Mary Landrieu

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, when Winston Churchill addressed the student body at Westminister College in 1946, he declared to the United States that ``with primacy of power is also joined an awe-inspiring accountability to the future . . . you must not only feel the sense of duty done, but also the anxiety lest you fall below that level of achievement.'' Over the course of the cold war, we did not fail in our duty, nor should we in the new century. In the same speech he laid before the whole world the rhetoric that would define the cold war. In describing the Sphere of Soviet dominance in Eastern Europe, Mr. Churchill described an Iron Curtain which the ancient capitals of Warsaw, Prague, and Budapest were held. With the fall of communism in the early part of the last decade, the United States has had to re-shape its review of Eastern Europe. No longer do we view the countries of Poland, the Czech Republic, or Hungary as isolated adversaries, but as partners in the very alliance that carried us through the cold war. In the same way that we have looked to reforming our relationship with the countries of the old Warsaw Pact we must find new ways to view Russia. It is difficult to fathom that in the 21st century we view Russia as a declared ally on the world stage while maintaining a nuclear posture at home which treats her as an enemy. It is time that we transform our nuclear doctrine from one that reflects the thinking of the cold war to one that fits in the context of the 21st century and addresses what is perhaps the greatest threat to our security. When President Bush met with Mr. Putin a few weeks ago, he expressed that the United States and Russia can find a ``common position'' on a ``new strategic framework''. President Bush declared that the two countries are friends and that it is time for the U.S. and Russia to act that way. In context of this historic meeting, it is time that we ``work together to address the world as it is, not as it used to be, it is important that we not only talk differently, we must also act differently.'' I rise today to introduce legislation that would direct the President to seek in his own words: `` . . . a broad strategy of active non- proliferation . . . to deny weapons of terror from those seeking to acquire them . . . and to work with allies and friends who wish to join us to defend against the harm they, WMD can inflict'' The Nuclear threat Reduction Act of 2001, NTRA, would make it the policy of the United States to reduce the number of nuclear warheads and delivery systems held by the U.S. and Russia through bilateral agreements. These reductions should fall to the lowest possible number consistent with national security. It would enable the President to reduce our nuclear stockpile while negotiating such reductions with the Russians that are transparent, predictable and verifiable. To do such a thing would be a mark of principled leadership. It would acknowledge that it is no longer necessary to maintain large stockpiles of nuclear arms by the United States and Russia and that to continue to do so would be unacceptable. On May 23,2000 President Bush stated ``The premises of cold war targeting should no longer dictate the size of our arsenal.'' I could not agree with the President more. The current level of nuclear weapons maintained by the United States comes at a great cost to ourselves financially and poses a significant threat to our security. The level of nuclear protection that we maintain forces the Russians to keep a similarly robust force which they cannot afford. The crumbling infrastructure of the Russian Military continually raises the risk of accidental launch or greater proliferation. Indeed, the legislation being considered today would ensure that once parts of the Russian arsenal are dismantled, they will be kept safe, they will be accounted for, and they will eventually be destroyed. The savings from reducing our nuclear arsenal are substantial. A recent CBO report estimated that $1.67 billion could be saved by retiring 50 MX Peacekeeper missiles by 2003. We could use this money to address shortfalls in our conventional capabilities. Additionally, we can devote more funds to meeting the asymmetrical threats that will face us in the future. To invest in deterrents to cyberwarfare and to augment spending on homeland defense would be the best way to transform our thinking and spending from the Cold War to the twenty-first century. In addition to this, the Nuclear Threat Reduction Act would encourage the U.S. and Russia to take their systems off of high-alert status. In the context of the cold war, such a strategy was necessary to ensure our security, but it no longer applies to present conditions. The Nuclear Threat Reduction Act would also embolden existing Department of State, Energy, and Defense programs that seek to contain existing nuclear weapons material and expertise in Russia. The economic situation in Russia makes it more and more likely that a rouge state will acquire the means to manufacture nuclear weapons. This could come through the distribution of nuclear material or the exodus of Russian scientists. Our former colleague Sen Nunn put it best when he said ``We dare not risk a world where a Russian scientist can take care of his children by endangering ours.'' The cost to the United States is minuscule compared to the threat of nuclear proliferation. Work on this serious issue has already been addressed by the Nunn-Lugar bill, but it is time that we further our efforts. In January of this year, a task force headed by Howard Baker and Lloyd Cutler issued a report calling the proliferation of the Russian nuclear stockpile ``The most serious threat to national security we face today''. The Baker-Cutler Task Force strongly endorsed existing non-proliferation programs and suggested that their goals could be achieved in 8-10 years if they are fully funded. Increased support for these programs will certainly bring them more in line with the immediacy and scope of the dangers that they address. The NTRA requires the President to formulate and submit to Congress a strategic plan to secure and neutralize Russia's nuclear weapons and weapons-usable materials over the next eight years. The plan would have to include the administrative and organizational reforms necessary to provide effective coordination of these programs and to reflect the priority that the President attaches to them. The President himself has advocated such a strategy and I call on him to implement it. Finally, the NTRA requires the President to submit a report to Congress on the feasibility of establishing a ``debt for security'' program with Russia. Under this concept, a portion of Russia's debts to various major powers would be forgiven in exchange for a Russian commitment to devoting those funds to non-proliferation activities. If successful, such a program could significantly help Russia's secure, account for, and neutralize its weapons materials. In closing, The Nuclear Reduction Act of 2001 would help us fulfill the duty that comes with being the world's last remaining super power. By preventing the spread of nuclear materials and technology, reducing the nuclear stockpiles of the United States and Russia, and by taking our missiles off of high-alert status, we can fulfill that duty. I ask the other Members of the Senate to join me in support of this measure.

