Mary Landrieu

Ms. LANDRIEU

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 I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

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

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I know my colleagues will be coming to the floor to speak more about the situation in Iraq, but I take a moment as one of the managers of the DC bill to give a few closing remarks on that subject and wrap up a couple of issues this morning. Then I understand the Democratic leader will come to the floor. When he does, I will be happy to yield. And I see one of my other colleagues. For the record, I follow up a couple of comments from my friend from Missouri who spoke just a few minutes ago on the subject. One, he referred to a letter from Secretary Paige. We on our side do not have a copy of that letter. It has not been submitted to us. We would be pleased to receive it if there is such a letter indicating support for this three-sector approach, because all we have is the ``Statement of Secretary of Education Rod Paige On the DC School Choice Initiative Before the House Committee on Government Reform,'' dated June 24, 2003. I have spent the last 30 minutes reviewing again the statement, which I had read once before, and there was no mention at all in this statement of any three-sector approach. It is approximately 20 pages long, and I have highlighted every reference to the choice initiative fund proposed by the President, and there is no reference in here for charter schools or for education reform for traditional public schools. So I want to submit this statement for the Record. That is all we have on this side. If there is a new statement from the Secretary, we would be happy to review it. I ask unanimous consent that the statement of Secretary Paige be printed in the Record.

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. I am pleased that the Senate has decided to leave the HUBZone program intact with these limited, but sound modifications. An issue has been brought to my attention involving how the Department of Agriculture has interpreted legislation regarding the treatment of HUBZone price preferences for food aid purchases. The current system provides HUBZone firms with a price preference on the first 40 percent of a given tender of food aid. A tender is essentially a contract for aid that spells out how much of a particular commodity--corn, wheat, vegetable oil--would be provided under the contract. The remaining 60 percent of the contract volume is not subject to the preference, so HUBZones companies compete with all other firms, large and small, in full and open competition for this portion of the contract. The Department of Agriculture has misinterpreted the statute and unfairly limited the participation of HUBZone firms to only 40 percent of any food aid contract. This effectively locked them out of 60 percent of every tender contract offered. The Department has since corrected its interpretation and is allowing the program to perform as it was intended by Congress when these provisions were added to the HUBZone program in 2000. I am glad that the Department of Agriculture has changed its interpretation. Louisiana has 10 HUBZone firms that are exporters and may be able to participate in the food aid program and compete now that the proper interpretation is in effect. Officials with the Port of Lake Charles in Lake Charles, LA came to me and expressed their concern with the Department's initial interpretation because they operate in a HUBZone and want to attract more businesses to the port. This interpretation limited the amount of contracts HUBZone firms were eligible to bid on. The correct interpretation allows them to bring new businesses to the Lake Charles area and help them to reinvigorate an area that is working to regain its footing in the current economic climate and provide critical jobs for the families who live there. I know there are some who feel that under the current interpretation HUBZone firms may have an unfair advantage. I welcome the opportunity to work with the chair and the other members of the committee to investigate this further. Perhaps the committee could hold a hearing to learn more about this issue.

Ms. LANDRIEU. The issue I wanted to bring to your attention relates to HUBZone provisions in the House version of the SBA reauthorization. HUBZones are distressed urban and rural areas characterized by chronic high unemployment and/or low household income. Mr. President, there are 152 HUBZone companies creating jobs and empowering communities throughout my State. Under the program, small businesses that locate in a HUBZone, and hire workers who live in the HUBZone, are eligible to receive price preferences in bidding on government contracts. These price preferences encourage small businesses to locate in our distressed communities and help offset the additional costs they face as a result of being out of the regular stream of commerce. Price preferences also help to even the playing field between HUBZone eligible and non-HUBZone firms in competing for contracts. I support the HUBZone program. It is providing an economic boost through job creation and capital investment to areas of poverty and unemployment that really need it.

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, before the Senate prepares to consider and pass S. 1375, the Small Business Administration 50th Anniversary Reauthorization Act of 2003, I would like to bring an important issue to the Senate's attention that I hope will be addressed in conference with the House. It relates to the HUBZone program, specifically the price preferences for food aid contracts. I would like to discuss this matter with my colleague, the Chair of the Small Business and Entrepreneurship Committee, so that we have a clear record of our position on the issue prior to final passage of the SBA Reauthorization legislation. Let me begin by first congratulating her for bringing this bill through Committee and to the Senate floor where it will pass unanimously. The Committee held informative and useful hearings and roundtable discussions to learn from small business owners and leaders about the value of the Small Business Administration's programs. We also heard from SBA Administrator Hector Barreto, about the Bush administration's reauthorization proposal for improving the agency's ability to respond to the many challenges facing small businesses and the increasing number of start-ups. In the end she put together an excellent bill that I supported when it passed the committee unanimously. I expect the Senate to do the same.

