Congress, with this President, in a bipartisan way, have embarked upon a new effort, a new journey, to take good public schools and make them great, knowing that some schools are excellent but some schools are really bad. And as a Nation, we are saying since 1965 our general plans are not working as well as they should have, so let's make a big adjustment. We have made a big adjustment, and that difference is worth fighting for, the strengthening of public education in the greatest democracy in the world. People on my side say to me: Senator Landrieu, you have spent a lot of time on this issue. For Louisiana, the State I represent, and for the country I love--and all of us love our country and our States--this is about as essential as it gets. The fourth point I want to make: My friend from Missouri talks about the single moms. Please help these single mothers, poor single mothers who are working and can't afford to send their children to school. Please help. And they show pictures of African-American single moms and Hispanic single mothers, kind of indicating, in a very insulting way--I know they do not mean it to be insulting, but you could interpret it as that; and I know that is not the intention--but there are those of us over here who think we spend a lot of time fighting for poor women. I have spent my whole life, basically, doing that. So it is really hard for me to accept this criticism. But I am not perfect, and maybe I have failed in some way in that effort. But when my friends say things to me, that we need to help single mothers, let me just ask them a question. Is it that party or this party which does not support the increase in the minimum wage for these same women? Is it that party on the other side of the aisle which refuses to raise the wage from $5.15 to help poor women have more choices in their life, or is it this side of the aisle? Is it that side of the aisle which refuses, year after year, to put more money into day care so the same poor women who are working two jobs--early in the morning until late at night--could have some sense of satisfaction that their children will be well cared for while they are contributing to the great economy of this Nation, or is it our side? So you have to understand--I hope people understand--this is a very important debate. The facts will speak for themselves. They can run all the ads they want, all the bumper stickers, and all the headlines, but that is what the facts are. I have this letter we received today. It is dated September 26. It is from Secretary Paige. I am writing today to express my strong support for the District of Columbia education improvement initiative. . . . This bill includes a three-pronged initiative to:-- And here it is-- (1) improve DC public schools . . . (2) create new charter schools . . . and (3) provide scholarships. This is the first official letter we have received. This letter is a step in the right direction. I see the leader on the floor. But let me just say, until this administration says they will veto any bill that does not have this in it, the Members who are willing to negotiate on this have no assurance that this is the way it will ultimately come out. So I thank the Secretary for clarifying the position. I commend him for his innovation. But again, until we have a statement of a veto from the President unless this proposal includes these three provisions, with permanent funding for all three, we do not have any assurance these words will actually match the rule of law. And that is still a problem. I see my leader and yield the floor.