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, when Winston Churchill addressed the student body at Westminister College in 1946, he declared to the United States that ``with primacy of power is also joined an awe-inspiring accountability to the future . . . you must not only feel the sense of duty done, but also the anxiety lest you fall below that level of achievement.'' Over the course of the cold war, we did not fail in our duty, nor should we in the new century. In the same speech he laid before the whole world the rhetoric that would define the cold war. In describing the Sphere of Soviet dominance in Eastern Europe, Mr. Churchill described an Iron Curtain which the ancient capitals of Warsaw, Prague, and Budapest were held. With the fall of communism in the early part of the last decade, the United States has had to re-shape its review of Eastern Europe. No longer do we view the countries of Poland, the Czech Republic, or Hungary as isolated adversaries, but as partners in the very alliance that carried us through the cold war. In the same way that we have looked to reforming our relationship with the countries of the old Warsaw Pact we must find new ways to view Russia. It is difficult to fathom that in the 21st century we view Russia as a declared ally on the world stage while maintaining a nuclear posture at home which treats her as an enemy. It is time that we transform our nuclear doctrine from one that reflects the thinking of the cold war to one that fits in the context of the 21st century and addresses what is perhaps the greatest threat to our security. When President Bush met with Mr. Putin a few weeks ago, he expressed that the United States and Russia can find a ``common position'' on a ``new strategic framework''. President Bush declared that the two countries are friends and that it is time for the U.S. and Russia to act that way. In context of this historic meeting, it is time that we ``work together to address the world as it is, not as it used to be, it is important that we not only talk differently, we must also act differently.'' I rise today to introduce legislation that would direct the President to seek in his own words: `` . . . a broad strategy of active non- proliferation . . . to deny weapons of terror from those seeking to acquire them . . . and to work with allies and friends who wish to join us to defend against the harm they, WMD can inflict'' The Nuclear threat Reduction Act of 2001, NTRA, would make it the policy of the United States to reduce the number of nuclear warheads and delivery systems held by the U.S. and Russia through bilateral agreements. These reductions should fall to the lowest possible number consistent with national security. It would enable the President to reduce our nuclear stockpile while negotiating such reductions with the Russians that are transparent, predictable and verifiable. To do such a thing would be a mark of principled leadership. It would acknowledge that it is no longer necessary to maintain large stockpiles of nuclear arms by the United States and Russia and that to continue to do so would be unacceptable. On May 23,2000 President Bush stated ``The premises of cold war targeting should no longer dictate the size of our arsenal.'' I could not agree with the President more. The current level of nuclear weapons maintained by the United States comes at a great cost to ourselves financially and poses a significant threat to our security. The level of nuclear protection that we maintain forces the Russians to keep a similarly robust force which they cannot afford. The crumbling infrastructure of the Russian Military continually raises the risk of accidental launch or greater proliferation. Indeed, the legislation being considered today would ensure that once parts of the Russian arsenal are dismantled, they will be kept safe, they will be accounted for, and they will eventually be destroyed. The savings from reducing our nuclear arsenal are substantial. A recent CBO report estimated that $1.67 billion could be saved by retiring 50 MX Peacekeeper missiles by 2003. We could use this money to address shortfalls in our conventional capabilities. Additionally, we can devote more funds to meeting the asymmetrical threats that will face us in the future. To invest in deterrents to cyberwarfare and to augment spending on homeland defense would be the best way to transform our thinking and spending from the Cold War to the twenty-first century. In addition to this, the Nuclear Threat Reduction Act would encourage the U.S. and Russia to take their systems off of high-alert status. In the context of the cold war, such a strategy was necessary to ensure our security, but it no longer applies to present conditions. The Nuclear Threat Reduction Act would also embolden existing Department of State, Energy, and Defense programs that seek to contain existing nuclear weapons material and expertise in Russia. The economic situation in Russia makes it more and more likely that a rouge state will acquire the means to manufacture nuclear weapons. This could come through the distribution of nuclear material or the exodus of Russian scientists. Our former colleague Sen Nunn put it best when he said ``We dare not risk a world where a Russian scientist can take care of his children by endangering ours.'' The cost to the United States is minuscule compared to the threat of nuclear proliferation. Work on this serious issue has already been addressed by the Nunn-Lugar bill, but it is time that we further our efforts. In January of this year, a task force headed by Howard Baker and Lloyd Cutler issued a report calling the proliferation of the Russian nuclear stockpile ``The most serious threat to national security we face today''. The Baker-Cutler Task Force strongly endorsed existing non-proliferation programs and suggested that their goals could be achieved in 8-10 years if they are fully funded. Increased support for these programs will certainly bring them more in line with the immediacy and scope of the dangers that they address. The NTRA requires the President to formulate and submit to Congress a strategic plan to secure and neutralize Russia's nuclear weapons and weapons-usable materials over the next eight years. The plan would have to include the administrative and organizational reforms necessary to provide effective coordination of these programs and to reflect the priority that the President attaches to them. The President himself has advocated such a strategy and I call on him to implement it. Finally, the NTRA requires the President to submit a report to Congress on the feasibility of establishing a ``debt for security'' program with Russia. Under this concept, a portion of Russia's debts to various major powers would be forgiven in exchange for a Russian commitment to devoting those funds to non-proliferation activities. If successful, such a program could significantly help Russia's secure, account for, and neutralize its weapons materials. In closing, The Nuclear Reduction Act of 2001 would help us fulfill the duty that comes with being the world's last remaining super power. By preventing the spread of nuclear materials and technology, reducing the nuclear stockpiles of the United States and Russia, and by taking our missiles off of high-alert status, we can fulfill that duty. I ask the other Members of the Senate to join me in support of this measure.