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, my point is, as we seek the truth in what happened with the tragedy of the crash of the shuttle, we will have to explore the tragedy in detail, and if we continue to press and focus on the details, the truth will emerge. If we continue to focus on the details and take the time, the truth will emerge, and when the truth emerges, if the truth is allowed to emerge, then the appropriate actions can be taken. NASA, of course, says that safety is their highest priority. There is not a person I know who ever worked for NASA or who works for NASA today or who will work for NASA in the future who does not believe that safety is important. When we explore the details, as this article does beautifully, we will be able to say: They say that, but what do they really mean? They say safety is important, but when this engineer--I believe his name is Mr. Rocha, and they go through in detail about his pleas that went unheard, his sterling reputation that was pushed aside by others who were basically ready to launch. We will find the truth. The same is going to be true in this debate with the District of Columbia on this scholarship voucher program because the details of it are very important. The details will show us the truth about what happened. I wish to begin by saying that my colleague from Ohio is correct in the sense that the Mayor does support this three-pronged approach. He is correct. But the way we got to this point I wish to share with my colleagues this morning. The President offered earlier in the year in his State of the Union Address a choice initiative. The President, in his budget, basically said: Despite the fact I am not going to fully fund Leave No Child Behind, I am not going to fund it at the authorized level as promised and implied, instead, I am going to offer--his budget shows--a $75 million voucher initiative for the country, and it is going to be put-- the budget showed and the administration said--in the Health and Human Services appropriations bill. That is how this whole issue began. The administration said one thing, but I want to focus on what the budget actually showed. The budget that was laid down showed: We are not going to fully fund Leave No Child Behind, but this administration wants to fund a choice program for the Nation and they want to fund that through the Health and Human Services appropriations bill. The Health and Human Services appropriations bill is chaired by the Senator from Iowa and the Senator from Pennsylvania, Mr. Harkin and Mr. Specter. They together, and their staffs, basically sent word back that we would not have a voucher proposal in their bill. There was bipartisan agreement: We do not want vouchers in this bill. We do not want to support Federal vouchers. And so it was removed from that bill. It managed to find its way into the DC appropriations bill because this bill, for better or worse, is sometimes the bill that is used to make political points instead of good public policy. That is what the record will reflect. That is the truth, and I will submit for the Record those details as this debate goes forward. The voucher program finds its way into the DC appropriations bill, of which committee I am the ranking member. When the proponents of vouchers say this was the Mayor's idea, I have to comment on this for a moment. The Mayor will be able to express publicly, as he has, his position and can respond in any way, but the Mayor said--and I say this as respectfully as I can, and I think he has said this publicly--that he at no time went to the White House to ask for a voucher program. He did not say: I need money for my schools and I am convinced the voucher program will work and I would like vouchers for the District. What happened was, this money was drifting in the budget, finding its way to DC, being pushed to DC by proponents of vouchers, and the Mayor was given a very difficult choice, which any mayor would be tempted to take, which was: Mr. Mayor, we have some money. Your school system needs help, and we are happy to give you some money, but--but--we need you to agree to a voucher component. The Mayor, for whom I have the greatest respect for many reasons-- one, because he is an out-of-the-box thinker, he is innovative, he is gutsy, he is smart, he is honest--had a very difficult choice. As I have told him, if I were the Mayor, I am not sure I would have made a different choice than he did. But because we are Senators and not mayors, we have a respectfully different perspective. He said: I will take the money. I will take the $40 million. I have schools that have leaky roofs. I have schools that have no computers. I have children in my schools who haven't had gym classes in 10 years. I have an obesity problem. I have children who can play music but they have no instruments. I have children who will be great in science except they have no microscopes. And I have children who can learn but I have 40 kids in a class and I need more teachers. If I were the Mayor, I would have taken the money, but I am not the Mayor. The Mayor was forced to make a pretty difficult decision driven by voucher proponents who will not give up on the vouchers. Even though we passed Leave No Child Behind, there is a determined group of people who will not give up on vouchers. The Mayor, as best as he could--and he has my respect and admiration--at least took a really rotten proposal and crafted a three-pronged approach and said: OK, let's present it: a third for charter schools, a third for public schools, and the transitional schools, the great reforms that are underway, and, all right, I will take a third for vouchers. Then it went forth: This is the Mayor's proposal; this is what the Mayor has asked. I hope the truth has been spoken, and if any of my colleagues want to debate those points or submit for the Record a different view or a different story, please do. But that is how we got to this point. Every time we get on this subject, the proponents want to say this was the Mayor's idea and the Mayor is a Democrat; he is an African- American Democrat; this was his idea. I want to be clear for the record, this was not the Mayor's idea. This was the President's idea, the administration's idea laid down in a budget, rejected by the Republican chairman and a Democratic ranking member of the Health and Human Services Appropriations Subcommittee, that has made its way to the DC Appropriations Subcommittee, and then was modified to become the issue we are discussing today. The Mayor, from his perspective, I could argue, made the best choice for his city, but that might not be the choice the Senate needs to make, for obvious reasons. One of those obvious reasons, to anybody with an open mind, is that we should not, as a Senate or Congress, at this critical time in the funding history of education reform, in any way send any signal to any city that they cannot get money from Washington, they cannot get new money from Washington, unless they take a voucher program. They keep saying this is new money. One could argue that, but let's just take it as new money. The only way someone can get money is if they enter into a voucher proposal. It should be obvious to people who are following this debate that that would be an inappropriate signal, and a dangerous signal, to send out as States, cities, counties, and parishes, as in the State of Louisiana, are struggling with making decisions about how can we get more money for these reforms, where should we allocate them. They have flexibility now. Let me say on that point that voucher proponents do not want to listen to what the truth is. They do not want to listen, but this is the truth: Under the historic bipartisan bill that, if implemented, funded, and followed, can improve schools in America, under title I dollars, under tutorial services that are in that bill, communities today can craft private school vouchers or choice in their local jurisdictions. It is not done because there are very serious and reasonable people on both sides of the debate, but local jurisdictions can do that now. The question is, Should the Federal Government have basically a mandate for vouchers over, for instance, charter schools, transitional public schools, public contract schools, or other kinds of newly innovative reforms? The answer is obviously no. So when Senator Carper and I offered the amendment to the other side saying, look, we just cannot support a Federal mandate for vouchers-- although we as cosponsors of this important and significant legislation understand where the Mayor is coming from--would you please remove the Federal mandate, we were told no. There is a reason: Because the voucher proponents want a Federal preference for vouchers. But they will not get it in the long run. They may have the power now to get it in the short run, but they will not get it in the long run because the people of the United States do not want a Federal mandate for vouchers. Particularly, the people of the United States--Republicans and Democrats, Independents, Black, White, Hispanic, and Asian--who support the new reforms in education do not think vouchers are a superior method to charter schools, to public school innovation, to accountability, and that was a great victory that, in my opinion, they are not willing to undo. Another part I wish to speak about this morning is the evaluation component. The reason Senator Carper and others have argued with the vouchers-always-only-and-forever crowd, basically, is that if a scholarship program is going to be offered, recognizing that there is a tremendous amount of opposition to it on legitimate constitutional grounds--separation of church and state--but if one could manage to get through those very important issues, one of the key reasons for moving in this direction would be to demonstrate definitively whether this works. Why is this important? Because those of us who are trying to find the ways to bring excellence to education through a public system with as much choice as possible, to every child, regardless of the kind of family or resources to which they are born, we believe strongly that this Nation can and should--and if it stays the path--do what no other nation has ever done in the world, and that is a belief that every child can learn if we provide resources for every child to learn, whether they are blind, deaf, in a wheelchair, have some disease, or they were born with incomplete mental capacity. This Nation believes no child should be left behind. For 200 years, we have struggled through segregation times, through slavery times, through lots of times to reach that goal. We are making progress on that goal. Are there lots of problems? Yes, there are lots of problems, but we are making progress. Those of us over the decades, way before we were in this Senate, who fought--and some in some instances died--over this principle continue to work today. So those of us who are committed to keeping our eyes on the prize--and the prize is excellence in education for every child and equity and equality, without pulling the children from the top down but by pushing all the children up--keep our eyes on that prize. People ask me: Why, Senator, do you feel so strongly about this evaluation component? It is because I think there would be some good reason--actually, I would argue to my colleagues who are opposed to vouchers, and I respect them all for their very strong views, that if they were going to do a scholarship program, one value for the Nation would be to have a demonstration project that could show once and for all, to those who think vouchers are the greatest thing since sliced bread and to those who think it is the worst thing since the Devil himself, to come together and have the data and reason together and say it either worked or it did not work. So when Senator Carper submitted our amendment and we said, all right, we are reluctant, but if we could do this, this evaluation has to be tight--Milwaukee has had this for 13 years. I will be submitting for the Record constant referrals to that written by almost every objective newspaper in the country. There are some that are not, but most newspapers are objective. Most of the newspapers, whether they are conservative or liberal--I am not talking about very partisan papers-- state it is inconclusive because there is no evaluation component. So we put one in our proposal that requires full and independent evaluation for the scholarship program that would include, amongst other things, a comparison of the academic achievements of scholarship students in high-performing schools and nonscholarship students attending high-performing public or charter schools. Let me repeat that it would require a full and independent evaluation for the scholarship programs that would include, among other things, a comparison of the academic achievement of scholarship recipients in high-performing private schools and nonscholarship students attending high-performing public or charter schools, because that is what we do not know. Let me explain what we do know. We do know if you take a poor child out of a school that is mismanaged and underresourced and put that child in a private school that is better managed and better resourced, that child will do better. It does not take a genius to know that. Anybody knows that. We don't need a study. We don't need a thing. We know it. I will tell you what we don't know. What we don't know is, if you take a poor child and put that child in a high-performing or moderately performing private school, and then you take that same poor child and put that child in a high or moderately performing public school or a public charter school or public contract school, does that child do better or worse? That is what we need to know because what we need to know is does the scholarship itself make a difference? Does the scholarship, the act of giving the scholarship to the parent and the choice and the freedom, make a difference when all other things are controlled? Nobody in America or the world knows that. So Senator Carper and I said we would like to know that. We would be willing, maybe, to put this debate to rest once and for all if we could commit to a rigorous evaluation by outside experts who are not from the Democratic spin room or the Republican spin room. Then maybe we could be for this. They said no. Let me go to two more points, briefly. I see my colleague from South Dakota is here and he probably wants to speak on this, or perhaps other subjects, but there are two issues I want to hit before we move to something else. Last night several of my colleagues came to the floor and argued for vouchers on the basis that we do this for higher education and we have one of the finest higher education systems in the world. And they are right. We are proud of our system of higher education. It has been developed over hundreds of years. People from all over the world want to come to use our higher education system. Even given some of its weaknesses, it is a pretty remarkable institution we have created. But there is a fundamental difference between higher education and elementary and secondary education that cannot be ignored. It is one of the details that is very important to understand. Higher education is not mandatory in the United States. If you want to go, you can go. If you don't want to go, you do not have to go. But elementary and secondary education is basically mandatory in the United States. Children have to go to school. There are some exceptions for children in home schooling, which I actually support. Some people don't, but I think home schoolers do a beautiful job over time, as long as they are held accountable, and that is true in some States. But education in this country is mandatory; at least we have to offer it. It has to be universally offered. In America today, even considering how great our higher education system is, only 20 percent of adults have college degrees. In African- American or Hispanic populations, that may be down to 10 or 15 percent. Maybe the national average is about 20 or 25. We would like 100 percent of children to have a high school degree. They can drop out, but our goal as a Nation is 100 percent to have a high school degree. So the systems in their essence are different. I will say maybe the word mandatory is a little strong. It is a goal of the United States to have 100 percent of our population to have a high school degree. So you cannot compare these systems. While choice, as I said, is desirable, with the freedom like we have in the higher education system, because we do not have a policy that says we want to provide 16 years mandatory through college, then the freedoms that can exist in higher education are very different than what the public could support or afford for elementary and secondary education. I wanted to get that statement on the record. I see my colleague from South Dakota who wants to speak as in morning business. I will resume the discussion of Leave No Child Behind and the scholarship tuition debate when he has concluded.

