Mary Landrieu

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. I send a managers' amendment to the desk and ask unanimous consent it be approved. This is strictly a technical amendment. Any controversial issues have been removed; they are not included. It has been cleared on both sides. I send the amendment to the desk.

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

Ms. LANDRIEU. I move to reconsider the vote, please, and move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Ms. LANDRIEU. At this time the Senator from Virginia should be recognized, according to the unanimous consent agreement.

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I thank you for the recognition. At this time I am prepared to yield a few moments, 5 minutes, to the Senator from Maryland for morning business.

Ms. LANDRIEU. I yield, under the unanimous consent agreement, to Senator Durbin for a response to the Allen amendment.

Ms. LANDRIEU. How much time does the Senator need? Because there are two other Senators who would like to speak.

Ms. LANDRIEU. How about 12 minutes?

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I know the Senator from California is here to speak on the amendment. I think the amendment the Senator from Illinois has offered has a great deal of merit. If we are called to vote on it, we will be happy to vote for this amendment because it points out some of the real problems we are trying to resolve. My question for the Senator from Illinois is, I have some language that I am prepared to offer requesting the GAO to study some of the costs associated not just with the District but for other districts in the Nation that have comparable demographics and size. Will he mind if we discuss the possibility of including this language as we debate his amendment and perhaps decide to vote on it if that will expedite this process and get to a vote more quickly on this bill?

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

Ms. LANDRIEU. Let me try to clarify it. I may be confused about what we are doing. We had committed to a vote on the Hutchison amendment, which is supposed to be at this time. Then I am aware of no other amendment to this bill, and we could move to final passage. I am also aware that Senator Levin had a request for a colloquy about a subject that he is very interested in. I wanted to bring that to the attention of our leader.

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, we are ready to move to final passage. There are no other outstanding amendments that will require a vote. Amendment No. 2113

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I have an amendment by Senator DeWine and myself referencing the need for a GAO report. I ask unanimous consent that it be agreed to at this time.

Ms. LANDRIEU. I thank the Senators from Maryland. I am certainly aware of this wonderful organization and this project and the good work that they do delivering meals to people suffering from terminal illnesses and AIDS. I know that the Senators from Maryland are very concerned about this matter and I will certainly be willing to work with you both to see if we can include this worthy project in conference with the House.

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, let me just say from the outset that I appreciate my colleague's comments. The District of Columbia is the only major city that does not have a meter system in place. The current zone system compromises the integrity of the DC taxicab system. The apparent variance among cab fares to the same destination shows how the current system can be misunderstood and even abused. I deeply appreciate Senator Levin's decision to withhold an amendment at this time based on the mayor's letter. And I certainly understand that Senator Levin will be back with his amendment if meters are not in place, as indicated in Mayor Williams' letter, early next year, and I intend to support Senator Levin's efforts to end the current intolerably confusing situation.

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. Madam President, I want to speak for a moment. The Senator from Washington wants to be recognized. I want to say this: I voted with Senator Sessions on the last amendment he offered on this subject. I actually agreed very strongly with what he said. Many of us on both sides of the aisle voted with him, as he has outlined so beautifully some of the real problems with special education as far as Federal rules and regulations go. We are all well intended. We all want to help these children, but there is a major disagreement and debate about whether the rules are actually helping or hurting. The Senator is absolutely correct that many of our resources are not being devoted to sort of mainstream children because of the complicated rules about special needs and also gifted children. It is a problem and it has to be worked out. I agree with the Senator. My disagreement is that this amendment doesn't actually fix that problem, and it makes it worse, not better, which is why I probably cannot support this exact amendment and why we have tried to work out some compromise between the Senators. I wanted to say that for the record, and I want to also say that in limiting the attorney's fees to $150 an hour, which doesn't seem to many people to be much of a limit--that is quite a lot of money to make, particularly in these times. But the problem the Senator, as an attorney and prosecutor, should know is the real problem is the overall limit of $3,000 per case. So what happens is an attorney basically can only spend 2\1/2\ days. That would allow them to process one or two motions and may not cover them until the end of the case. These are long and complicated and, as he has described, very difficult cases. That is the problem Senator Durbin is trying to raise. So I hope we can resolve it. Maybe the good prosecutor, my colleague from Alabama, would have a suggestion about that to us.

Ms. LANDRIEU. That would be fine, of course, under the consent agreement, because the Senator from Washington State is on the floor and wants to speak not on this amendment but as in morning business. I was just inquiring. The Senator from Alabama is entitled to proceed.

Ms. LANDRIEU. May I inquire how much time the Senator from Alabama might need to speak on this amendment?

Ms. LANDRIEU. Madam President, I yield time, as stated in the unanimous consent agreement, to the Senator from Illinois for a response to this amendment. Then probably, after the Senator from Illinois speaks, the Senator from Alabama would like to speak. And then Senator Murray could be recognized in morning business.

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, if the Senator from Texas will yield for just a moment as she prepares to speak on her amendment, as you know, we have had a lot of consensus in this underlying bill. We have worked very hard through many stages of our committee to bring consensus on some of these issues. There is one issue that is going to require some debate and discussion. I hope between what Senator Hutchison can bring to this debate and Senator Durbin, we might be able to come to some joint resolution. It is unclear at this point if that will happen. This debate is going to move forward. I have to say with all due respect to both Senators, with whom I have visited at length about this issue--so has Senator DeWine--both have genuine concerns for the schoolchildren of the District and the well- being of the school districts. They are both very passionate about these particular views. We were unable to come to a resolution. So this debate will ensue. I would like to speak about a couple of things which are of concern to me as manager of this bill and as the appropriations chair for the committee. It is very disconcerting that we cannot get the kind of information from the District, or the CFO, or the school board, or any other financial entity to give us the details of outstanding judgments--how much they are, how many there are, and that kind of information. We are not able to verify some of the information that was sent to us, which itself is a problem to me not only as manager of the bill but as chair of this committee. I hope we will be respectful of that issue as we debate whether it is appropriate to have caps for attorneys representing children and families with special needs--whether or not it is appropriate to have caps based on the data. But if people are looking to us or to the staff for some specifics, we have tried our best. It is a real problem, when we don't have this information, to be able to explain to people for the benefit of debate how much the judgments are that are outstanding, how many there are, what moneys we may be saving, what moneys we may be spending, and what the interest rates are. It would be very pertinent in trying to resolve this issue. I say to the Senator from Texas and to the Senator from Illinois that we cannot really trust the documents we have. We will just do the best we can. I appreciate the Senators feeling so strongly about their respective positions and hope the outcome will be something that will serve the children of the District, their parents, the school system, and the taxpayers in the fairest manner possible.

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I move the Allen amendment be tabled, and I ask for the yeas and nays.

Ms. LANDRIEU. Again, I ask the Senator from Illinois for any closing remarks he might add.

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Ms. LANDRIEU. I yield time to the Senator from Rhode Island.