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Military Spouse Physician Choice Act of 2001 with my distinguished colleague, the junior Senator from Maine. This legislation amends the Civilian Health and Medical Program of the Uniformed Services, CHAMPUS, to restore equity to the families of our servicemembers. Simply put, this bill would delete the requirement for a servicemember's spouse to obtain a non-availability statement from the commanding officer of the nearest military treatment facility in order to receive maternity care from a civilian doctor. Under current legislation, military dependents choosing to enroll and pay for TRICARE Standard, the program in which enrollees accept higher co-payments in exchange for the option of choosing their own doctors, are still required to obtain a military non-availability statement before seeing their choice of civilian physician. This practice continues despite the fact they are already paying for just that option. Our bill eliminates the requirement for maternity patients enrolled in TRICARE Standard to get that non-availability statement before being seen by the civilian physician of their choice for all maternity care throughout the pregnancy. I am committed to the quality of life of the men and women in uniform who sacrifice to serve their Nation. All too often we forget that families and their treatment are key to the quality of life and retention of those servicemenbers. Our military and their families deserve better treatment than what they receive today. If they choose to accept the higher costs of TRICARE Standard in exchange for greater control over their healthcare choices, then they should have that control over all healthcare choices. Pregnancy should not force a spouse to get permission from the military to receive her prenatal, delivery, and postnatal care from the same doctor who she paid to see prior to the pregnancy. Anything less is fundamentally unfair and is something none of us would accept from any medical plan in the civilian community. This body has worked hard to improve military healthcare for our servicemembers, their families and retirees. With the creation of TRICARE, we gave them control over their medical treatment by allowing them to pay additional costs out of pocket in exchange for greater flexibility, the same choice anyone outside of the military has the opportunity to make. If we want to continue to recruit and retain the best and brightest people our Nation has, we owe them equitable treatment. Any other course is a disservice to them and disrespectful of the choices and financial commitments they have made to the military healthcare system. I urge my colleagues to support this bill and send a message to our military: You and your families will be treated fairly and with respect when making healthcare decisions. The Military Coalition representing more than 5.5 million servicemembers and their families supports this legislation. So does The Retired Officers' Association, TROA. Fellow members of the Senate, support of this bill should be common sense for all of us. This bill should pass unanimously because it does what is right, what is fair, and keeps faith with our military. I am proud to cosponsor this legislation with Senator Collins and urge all of you to join us in supporting the Military Spouse Physician Choice Act.