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I want to begin by commending, as I have often, my colleague from Ohio for his leadership on this issue. It has been a joy and a privilege to work with him as we have alternated the chairmanship of this very important committee for this region and this Nation and, obviously, for the residents of the District itself. It has been a real joy to work with him. We have found a tremendous amount of common ground in the course of these few years, and I think we have made a lot of progress in some of the most complex challenges here in the District. He noted this morning the challenge, still, with the foster care system and its weaknesses, and he outlined how this committee and this Congress has worked in partnership, very closely, with all the city leaders to recognize the problems, admit them, and begin to put in the resources and the management changes necessary to make that child welfare system much better and, hopefully, a model for the Nation. I am proud to have worked with him, along with other Senators. Senator Durbin is one, along with Senator Hutchison from Texas and others, who worked on some initial foundation work on restoring fiscal discipline, if you will, and fiscal health to the District. That is another accomplishment of which we can be very proud, both on the Democratic and Republican sides. So as my colleague from Ohio has said, there is a lot to be proud of in this bill. There is a tremendous amount of progress that has been made, and we will continue to find common ground where we can. But there is one area of this bill where we are struggling to find common ground, and I am not sure we will be able to because principles are very important in terms of education reform and accountability. I want to start this discussion this morning on that proposal by sharing an article that I read in the paper this morning on a completely different subject, but I think it makes the point very well. We woke up this morning to read a headline in the New York Times on the front page. The headline says: ``Dogged Engineer Pressed NASA on Shuttle, but Rebuffs Were Constant.'' I submit this article for the Record because it is lengthy and it is very detailed, but it is excellent. I ask unanimous consent to print the article in the Record.