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Military Spouse Physician Choice Act of 2001 with my distinguished colleague, the junior Senator from Maine. This legislation amends the Civilian Health and Medical Program of the Uniformed Services, CHAMPUS, to restore equity to the families of our servicemembers. Simply put, this bill would delete the requirement for a servicemember's spouse to obtain a non-availability statement from the commanding officer of the nearest military treatment facility in order to receive maternity care from a civilian doctor. Under current legislation, military dependents choosing to enroll and pay for TRICARE Standard, the program in which enrollees accept higher co-payments in exchange for the option of choosing their own doctors, are still required to obtain a military non-availability statement before seeing their choice of civilian physician. This practice continues despite the fact they are already paying for just that option. Our bill eliminates the requirement for maternity patients enrolled in TRICARE Standard to get that non-availability statement before being seen by the civilian physician of their choice for all maternity care throughout the pregnancy. I am committed to the quality of life of the men and women in uniform who sacrifice to serve their Nation. All too often we forget that families and their treatment are key to the quality of life and retention of those servicemenbers. Our military and their families deserve better treatment than what they receive today. If they choose to accept the higher costs of TRICARE Standard in exchange for greater control over their healthcare choices, then they should have that control over all healthcare choices. Pregnancy should not force a spouse to get permission from the military to receive her prenatal, delivery, and postnatal care from the same doctor who she paid to see prior to the pregnancy. Anything less is fundamentally unfair and is something none of us would accept from any medical plan in the civilian community. This body has worked hard to improve military healthcare for our servicemembers, their families and retirees. With the creation of TRICARE, we gave them control over their medical treatment by allowing them to pay additional costs out of pocket in exchange for greater flexibility, the same choice anyone outside of the military has the opportunity to make. If we want to continue to recruit and retain the best and brightest people our Nation has, we owe them equitable treatment. Any other course is a disservice to them and disrespectful of the choices and financial commitments they have made to the military healthcare system. I urge my colleagues to support this bill and send a message to our military: You and your families will be treated fairly and with respect when making healthcare decisions. The Military Coalition representing more than 5.5 million servicemembers and their families supports this legislation. So does The Retired Officers' Association, TROA. Fellow members of the Senate, support of this bill should be common sense for all of us. This bill should pass unanimously because it does what is right, what is fair, and keeps faith with our military. I am proud to cosponsor this legislation with Senator Collins and urge all of you to join us in supporting the Military Spouse Physician Choice Act.

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. Reserving the right to object, Madam President.

Ms. LANDRIEU. Prior to Senator Byrd.

Ms. LANDRIEU. May I inquire if we could amend the consent request, if Senator Byrd would allow me to be recognized for 30 seconds prior to his statement?

Ms. LANDRIEU. Madam President, on rollcall vote 189, I voted yea. It was my intention to vote nay. Therefore, I ask unanimous consent I be permitted to change the vote since it will not affect the outcome.

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. Madam President, the amendment that I offer today is similar in some ways to the amendment I offered and we adopted 2 days ago. With an overwhelming and bipartisan show of support, we again made a commitment to better target the somewhat scarce education resources offered by the Federal Government under this bill--I use the word scarce judiciously; to some it is an awful lot of money, but to others, relative to what we need, it is not enough towards the communities with the greatest need. Whatever moneys we are able to place, I believe, and many of my colleagues on the Republican and Democratic side and, to his credit, President Bush must be targeted toward helping the children and the schools that need the most help. Particularly when, as Senator Kennedy has so eloquently expressed many times on the floor, this is really a new day for education from the Federal Government. We are initiating sweeping reforms, not mandating local governments but supporting them in their efforts to reform their schools, to increase standards, to implement accountability. We must work with the states and locals in partnership, to help fulfill our promise to leave no child behind. This amendment would target more tightly title II dollars. On Monday, 57 Members of this body helped us to target the title I dollars, the largest title of the elementary and secondary education bill. There are seven general titles in the BEST bill. Title I has always been the largest Federal title. Some would argue the most important. Yet, when you are talking about providing an quality education, it is hard to argue that a Title which is focused on quality teachers is any less important. In my mind and in the minds of many in the Senate, there really is no more important element of an education than a good, qualified teacher. William Arthur Ward once said: The mediocre teacher tells; the good teacher explains. The superior teacher demonstrates; the great teacher inspires. We need a lot more great teachers in America. We have many, but we need more. No doubt there is a crisis in our Nation today. From the East Coast to the West Coast, from the North to the South, from California, to Louisiana, to New Hampshire, to Illinois, communities are faced with a struggle to find qualified people to teach their children. Every major newspaper and magazine in our Nation has covered this story--not on the back page, not on the middle page, but on the cover page. Here is an excerpt from Newsweek published earlier this fall. ``Who Will Teach Our Kids?'' That is the question parents are asking. ``What Schools And Parents Can Do. Half Of All Teachers Will Retire By The Year 2010.'' The picture is of a child waiting for a teacher and these subtitles only scratch the surface of the real crisis facing us today. Let me read briefly from a story that says ``Teachers Wanted.'' I noticed this because Frank, my husband, and I have our 9-year-old Connor in school here. He finished third grade this year. One of the joys of my day is to know every day that Connor is in a school with a wonderful teacher-- Holly Garland, and that he is being well educated in a school that is safe. I can come to work in the Senate and do my job. My husband can go do his job because we have that security. But that is not the case of a family from Georgia. Their names are Jill and Larry Jackson of Conyers, GA. The article says: It should have been a season of hopeful beginnings, but for Jill and Larry Jackson of Conyers, Ga., the opening of school this fall has meant only anger and frustration. Their 11- year-old son, Nicholas-- Only 2 years older than Connor-- is in a sixth-grade special-ed class taught by an assistant and a substitute. The regular teacher quit after three weeks of school, and the class of 13 is out of control. ``We can move Nicholas to a special-ed class in another school that has just five kids,'' says Jill, ``but the teacher is leaving in December. I phoned the district, and they told me that they have five special-ed positions to fill. And I asked them if they think they'll have a certified special-ed teacher in that class by December, and they said: `That's the least of our problems right now.' '' Jill, the mother, much as I am with my children, said: ``Well, it's the biggest problem in my life right now.'' To millions of parents, from Massachusetts to New Hampshire to Louisiana to Mississippi, the biggest problem in their lives is their kids, 90 percent of whom are in the public schools of this Nation. They send them to schools and classrooms without certified teachers, without any teachers, with substitute teachers, teachers who come in and out of the classroom every few weeks. How is it possible for a child to begin to learn when the