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, back to the budget of the District of Columbia, earlier this morning it was said by our friends on the other side of the aisle that perhaps we should just have a debate today and Monday and move off of this bill, indicating a permanent move off of this bill. I argue there is certainly a way, if this body desires--and I hope they would continue this very important debate--to figure out a way to spend some quality time debating this proposal. There are many concerned Members on both sides, I am certain, based on the level of intensity and the discussions at the committee level. Since I was chair or ranking member of those committees, I was on the front row for those debates. I am confident there are Members on both sides who want some time to talk about this issue and to debate it in full. There is no reason that could not continue for weeks, as we take up other matters and move decisively based on agreements that can be reached. As the ranking member, I go on record to both Republican and Democratic leadership, it would be my strong suggestion we continue to debate this issue. The details are extremely important for the Nation to grasp so we can move on to education reform. There was debate earlier regarding the District of Columbia. A lot has been said about the Mayor's position. Yesterday, Mayor Williams was in the Senate. He has been a tireless advocate for school reform in the District. He should be commended. I will read the Mayor's own words regarding his position. I believe his position has been misconstrued by opponents of vouchers. His words will clarify his position, so I will read into the Record this morning the Mayor's comments before the Governmental Affairs Committee in the House of Representatives. He says: Along with city council education committee chair Kevin Chavous [who is another very strong and respected leader in the city for education reform] and board of education president Peggy Cooper Cafritz [who also has done an excellent job of leading reforms in the school district in Washington, DC] I support a 3-sector approach that would focus new Federal resources towards increasing the availability of quality education options for district students and families. He says, I repeat, ``I support a 3-sector approach . . . '' It does not say: ``I support a voucher-only approach.'' He says: I support a three-sector approach that would focus new Federal resources towards increasing the availability of quality education options for District students and families. This strategy would require a significant and ongoing investment toward the following: One, the development of a Federally funded scholarship program for students to attend nonpublic schools; two-- And this a detail that is extremely important that has been overlooked by some and undercut by others-- a permanent and predictable support for the District of Columbia's public schools-- ``permanent and predictable support for the District of Columbia's public schools''-- targeted at leadership and instructional excellence and student achievement; and, three, a fiscally sound and comprehensive approach to the acquisition and renovation of charter school facilities. This is the Mayor's position. He goes on: Why a three-sector approach? The most compelling reasons focus on fairness, the legacy of Federal/District relations, and a strong sense that choice means the most when a number of quality educational options is maximized. Specifically, I mean that while DCPS faces considerable administrative and operational challenges that transcend any particular funding level, our public schools are paying the price of a legacy of disinvestment and crumbling school buildings, many constructed originally by the Federal Government. While bearing the cost associated with both the local school districts and a state system, the city has the tax base of neither. As the recent GAO report documented, the city needs ongoing assistance from the Federal Government in addressing the structural imbalance. So let me take the Mayor's words, the Mayor's position, to make some points. First of all, this statement should make it clear that the Mayor himself and Councilman Chavous and education President Peggy Cooper Cafritz have soundly rejected the vouchers-only approach. Yet to this day, on the floor of the Senate, at this hour--we have now been debating this issue on and off over the last several months; not publicly in this Chamber, but this debate has been raging in committees, in conference rooms, and meetings all over America--we have not had a definitive statement from this administration that they, too, reject the vouchers-only approach and that they will protect the three- pronged approach through this process. Let me repeat, the administration has not, to my knowledge--if they have, please, someone, send me a letter or a telegram or an e-mail that would say: Senator, you are wrong. The administration only supports a three-sector approach, we will commit to that and make that possible by using the power of the White House--which is considerable--to ensure that happens. In fact, one of the reasons I am particularly puzzled is because yesterday the administration released a statement of policy. For every bill, as we all know, when we are debating bills, which is appropriate, the administration says to Congress: These are the things I like about your bill. These are the things I do not like about the bill. And as the system goes, if we do not get a little bit more in line, usually, with what the administration wants--whether they are Republican or Democratic Presidents--sometimes they will veto what we do. That is process. So it is important to hear from the administration about what they are thinking so we can decide if we are willing to risk a veto. So we like to get these statements. It is helpful to this process. I hold in my hand the President's statement, and I am going to submit it again for the Record: The administration is pleased the committee bill included $13 million for the President's school choice initiative fund. This innovative reform will increase the capacity of the District to provide parents, particularly low-income parents, with more options for obtaining a quality education for their children who are trapped in low- performing schools. The administration appreciates the committee's support for strengthening the District's school system and strongly urges the Senate to retain this initiative. Now, unless I missed a paragraph--and I don't think I did, because it is only two pages long, and the others go on to other issues--there is nothing here on the three-sector approach. There is no charter school language. There is no public school initiative language. So in one hand I have the Mayor's comments, which speak of a three- sector approach, and in the other hand I have the administration's comments. That is why Senator Carper and I laid down an amendment to try to clarify this issue. To date, it has not been clarified. In all fairness to my colleague from Ohio, he did say last night--and I believe what he said is true--that a clarifying statement is on its way. Perhaps it is here and it just has not reached me. If it is, I will be happy to submit that for the Record at any time anyone can produce it for me. But I do not have it, and neither does my staff. So that is an important point to clarify. Maybe that will be clarified as this debate goes on. The other part of the Mayor's comments that I think sheds a lot of light on the detail of what this argument is about, and I actually agree with the Mayor--not all Democrats do--but I agree with him when he says: ``a strong sense that choice means the most when the number of quality educational options is maximized.'' Now, let me put a few things on the record that the proponents of vouchers-only want to continue to say that is fundamentally untrue. It is just untrue. What they say is, families in the District of Columbia have no choice. It is my understanding--and I am going to submit it for the Record because if I am wrong I would like to be corrected--that recently--I am not sure on what day or year--but in the last few years, under the District's reform initiatives, there is districtwide choice in public schools. Not every jurisdiction in America has districtwide choice, but it is my understanding--and I think I am correct--that in the District of Columbia--unlike New York City or San Francisco or even New Orleans, which I am more familiar with, or Baton Rouge or Shreveport, which I am more familiar with, those cities being in Louisiana--there is widespread choice. Parents can move from school to school with greater ease. That is a very important component. Also, it is my understanding that there are more charter schools in the District of Columbia than any other jurisdiction per capita in the Nation, with 14,000 out of the 67,000 children enrolled in public charter schools, and there are waiting lists for charter schools. But the problem is, there has been limited money in the Federal budget. Basically, there has been limited money for charter schools, so there is a waiting list of children to get into quality charter schools. Because the funding has been short on the Federal level, and perhaps maybe short on the local level, we cannot create more charter schools. But the answer for the proponents of vouchers is, we are not going to give additional money for charter schools. We are just going to lay down a voucher-only proposal. Clearly, the Mayor said that would not be his position. And finally, the Mayor says in his statement: The city needs ongoing assistance from the Federal Government to address the structural imbalance. So here is really the big picture that is quite troubling. This administration, instead of coming to the District of Columbia initially and saying, ``We want to help you fund your reform efforts that are underway. We want to really encourage you in terms of your charter schools. We recognize your structural deficit, and we want to help with your structural deficit,'' instead of saying, ``We acknowledge that your public schools need some additional resources,'' the administration and the House--I should say specifically the House Republican leadership--has not offered anything in the budget toward those ends. They have offered kind words. They have offered comments. But they haven't offered anything in the budget--which is the only thing you can take to the bank, the only thing you can count on--to the District. They have offered a $10 million, now $13 million, voucher only--not just voucher only to go to kids, children in failing schools, they want to have a voucher program for children to go to any school. Some of us wanted to work with the other side of the aisle and did work with this administration to pass Leave No Child Behind that allowed great flexibility at the local level, that encouraged and pushed for more choice within the constitutional limits, and that suggested front and foremost that quality was not only important for the student and parents but for the taxpayers who are picking up this tab. And it is a big lift for taxpayers all over this Nation, not just to help the District with its funding and the taxpayers here. But taxpayers all over this Nation pay a lot of money in property taxes and in sales taxes and in other fees associated with supporting schools. The taxpayers deserve to know if that money is resulting in a quality product. The mayor acknowledges that. Unfortunately, the proposal, in its detail--not what is said about it but in its detail--gives no assurance for quality. There is no evaluation component that is rigorous enough. There is a modest evaluation component. But because it lacks rigor, there is no quality control in the current proposal, which is one of the reasons the mayor's position is actually, when read and understood, quite different from the voucher proposal, at least seemingly from the administration, based on their own statement, and definitely from the House Republican leadership. I would like to read Chairman Davis's comments into the Record. He said: Some are making a mountain out of a molehill over the fact that this legislation authorizes funding for school choice but not enhanced funding for DC public schools or charter schools. The reason for this is simple. This bill deals with authorization for a new and historic program. Authorization for spending on DC public schools and charter schools already exists. The debate will be over how low and how high that spending should be. That is what Representative Davis said. But what the Mayor says is different. What the Mayor says is that this strategy ``would require a significant and ongoing investment that is permanent and predictable.'' These are two very different positions. Again, the Mayor of the District of Columbia: We need a three-sector approach with predictable and permanent support. This is the House leadership approach: Some people are making a mountain out of a molehill. We don't really have to authorize any new, predictable, permanent funding--I am paraphrasing--for public schools and charter schools because they already exist. This debate will be simply how high or how low that spending should be. One of the problems Senator Carper and I have, and it is a significant problem, is in recognizing this disparity. We went to our friends on the other side and said: These are totally different positions. I know what you are saying, but these are different positions. Can you clarify that for us? We would be willing, if you all would admit or agree, to not a $40 million new authorization but a $200 million authorization over 5 years. It is not just $40 million for 1 year. And the only permanent part of that $40 million is the voucher component. We said: If you want to do a 5-year program, we could even agree if you would say we are going to do $200 million over 5 years, $40 million a year for 5 years--a third, a third, and a third--so that we would have for 5 years a predictable source of Federal revenue that, no matter what happened, no matter what the underlying budgets did, no matter how big the deficit got, no matter how tough the war turned out to be, at least this demonstration project would be $200 million--a third for public schools, a third for charter schools, and a third for this new voucher program. But at the end of 5 years, we would have accomplished one great thing, and that would be a definitive answer as to whether or not scholarships work, because for the greatest school system in the world today, our future depends on knowing that. The rhetoric is so high on both sides, with some people saying, you will never fix public schools if you don't have vouchers, and some people saying, if you go to vouchers, you will wreck the system. Those of us who are interested in school reform and quality and the truth would be interested in funding a predictable $200 million Federal demonstration project in a city such as this, where the Mayor is supportive and several key leaders, but, let me be quick to say, in a city that has voted against vouchers and in a city with equally respectful leaders on the other side. But our colleagues said no because they are not, to my knowledge or my view, the proponents--again, this is not my colleague from Ohio but the proponents of vouchers only, and there are some--are evidently only interested in this $10 million voucher program for the District, even in a district where the people are on record in the last referendum as voting 81 percent against vouchers. That remains a point of contention. Let me move now to a discussion about charter schools for a moment. I will submit some more items for the Record. There has been no disagreement between Senator DeWine and me, as the chairman and ranking member of this committee. Again, without his support, this would not be possible. The Senator from Illinois, Mr. Durbin, the Senator from Texas, Mrs. Hutchison--of course, they speak for themselves--have been leaders for charter schools as well. Without their support, the District would not be in the enviable place it is today; that is, having more students per capita having options for charter schools. So far, this very worthy and worthwhile experiment seems to be working. Most of the charter schools are doing a very good job. In 2001, because rigorous evaluation components are in place, 99 percent of the students in the Oyster School--this is a very exciting initiative underway in the District, a bilingual, very cutting edge charter school in the Nation--are performing above basic in math and 100 percent are performing above basic in reading. This is just one example of one of the 41 charter schools that are operating in the District. It is a pre-K through sixth grade school; 362 students are attending. The students-for-teacher ratio is 11.7 students for every teacher, which is excellent. They are in the District of Columbia public schools. You can get other information from their Web page, but they have 17 percent African-American, 1 percent American-Indian, 3 percent Asian, 52 percent Hispanic, and 27 percent White students. The details of this and the reports look excellent. This is happening all over the United States of America. This Congress has come to a point to say let's push the envelope, let's open up choice, let's create new charters, but let's do it in the public realm; and when we are spending public dollars, let's have accountability and have reports like this so the parents know, the students know, and the taxpayers know where we are getting the money we are spending. I could not be more complimentary or excited about the fact that in our budget Senator DeWine and I have every year tried to do what we could to support this wonderful effort underway by adding some money. It hasn't been a huge amount because our budget is tight and we have limits. But in each of the budgets, we have tried to put in some money for the charter school effort. So we are not just saying we think charter schools are good; Senator DeWine and I are saying not only do we think the effort is good, but it is worthy of our support. We put our money where our mouth is, and we will continue to do that. If we can get general agreement from others to do that, perhaps we could make some progress. Another charter school called the Tree of Life Charter School says the results were quite impressive for a second-year school. Most significant is the fact that 88 percent of the school students improved in reading. This represents the largest percentage of students showing positive gain among all charter schools this year. More than half of the students improved in math. Students showed good progress in performance levels, with 75 percent of the students performing at basic or above in math and 72 percent at basic or above in reading. It should be noted that the majority, 91 percent of the school's population, is low income. The Tree of Life Charter School is another example of what is working in the District and what we as the Congress should continue to fund in a predictable and dependable way. Again, that is what is missing in this proposal today. There is, in the underlying bill, money for charter schools, money for public schools, and money for vouchers. But there is no agreement, no commitment, and there are no solid statements that have been made or arrangements that have been made--which can be made--to indicate that the funding for charter schools would even happen next year. I realize that appropriations are annual. I understand that. But I also realize when this Federal Government wants to make a point about making sure that funding could be dependable, there are ways that can be done; it has been done in the past and it can be done now. So I, for one, would be open to a limited, carefully crafted opportunity for children in failing schools to go to private schools, if there are seats available and if there is a proper evaluation. I find it extremely disconcerting that in this proposal there is not a similar commitment to charter schools and, as a result, at this point it is one of the reasons I am unable to support the proposal. There are many other reasons. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, if I may make a suggestion--Senator DeWine can speak for himself--this bill is so important and this subject is so important to so many people, I am wondering if we could just be flexible and move the discussion of DC in and out of other things, not stopping anything else that is important or would take precedence, but this issue really deserves full debate. As you know, the hours of Senate debate are not always completely and fully taken. I offer for consideration that we have time this morning, we will have time on Monday, and if the leadership wants to move to something else, we could temporarily set this aside and come back to it. There are many Members, at least on our side, who really want some time to speak about this issue. They are most certainly entitled to because it is a very important issue--not just for the District but for the Nation. I lay that out to my friend and colleague as a suggestion.