teacher doesn't even know a child's name? This is a parent's worst nightmare. My amendment does not attempt to fix this terrible situation because I am not certain any amendment could actually deal with a problem this large. It is so large and so tough. What my amendment does is say, we know we have a problem; we need to set goals and strategies for fixing that problem; and most importantly, we must provide the resources to address the problem. In short, my amendment attempts to move what money we have into the areas and to the schools that need the most help. This bill requires that all schools with 50% or more of their children in poverty must have all highly qualified teachers by 2005. What would that mean to states? Let me cite some statistics that were actually shocking to me, and hopefully they will be to the Members of the Senate. Let me start with some examples of some States right now that are in pretty good shape. I will cite three or four. Connecticut has a total of 1,069 schools. Yet only 189 of those schools are 50 percent poverty. So out of over 1,000 schools, they have fewer than 200 schools in the whole State that have 50 percent of poverty or more. To meet the requirements under this bill, 6,670 in Connecticut's poorest schools would have to be highly qualified by 2005. That is a manageable amount. Connecticut is in pretty good shape because under the bill, it is going to have to make sure that these 189 schools have the resources to meet this requirement. Based on what I know about the resources in Connecticut and the great work of Senator Dodd and Senator Lieberman and other elected officials in that State, I have no doubt that with the extra muscle they can probably manage to find 6,000 highly qualified teachers in 3 years. Let me share the good news about another State, New Hampshire. It has 516 schools. Only 7 in the whole State of New Hampshire--it is a small State--have a poverty rate of 50 percent. That means that they have three years to make sure that the 103 teachers who currently teach in those schools are highly qualified. Again, I am confident that with the good work of the Senators here from New Hampshire and their Governor, Jean Shaheen, and their elected officials , they can find the 103 teachers qualified, get them in those classrooms, and meet the goals of this bill. Let me give you one other example of a State in pretty good shape. It is a larger State, and people might not expect that a large State such as New Jersey would be in good shape, but they are. They have 2,317 schools. Only 400 of those schools have 50 percent poverty rates or greater. They must ensure that 16,000 teachers are highly qualified. Sixteen thousand is a lot, but New Jersey is a big State with a lot of resources. There is substantial wealth in New Jersey. Lots of corporations are there. Their property taxes are pretty high. If they would distribute them a little more evenly, which they are probably in the process of doing, they can perhaps find 16,000 teachers in 3 years. Let me tell you a sad story. Let me talk to you about 3 States. As you may expect, one of them is Louisiana. One of them is Mississippi. And the third is Texas. Let me talk about Louisiana for just a minute. We have--Senator Breaux and I--in our State 1,500 schools. Of the 1,500 schools, 1,013 have more than 50 percent of the children in those schools in poverty. Let me repeat that. We have 1,500 schools in Louisiana. Out of that number, we have 1,013 schools that have 50 percent of poverty, or higher. That means we would have to find 30,000 highly qualified teachers for these classrooms. There are only 49,000 full time teachers in the whole state, so we would have 3 years to make sure that 3 out of every 5 teachers meet the qualification requirements outlined in this bill. I don't know how, if we worked 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, between now and the deadline which is in this bill, with the limited resources we have, if we could meet that deadline. Let me go into a little bit more detail about Louisiana. I want to show you what the challenge is. I think Senator Kennedy and Senator Gregg, who are very knowledgeable about this, must certainly understand this challenge. In Louisiana, every year we have 8,000 students enrolled in colleges and universities. The students who graduate are 1,600 every year. We will lose 160 in the test because the tests for teachers will weed out some who are not ready and qualified. That is most important. So we will graduate with degrees 1,440. These are last year's statistics. And 33 percent of these, which the taxpayers in Louisiana paid taxes-- income taxes, sales taxes, fees, license taxes--to educate will leave our State. For the most part, they will leave Louisiana because almost every State around us has higher salaries. So we will lose 33 percent of those teachers who come out, leaving us basically with 964 teachers. These teachers will start, and in 5 years 30 percent of them will leave the system, leaving us--out of this graduating class of 1,600--675. This is not right. This is not efficient. This is a waste of taxpayer dollars. Most important, it is what is contributing to the crisis of us trying to get good teachers in our classrooms. Now a lot of things can be done.

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

Ms. LANDRIEU. Madam President, I call up amendment No. 474.

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I yield myself 10 minutes to complete. I ask unanimous consent that I may do that.

Ms. LANDRIEU. I appreciate the extra time. What's more, 66% of the teachers in Louisiana have bachelors degrees. Only 13 of our teachers were Nationally Board Certified in the year 2000. And over 15% of those teaching in our state have not successfully completed their certification. This is true of Louisiana, but it is going to be true in almost every State you look at. The numbers of people choosing to teach are just not there to meet the requirements. So lots of things can be done. This bill encourages alternative certification, being creative, getting retirees who have had a successful first career into the schools. For instance, a great program Troops to Teachers, which uses our military to fill these slots. We can no longer rely on 18-, 19-, 20-year-olds. We must broaden our thinking. There are positive things that can be done, and there are success stories, but they are not free. I contend today, and I will continue to fight in this debate, that there are simply not enough resources at the local and Federal levels to meet the new demands of this bill and to give a promise to our parents and students that they will be taught by a qualified, good teacher. Let me share some facts about Mississippi. Mississippi is a State that is in a very tough situation. Mississippi has 874 schools. Of the 874 schools, 700 have 50 percent of poverty--students from households represented by an income that hits the poverty level. They need 23,274 highly qualified teachers. Under this bill, they are going to have 3 years to find 23,274 teachers. Mississippi and Louisiana need help. That is what this amendment is about. It is about saying whatever dollars we can muster, whatever we can scratch out of this budget to make an investment in this Nation's future and our kids, let's get it to the States and the children who have been without qualified teachers for too long. We have examples throughout our history of that special teacher with that special touch who can work miracles for a child, any child, regardless of their race or family income. Let's help get teachers to Louisiana and Mississippi. Let me end with Texas. Texas is a big State, and they have a big problem because they have 7,228 schools. Of those schools, 3,190 have student populations with 50 percent of poverty or more. They need a whopping 107,779 qualified teachers in 3 years. Louisiana, Texas, and Mississippi are examples of States that do not have the same resources other States might have, particularly Mississippi and Louisiana. This amendment is an attempt to bring the resources that will support this reform, that will help meet the goals of this new education bill to the States and to the areas that could use the most help. Some people on the other side have said this is a local issue. This might be where the local issue in terms of decisions are made, but if this Federal Government does not step up to the plate and provide some additional resources to help parishes in Louisiana, such as Red River, Orleans Parish, St. Martin Parish, and Iberia Parish and even Jefferson Parish, they cannot reach their full potential. If we do not step up to the plate, they will never be able to find the thousands of qualified teachers with creativity, with a new approach to education because there are so many barriers. I thank my colleagues for their attention to the issue of targeting federal resources to our areas of greatest need. It is a very important and fundamental principle of this bill. We have set new high standards. We have left the control at the local level. We have given local governments, as you did, Mr. President, when you were Governor of your wonderful State of Delaware, more resources with which to work, but those resources are not adequate. I hope as this moves forward that we can increase our investment in our children's education so that the family I referred to in Georgia or my family or any other family does not have to live through the nightmare of having high hopes for a child, sending them off to school only to be in a classroom out of control because we have not provided the resources and the parameters necessary to succeed. Today, research is confirming what common sense has suggested all along. A skilled and knowledgeable teacher can make an enormous difference in how well students learn. Is the home environment important? Absolutely. Can children learn without their parents or a parent or a grandparent or a guardian encouraging them? No. But can a good teacher make a difference? Absolutely. Again to quote: The mediocre teacher tells. The good teacher explains. The superior teacher demonstrates. But the great teacher inspires. We have a nation that was built on hope and inspiration. Our Nation was founded on the belief that tomorrow could be a better day; that men and women would live in liberty and that value is taught through our school system. If we do not commit the resources to help our teachers do the job, if we do not find ways to get more and better teachers in the classroom, we have not only failed our schools, we have failed our country. I am pleased to say I understand it is going to be accepted. Again, I wish it was broader in its scope because we need to do more, but this amendment targeting our resources will help. I will be back many times to speak about this subject. I thank you, and I believe my time has expired.