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I was quite moved by my colleague from South Dakota and his comments about the war, the budget and the choices that the Senate is going to have to make. I thank my colleague for discussing such specific, detailed, and passionate comments, and raising the awareness of some of the very substantial issues at stake in making such a compelling argument as to why this discussion should continue for some reasonable length of time so these issues can be aired and the American people can have a better opportunity to come to their own conclusion based on facts as the Senator outlined this morning. I commend the Senator and thank him. Other colleagues will speak of the issues, including the international challenges that face America, as well as the domestic challenges.

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

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

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I thank the leadership on both sides for allowing us the opportunity to get back to the DC appropriations bill, a bill Senator DeWine and I have worked very hard on over the last, actually, several months. We are very proud of so many portions of this bill that do such good work for the District, and do so in conjunction with the leadership of the District and the residents of the District. So we are thankful that as it has worked out today, we can actually get back on this bill. It is my hope, and I think the chairman of this committee shares this goal, since there are a couple of points in this bill that warrant further debate, the most obvious one being the issue of education improvement in the District of Columbia, it would be my idea, and I hope it is shared by my colleagues and even on the other side, that we give as much time to this debate as possible because it is a very important issue, not just for the District but for the whole Nation. As a public policy, we would be hard pressed to find a public policy that is more important right now, other than, of course, national defense and homeland security. I think we all agree the challenge to our public education system is one that continues to warrant our attention. Tonight it is my intention, and Senator DeWine understands, to speak for a minute about an amendment Senator Carper and I want to lay down at some time, and to talk in detail about what that amendment is. He and I are prepared to talk for maybe an hour about the details of it. I understand there are other Members who might want to speak tonight. We have no intention, obviously, of having the vote tonight or tomorrow, but we hope next week to proceed with some voting on this very important bill. The way I would like to start, just for a few moments, though, is to say the reason our amendment would be necessary and other amendments would be warranted is because the debate will show the publicly stated goals, however laudable--and we have read those goals in the newspaper, we have read them in press releases, we have heard the goals stated by the voucher proponents, that the aim of this is to help children in failing schools, poor children in failing schools have options--this debate will show the bill itself does not actually do that. Even with the Feinstein amendment, the bill does not do that. There is another really puzzling aspect to this. I want to submit something for the record to show why I will say it is puzzling. We received today the Statement of Administration Policy. I would like to read it for the record and then explain why it is confusing. This is the Statement of Administration Policy that was issued today on the DC bill. This policy, not from the House but from the White House, says this: We like the DC bill, basically. I am paraphrasing the first part. The administration looks forward to working with Congress to ensure its priorities and amounts of money are within the overall budget goal. Additional Administration views regarding the Committee's version of the bill are, [No. 1], School Choice Incentive Fund. The Administration is pleased the Committee bill included $13 million for the President's School Choice Incentive Fund. This innovative reform will increase the capacity of the District to provide parents--particularly low-income parents--with more options for obtaining a quality education for their children who are trapped in low- performing schools. The Administration appreciates the Committee's support for strengthening the District's school system and strongly urges the Senate to retain this initiative. The puzzling thing about this is the White House has said they support the Mayor's position. The Mayor was on the floor today. Mayor Williams is one of the most honorable people I know. He is a reformer for public education. But I don't know if the White House realizes that is not the Mayor's position. The Mayor's position is a three-pronged approach: A third for vouchers, a third for charter schools, and a third for improvements to public schools. That is because the Mayor has suggested that vouchers- only is insufficient, and the Mayor has also said some other things about the voucher-only proposal. So I just lay this down. I ask the chairman if perhaps he could get to the bottom of this. I don't know why the White House wouldn't say we understand the Senate bill has three clear sections on this issue. We like all those sections. We ask you to keep them all in the bill. But it doesn't say that. I am going to have this printed in the Record. That is why we are going to have a lot of debate on this, because we have to get clear what the administration is really asking for or advocating. I ask unanimous consent to print the Statement of Administration Policy in the Record.

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, did the Senator know--and I fully appreciate his position and I most certainly understand that even as the powerful chairman he is, he is not able, of course, to make those confirmations. I also know there are powers that can make such arrangements, and the chairman is well aware of that. So we offer this amendment in good faith, recognizing that if there truly is a view or a desire to create a real, accountable pilot for children in failing schools in the District of Columbia that would show definitively whether it works or not in 5 years, that meets the parameters of Leave No Child Behind, that could be something that could be reached. That is what my intention would be. That is not the position of every single member of the Democratic caucus. So as ranking member, I will also represent their position. But at this point, we don't see the possibility of that. I thank the chairman. I understand his position. We look forward to continuing to lay down amendments that will try to improve and perfect this proposal, or eventually to strike the language and try to move on a bill without any reference to the voucher proposal.

Ms. LANDRIEU. I would like to start with the Landrieu-Carper amendment that we will offer at some time, and describe again why it is puzzling that we are having difficulty with the administration and the voucher proponents coming to some agreement. I am going to read the simple text, and without any rhetoric or signs or charts or anything, I am going to read the text of it because it is quite simple. I want the people who are listening--and, of course, there is alot of interest in this--to understand what basically has been rejected. Before I do that, I will give a very brief history of how we got here because it will help to set this debate. Three years ago we were in what I would call a quandary in public education in the Nation. That quandary was this: Our schools were improving but not fast enough. We had a lot of kids who needed help. We really had to do something. There were a group of people who wanted to give up on public schools and go to vouchers and say we can't, we tried, nothing is working, let's go to vouchers. There was a group of people who said no, what we need is just more money, the same thing, pump the money in and more resources will do it. Both proposals were rejected. They were rejected by a broad-based coalition of Democrats and Republicans who rejected both. We said no to vouchers which will undermine public schools; no, vouchers will not work. And, no, just dumping more money in the system, as much needed as the money is, just dumping money is not going to help. We found a third way called Leave No Child Behind which the President himself led. Many of us were proud to work with him to do that. We crossed party lines. Republicans went to the Democratic side. Democrats went to the Republican side. There were great coalitions forged to get that done. Here we are not even 2 years into Leave No Child Behind and there are still grumblings on both sides. You can understand why. The money we promised isn't forthcoming. So people have a legitimate argument. They say: We haven't received the money. I understand. I keep saying: Let us go forth. I know people want vouchers. No matter what we do, they want vouchers. They want them yesterday, today, and tomorrow. That is just what they want. Here we are with Leave No Child Behind. One would think if the administration wanted to prove something, they would try to prove it anywhere in the country--the District, New Orleans, Louisiana, Ohio-- that Leave No Child Behind could work. There is some confusion. From my point of view, I think what would come out of the President's proposal is something like this: I am sorry. We are short of money. I am sorry. We can't fund everything that we thought we could fund, but let me just give enough money to the District of Columbia, which is a city and a symbol, and let me fully fund Leave No Child Behind. Let me double the amount for charter schools. Let me push contracts for public schools. Let me increase tutorial services. Let me have afterschool and let us implement early childhood education. As a person who helped write the bill that laid those principles down, that is what I would fully expect. I would have stood shoulder to shoulder with him, and I would have said with the Mayor's help, with the Congresswoman's help, with the Republicans' help and the Democrats' help, let us show the country what we meant when we passed the bill. They don't believe it. Neither sides believes it. So let us show them what we meant. Instead, we get the same old, tired, worn out, inadequate vouchers--vouchers, vouchers. Mr. Carper, the Senator from Delaware, and I, and others who worked very closely, think we are not hearing correctly. We think this couldn't possibly be. So we tried. The chairman could not have been more gracious. We tried. We think maybe it is something we don't understand. So we tried to talk. The talks aren't going very well. So we think: Let us just put it down in an amendment form and see maybe if we are missing something. This is our amendment. I will read for the Record what the gist of the amendment is because it is very simple. Tomorrow I will have this blown up so when I speak on it next week people can see what it is. This is what we said. Even though you don't want to fund title I in the District, you don't want to double the amount of charter schools, you don't want to have private contracts which the law allows, you don't want to increase tutorial services, you don't want to have afterschool, you don't want to have early childhood, we will just take what the administration thinks--or what the voucher proponents think-- and we will just go back to see if we can make vouchers work. We say: OK. We will do a couple of things. If you will agree that the same children will take the same test because the administration was very strong on tests--they wanted the same test--that took a little work but we finally got the same test. Then they said last year that it is very important for teachers in public schools to have a college education. That was a big deal. We said, yes, at a minimum. They can have alternative certifications but you have to have a college education. Let us have a college education for teachers who would be teaching students using public money to go to private schools. That has been agreed to. Because one of the problems with this debate is that nobody has the research to tell whether it really works or not--we agree with that--we said, let us have a very rigorous evaluation so that after 5 years we would know for sure, I mean for positive. Let me speak for a minute about this. The Milwaukee program has been going on for 13 years. There are 11,000 children in vouchers and there are 89,000 children who aren't in vouchers. The Senators from that State can talk more about the details than I can. But what I do know about it is many studies have been conducted, and there is still no definitive data that I have been able to find--that anybody has been able to find--about whether those children are doing better academically. There is some evidence to suggest that some parents are happier and more satisfied. I acknowledge that. That is very good. I remind this body that we did not start down this road to make parents happy. That is not what the President said. We want parents to be satisfied. We want parents to be satisfied, but that is not the goal. It is desirable. But the goal is a quality education with public accountability because public dollars are being spent. We don't know after 13 years. We said: OK. Let us have an evaluation component. The evaluation component in this bill, to date, is inadequate to, even after 5 years, give us those answers, and we think that is a real problem. This is the most important. All of these are important, but this is really the telling portion of why I think we are at a real standstill and a crossroads. We said in our amendment that you say you want to limit this or you want to help children who are in a trap. That is what this says. I want to read it again. This is the administration's policy. This is for children who are trapped in low-performing schools, which would mean trapped in failing schools. That is what we can do in Leave No Child Behind. We said no more of this. You have to be good. If you are not good and you are a failing school, you need improvement or you have to close and be reconstituted. We said let us limit it to children in failing schools. That is part of our amendment. The word back so far is, no, I am sorry we can't limit this to children in failing schools because we want this to be available to children in all schools. The sixth provision that we asked is to make sure all the civil rights laws which are required in Leave No Child Behind are adhered to. The other side said that wouldn't be a problem. We assumed that would be fine. But it is not in this bill. The other part of our amendment says make sure the scholarship itself--whether it is $7,500 or $3,500 or $1,000--is sufficient to actually get a child by lottery from a failing school into another school. The school can't discriminate. The child gets to go. But that language was rejected. I don't know what the other side is thinking. If a school costs $15,000 and the voucher is only worth $7,500, we can't figure out how that child gets to the school if their voucher is only worth $7,500. We wanted to make sure that the voucher would be received as payment in full so a parent couldn't be told: We would love to take your child into the school but your voucher is only worth $7,500 and we need $15,000. I am sorry. Our private scholarship fund is out of money. We would love to help you, Ms. Jones. We really know that your two sons would do great in our school. We would love to give them vouchers. You can either have a bake sale or raise money from your neighbors or go into your savings account, but we can't put up the other $7,500. Senator Carper and I thought it would be reasonable to say the voucher--no matter where you get the money--has to get the kid in the school. The seventh thing we asked was--because this White House, when we were debating Leave No Child Behind, insisted on yearly progress reports for children in public schools--we would like to craft a way to make sure these 2,000 slots available that we are talking about, where they take the same test that has been agreed to--we would have these yearly progress reports as defined by Leave No Child Behind. The same reports, no difference. No, I am sorry, we can't do that. We cannot have yearly progress reports. So, again, accountability is out the window. And finally, our amendment said, OK, we do not believe this should be a Federal mandate. We are being told by the voucher opponents, that the city wants this; it is the choice of the city. I said, fine, remove the language that makes the money contingent because in committee I asked the Senator handling the bill if he could just state for the record: Does Mayor Williams have a choice? In other words, in order to get any money, does he have to take the voucher money? To get any money, does he have to take vouchers? The answer was yes. I and others strongly opposed forcing any city, anywhere, at any time, being held hostage by voucher opponents that would say: We are happy to give you $40 million; we are glad to give you $20 million; we are glad to give you $8 million; but you have to institute a voucher program. And not just vouchers for children in failing schools, but you must have a voucher program for children in all schools. That proposal will not pass with much Democratic support, let me assure Members. This has been rejected today. Maybe cooler heads will prevail. The Senator from Delaware and I are still open to discussion. Why? I would stay here all night, all next week, all next month, all next year. My children are home; I would like to get home. His children are home. But that is how important this education reform is for this country. It was a hard fought victory and a wonderful victory and a powerful victory. The ink is not even dry and we are talking about undoing it, unraveling it, undermining it. I don't understand it. Senator Carper will talk, and then I will finish with a few more comments about our amendment. I would like Senator Carper to explain from his perspective what our amendment hoped or sought to do.

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Delaware who, as usual, has described beautifully his position and the position which several of us on this side, who are cosponsors of the No Child Left Behind Act, believe in strongly. I would like to add to what he said briefly by referring to what President Bush, 2 years ago in August, as we were preparing for this debate, wisely said: Accountability is an exercise in hope. When we raise student standards, children raise their academic sights. When children are regularly tested, teachers know where and how to improve. When scores are known to parents, parents are empowered to push for change. When accountability for our schools is real, the results for our children are real. This would be part of the Landrieu-Carper amendment that was, in essence, rejected. So it becomes a question, Is it just accountability for taxpayer money when it comes to public schools but not taxpayer money when it goes to private schools? Again, let me say, if we started out on this course with a goal, the only goal being parental satisfaction, we should never have started, because no amount of money in the Treasury will ever make every parent in America happy. It would be a false, foolish journey to that end. That wasn't why we started. We started to say the public money, if spent and managed correctly, could provide a very good education measured by academic performance. And along the way, if we could increase parental satisfaction and taxpayer confidence, that would be the best we could hope for. Yet proponents want to twist that debate, forget the accountability piece, and just keep saying: If parents are happy, we have accomplished our goal. That is not our goal. We want parents to be satisfied, but that is not our goal. Accountability is an exercise in hope. When we raise student standards, children raise their academic sights. When children are regularly tested, teachers know how to improve. When scores are known to parents, parents are empowered to push for change. When accountability for our schools is real, the results for our children are real and the taxpayers get their money's worth. That is what this issue is about. I will close, because my chairman has been very gracious, with a quote from another President, John Kennedy, on a similar subject. I thank, again, my chairman, who has been more than gracious in terms of the time on this, and his staff. The two of us can come to a lot of agreements. It is just other Members, other interests. So we will soldier on. But I just want him to know that he continues to have my greatest respect as we work through this very important debate. Let me close with a quote from a former President on another equally urgent matter to sort of capture my disappointment. I am not angry, but I am disappointed. President Kennedy, many years ago when our Nation was faced with being left behind in the space race, as we are challenged today being left behind in public education, to marshall the forces necessary to achieve the goal at that time, which was to win the race to space and put a man on the Moon, said: We possess all the resources and all the talents necessary. But the facts of the matter are that we have never made the national decisions or marshaled the national resources for such leadership. We have never specified long-range goals on an urgent time schedule, or managed our resources and our time so as to ensure their fulfillment . . . Let it be clear that I am asking the Congress and the country to accept a firm commitment to a new course of action--a course which will last for many years and carry very heavy costs . . . [but] if we were to only go halfway, or reduce our sights in the face of difficulty, it would be better not to go at all. He was right. We didn't go halfway; we didn't go part of the way. We didn't go for 2 years and then say I am sorry, we made a mistake, let's go to another proposal. We stayed the course and, because of that, less than 8 years later, we landed a man on the moon. In June in 1969, 8 years and 1 month after the speech, Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin landed on the moon and Neil Armstrong said, ``One small step for America, one giant leap for mankind.'' Mr. President, I will tell you as firmly--as I represent the people of my State--and as strongly as I can express it, if we would stay the course, we would meet the goal. If we would marshal the resources, we would meet the goal. But this debate, getting us off course, going in a different direction, undermining what we are doing and underfunding what we are doing, will never get us there. That is what this debate is about. I thank the chairman for allowing us to talk tonight. We will proceed with this debate over the course of the next week until we can come to some agreement as to how to proceed. I yield back my time, and I thank the Senator from Ohio.

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I thank the Senator for his comments. He is correct that there have been some improvements made to this section of the bill, but it remains a work still in progress. There are many Members on the Democratic side and some Members on the Republican side who are still not comfortable with the language. There are some who are absolutely opposed to the underlying concept of private school vouchers or scholarships. I thank the chairman for remaining open and working on some amendments and language. That is taking place at this time. We will proceed with the debate later in the afternoon.

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I begin by thanking the chairman for the breadth and depth of those excellent opening remarks, which demonstrate beyond any doubt his commitment to the budget before us and to the plans that it supports. I also acknowledge our strong working relationship and commend him for his leadership on so many important issues for the District and also for the Nation at large. He has gone into great detail about the child welfare issues, which is one of the issues that he has led on not just in the District but in his home State and around the Nation. We have been working together now for almost 3 years, sharing the chairmanship, depending on the majority of this Senate. It has been a joy to work with someone who shares so many of the same goals and objectives. As Senator DeWine has outlined, our bill is small in size but it often carries a powerful punch, because it is a bill that supports a city but also a symbol. It is a city of 500,000 residents but it is a symbol in many ways of this great Nation and home to the Federal Government. Because of that, oftentimes on this bill--and we will experience that over the next couple of days--there will be some rigorous debates about issues surrounding this bill, which is understandable because this is a budget for a city but also a symbol. I hope, as we move through the debate on this bill, that we can provide more light than heat, and I hope colleagues from both sides of the aisle will come to the floor with that in mind. I want to begin my brief opening remarks saying that Senator DeWine and I in many instances share not only the same views about the District, but we also share the same priorities, which makes for a great working relationship and very smooth operations. One of the subjects he and I feel very strongly about is committing to the financial stability of the city. We both recognize the great work the Mayor, the City Council, and Congresswoman Eleanor Holmes Norton have contributed, as have other officials who have the hands-on responsibility for the financial support and operations of the city. I commend them for their work. This is particularly important because this city in just recent history was under the direction of a Control Board, established by this Congress because the city was in a huge deficit position. Mismanagement was rampant and that became necessary. Senator DeWine and I served at the time when that Control Board has been moving out, so it has been an imperative, and our first priority, that the safeguards and guidelines and parameters that keep this city moving in the direction of surplus and strength continue. I am proud to say that we have accomplished that goal in partnership with the city leaders, who get the most credit for keeping their city in a strong financial position. That is so, even with the very difficult times the city has faced, in terms of being a target, in some cases the No. 1 target, of terrorism in the whole Nation. Along those lines, one of my priorities, shared with the leadership as well as the other Members--Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison, Senator Dick Durbin from Illinois--we have put into this bill a $25 million infrastructure investment because we want to be a strong, reliable partner for the financial security of the city. That is on top of the $50 million that was put in last year, which helps one of the major infrastructure challenges of the city, which is to clean up the Anacostia River. We have to remember this region is a region of two rivers, not one. We hear a lot about the Potomac but not a lot about the Anacostia. Both are great and contribute a lot to the health and vitality of the region, and the cleaner these are, for esthetics, for health and recreation, is important. The city cannot do this on its own. It is a regional effort, and we are proud to step up, in the place of a State because there is no State, to serve in that role on the budget, to help them with these great infrastructure needs. I am thankful for the allocation of funds for that effort to the chairman of the Appropriations Committee and the ranking member, Senator Byrd, who has been strongly in favor of this particular undertaking, which will cost hundreds of millions of dollars, to be done over the course of the next couple of years. The next issue on infrastructure, briefly, is one on which we are making some progress. We have budget constraints and we do not have, as much as we would like, unlimited money. We have budget constraints because there is not much money, but wisely the chairman has allocated funds to infrastructure initiatives--parks, recreation, and some help with transportation. Again, transportation is not just a challenge for the District residents, but it is a real challenge for the region. We have at least begun to lay down a small mark for help with transportation. I will get back to why that is so important at the end of these brief remarks. Helping with the financial strength of the city, continuing to improve it, making sure the CFO is supported and his office is independent, streamline the management, and helping keep the city on a strong financial course is something I am proud of and is reflected in this bill. The second important focus--and these are not in terms of priorities because they are all sort of equal, but I wanted to reflect, maybe, perhaps this is one we would agree is the top priority--is security for the Nation's Capital. Again, our bill reflects an ongoing commitment for investments in bioterrorism and investments, last year particularly, in the bill for interoperability for police officers in the District and the Federal agencies, as the District remains the No. 1 target in the Nation. That commitment is also found in this bill. It is an ongoing commitment I share with the chairman. Senator DeWine did a beautiful and thorough job describing the child welfare initiatives in this bill. I will not repeat what he said. I will only say thank you to the Washington Post, particularly, for continuing to bring to light the deficiencies in the child welfare system, to thank my own staff and all the Members who contribute, and to say the District of Columbia is not alone in its struggle with reforming its child welfare system and improving foster care and increasing adoptions and establishing a family court. All cities, all communities, and all States are struggling with those same challenges. Because budgets are tight, when budgets are cut, the first things, of course, that are cut, in many instances, are the services for children and courts and judicial systems that help to support excellent child welfare services in the Nation. We are trying to fight against those budget reductions, adding money to this bill, with accountability, with mandates for new management, and with a new system to try to increase reunifications where possible, so children are not separated endlessly from their families and to give those families support. If that is not possible--and in many instances, as the chairman knows, it is not possible--then to move those children quickly through a caring and loving system that enables those children to get safely into a new family who will raise and nurture and love them, and to minimize the time in foster care. That is not done by waving a magic wand or by rhetoric or by bumper stickers or by slogans. There is no substitute for that kind of work other than just tough slogging in terms of new policies and new investments. No one has done that better than this chairman. I thank him for that. This bill reflects a significant increase, in partnership with the District, working with them, to create a new court system, to create new opportunities in the child welfare system. The fourth area the chairman and I focused a lot of time on, and I think we are making some progress, although it will be the subject of much of the debate on this bill, is in the area of education. I want to say what is in the underlying bill is a significant improvement over the shortsighted and very problematic education initiative that was placed in the House bill on the District of Columbia. What the chairman has laid down is a significant improvement over that shortsighted and problematic initiative which was basically a vouchers-only, take-it-or- leave-it approach by the House, which is going to be rejected pretty unanimously here in the Senate. In its stead, there is a three-sector improvement approach offered by this bill which, in my opinion, still needs some significant work. But, as I said, it is a major improvement over the take-it-or-leave-it, vouchers-or-nothing approach by the House. The three-sector approach, as the chairman has outlined, is an equal amount of money distributed to charter schools, to public schools, and then to private scholarships for low-income children who are struggling. Let me talk about charter schools for a minute and say something on the record. I will get back to this at a later time, when the debate gets underway. There is not a district in this country, not one, not in Ohio, not in Louisiana, not California, not New York, that has made a stronger and better effort for charter schools than the District of Columbia, and that needs to go on the record as this debate starts. There are more children per capita in charter schools in this District than any place in the Nation. With limited resources and with a relatively small jurisdiction, this community is making a superior effort in charter schools. Every one of them is excellent. We know they are trying new things that are important. They don't get enough credit for that. I want the Mayor and Eleanor Holmes Norton, who has been a strong supporter of charter schools and public choice, and Mr. Chavez, members of the DC Council, and members of the school board who have supported this charter school initiative to feel proud of what they have done. They do not get as much credit as they should. Those charter schools provide a real choice and real opportunities. I am proud that in the bill last year Senator DeWine and I helped fund, at the request of many of our colleagues, the first urban boarding school for low-income children in the Nation--the first low- income boarding school for children in the Nation--so they can stay in school Monday through Friday and have an opportunity to go home on weekends, if they choose. Sometimes their home life is not conducive to academic excellence and achievement. With accountability and oversight, we created that school. I am proud to say those children are extremely happy. And some of them were able to go to Greece because of the generosity of the Greek Ambassador. Nothing could thrill me more than to see real progress being made in opening up new educational opportunities for children. The charter school movement is healthy and underway, and it doesn't need our criticism and it doesn't need our undermining; it needs our support. The other leg of that is the investment in public schools. The progress is slower but it is still substantial, as is true of all major cities struggling with this issue throughout the country. But any number of improvements have been made. Later on in the debate, that information will be spread on the Record. But those two legs of the investment are universally supported. There are additional investments. Leave No Child Behind does not meet the full requirements to which the District is entitled, but at least it is a $13 million increase to help the public school system meet the new accountability requirements and excellence that we seek in all of our schools when we are using public funds, and to help support charter schools. The piece on the scholarship program sector, as I said, needs improvement. But because it is a three-sector approach and not just vouchers and take it or leave it, it is far superior to the House provision. With some adjustment, it could potentially receive votes of some Members on the Democratic side and have universal support on the Republican side. We will get to that later in the day. Let me say in closing that the last 2 years have been unprecedented in the amount of discretionary Federal dollars that have gone to this city. Just this year alone, this budget reflects $124 million over the President's request for the District of Columbia. That is a substantial amount. That reflects the confidence that is being built in this Congress in the leadership of this city and the willingness to step out on issues that can help this city be the great city it was intended to be, and it is well on its way to being--across the board, whether it is in health care, transportation, public services, education, et cetera. Nobody deserves more credit as a group than the city leadership collectively. They have done a very good job working together in that regard. I close, however, with a challenge that Senator DeWine and I are faced with this year; that is, the landmark report that this city faces a structural deficit of $400 billion to $401 billion between their revenue capacity and their cost of providing services. This report was done by an objective agency. It was conducted by the GAO at the request of Congresswoman Norton and myself and others to really look at the structural deficit, if there were such a thing as a structural deficit, even though the city is in surplus, even though they are moving in the right direction by streamlining their operations. If you look at the path for the next year or two, there are dark clouds on the horizon. We want to basically know what the reason is for those dark clouds. Is it something that is under the control of the city or the Congress to fix? I will paraphrase the study and will submit it for the Record. While the city could continue to adjust and streamline its practices and make sure that fraud and abuse are taken out of the system, there is in fact a structural imbalance. Even if they did that perfectly--and no city does--they still would have a structural imbalance because their tax base is strained to almost a breaking point. That means their sales taxes are high, their property taxes are high, their fees are high. To continue to go back to the residents of the District and ask them to contribute more would be detrimental to the economic growth and vitality of this city. We have in this bill a marker--basically a $3 million Federal share to contribute to the infrastructure, which is a small but I think substantial marker that the chairman and I are willing to lay down to say we understand there is a structural deficit, that we don't have the money right now to fix it, and that we are not even sure how to fix it nor have the answer but recognize there is one. Hopefully, that will be the subject of future hearings to help the city of Washington be the best city and the symbol for the Nation. Finally, let me summarize. As the chairman said, this bill also includes $172 million for the operation of the DC courts, an $8 million increase over the President's request. We talked about that. There are certain things for which we are directly responsible. One of them is the Court Services and Offender Supervision Agency. I am very proud that the chairman has gotten that ratio down from 40 to 1 to 25 to 1, which will help. I again commend the Washington Post for their excellent series that helped to call our attention to this glaring and terrible problem. It is a tragedy that exists in the District. More work needs to be done. But this bill and what it represents I think is a significant compliment to the city and its leadership. The considerable investment in the future for the residents of the District is something of which our people around the Nation can be proud. I urge our colleagues as we move into the afternoon and the debate regarding education that we attempt to fill this Chamber with light and heat because this issue, the children who depend on our deliberations, their families, and the taxpayers deserve no less. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. Madam President, I understand the schedule has the potential of finishing up on the Interior bill on Tuesday. Does the leadership have options after Tuesday in terms of what appropriations bills we might go to after Tuesday?

Ms. LANDRIEU. I thank the Chair.

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

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, the Senate is expected to consider important legislation that will affect the pensions of millions of Americans and their families during the 108th Congress. In the last Congress we provided greater security to pensions by correcting the accounting abuses that lay at the heart of the Enron and WorldCom bankruptcies-- bankruptcies that caused the employees of these companies to lose their life savings and hurt the investment portfolios of thousands of individual investors. Today, I am introducing legislation to correct a unique problem under ERISA for States with community property laws. The issue came to light in the 1997 Supreme Court decision in the case of Boggs v. Boggs. The Court held that ERISA preempted the application of Louisiana's community property law in the disposition of pension benefits. While the case originated in Louisiana, the holding tears a hole in the fabric of community property laws of seven other States, Texas, New Mexico, California, Arizona, Nevada, Washington, and Idaho. Long before the women's movement, community property laws stood for the basic premise that a marriage is an economic, as well as social, child rearing partnership in which the ownership of property acquired during the marriage is shared equally. The Boggs case involved a husband and wife. The husband began accumulating benefits in a pension plan after they got married. The wife did not have a pension plan, but under the community property law of Louisiana, half of her husband's benefits were hers. The wife died before her husband retired, and before the plan's benefits were subject to distribution. In her will she left her interest in the pension benefits to her husband for the rest of his life, with the remaining interest to her sons for after her husband died. The husband subsequently remarried, retired, and ultimately died, leaving property to his second wife and an interest in his remaining assets to his sons. The sons attempted to enforce their State-law interest in the pension benefits bequeathed to them by their mother against the second wife. The Supreme Court held against the sons, saying that they were not beneficiaries of, nor participants in, the pension plan under ERISA. This holding goes against the fundamental principles of community property. What the Court is saying is that although a husband's 401K plan may contain a million dollars of deferred earnings accumulated during the course of his marriage, if his wife dies before he retires, her interest terminates; she co-owned none of it. The fundamental principle of marriage as an equal partnership under community property is rendered meaningless by this decision. The Boggs ruling will also lead to conflicting results in the disposition of assets at death in community property States. If, instead, the money had been put in an ordinary savings account that is not covered by ERISA, half of it would have been owned by the wife as community property in recognition of her contribution to the marriage. At her death, she would have been free to dispose of the assets as she saw fit. Furthermore, after Boggs, if a couple has both a 401K plan and a savings account, upon the death of the wife the husband gets all of the 401K plan plus half of the savings account; the wife's estate gets only half of the savings account. That is not the equal outcome community property laws seek. The legislation that I am proposing will create a narrow exception within the ERISA preemption provisions to address the circumstances under Boggs. Instead of losing the community property interest in any non-forfeitable accrued pension benefits at death, a spouse will retain that interest and will be able to pass that interest on to his or her heirs. This is not an exceptional change to ERISA. What I am proposing does not affect the joint and survivor annuity required by ERISA nor does it prevent the participant from having the use and enjoyment of the entire retirement asset until his death. It does not place any new burden on the retirement plan administrators. It envisions that upon the death of the participant, the State probate court will apply normal community property principles, taking into account the value of the retirement assets at the time of the participant's death, in distributing the participant's property between the heirs of the participant and the heirs of the predeceased spouse. Furthermore, each community property State will have the freedom to implement the amendment by whatever means the State deems best, including the option not to implement the amendment at all. ERISA already contains exceptions to its preemption provisions. One applies to divorce or other Qualified Domestic Relations Orders. This exception, added to ERISA by the Retirement Equity Act of 1984, allows States to apply their community property laws or equitable division laws to retirement assets when a couple gets divorced. A divorced spouse can retain an interest in the undistributed pension assets of their ex-husband or wife. As it now stands, therefore, ERISA is more favorable to a spouse who divorced the participant before dying, than a spouse who remained married to the participant until death. The Senate should act to reaffirm the principles of community property. My legislation upholds the basic ideal of community property law: that marriage is a partnership that values as equal the contributions of both the husband and the wife. This notion of equality holds true whether one spouse worked and the other stayed at home. I urge my colleagues to pass this legislation. I ask unanimous consent that the text of this bill be printed in the Record.

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I will ask for a vote on this amendment at the appropriate time. I hope the Congress will find a way to fund this program, which saves us from foolishly spending the $8 billion we are already spending, and to support programs such as this that do so much good for the children in our country. I thank the Chair.

Ms. LANDRIEU. I inquire of the Chair the time allotments for this amendment.