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I rise today to speak briefly in support of the McGovern-Dole International Food for Education and Child Nutrition Act of 2001. I am proud to join Senators Harkin, Durbin, and Leahy, who were instrumental in the introduction of this bill, as well as my other colleagues who are co-sponsors. Additionally, I would like to acknowledge the efforts of two former members of this body, Senators George McGovern and Bob Dole, who worked tirelessly to initiate this program decades ago. As many of my colleagues well know, almost 300 million children in this world go hungry on a daily basis. Can you imagine that--300 million children? The number is staggering--almost five percent of the world's population; more than the population of our entire country. Think of it--if everyone, every person that we know, every man, woman and child in the United States, did not get enough to eat. If that were the case, I would imagine that we in this chamber would not hesitate to take action and remedy the situation. That is what this bill attempts to do; it is merely a first step, an important step for these hundreds of millions of children who are going hungry around the world. We must ensure that every child, no matter where they live, no matter what their income level, receives at least one nutritious meal per day. One meal per day, for every child in the world. As little as that may seem to those of us here, it could mean the difference between life and death for many of these children. I make sure that my son and daughter get three nutritious meals a day; I am sure that all of my colleagues do the same for their children. It is not too much to ask that we provide just one meal for these hungry children all over the world. But this is not just about meals; as noble a goal as that is, this is also about education. Of these 300 million children, almost half are not in school. What we are trying to do is encourage these children to attend school by helping their schools feed them when they are there. As George McGovern himself said, ``The school lunch brings children to school; education lowers the birthrate, increases personal income, and provides a market for surplus farm commodities.''; So it not just a meal we are helping to provide for these children; it is an education. Finally, for some who may say this is a handout, it is not. This program is designed to help developing countries set up their own school lunch programs, so that one day they can take full responsibility for feeding their students. In other words, this is not a handout, but a hand up. There is an old saying that if you give a man a fish, he eats for a day; if you teach him to fish, he eats for a lifetime. We are trying to teach these countries how to fish, by providing them the means to do so. I hope that my colleagues will come together in support of this critical legislation, and we in Congress can approve this bill quickly and send it to the President for his signature.

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. How many minutes remain?

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, is the amendment at the desk?

Ms. LANDRIEU. I yield 5 minutes to Senator Lieberman.

Ms. LANDRIEU. And 10 minutes to the Senator from Delaware following that.

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, in closing, I again thank Senators Kennedy, Frist, DeWine, Lieberman, Carper, and others, for the bipartisan support of this important amendment to a very important bill. We have spent 2 hours speaking about the history of title I, the good intentions in the way it was originally crafted, but how over time, for understandable reasons, it has been diluted and is no longer effective, particularly to try to meet the challenges this new piece of legislation, this reform piece of legislation, will present. We have talked about the success stories of title I--that when it is properly directed, it can work because it can reduce class size, extend school time, support students in their learning, providing the help in the classroom where these children need it the most. Let me use 30 seconds in my closing to dispel something that some Members have a question about. The question is, Will my State lose money? The answer is no. In this amendment, there is a hold harmless provision. No State will lose money. For the record, let me say Iowa moves from $53 million to $69 million, based on a $3.7 billion investment; Connecticut will move from $82 million to $108 million; Delaware will go from $22 million to $31 million; Massachusetts will go from $177 million to $215 million; Ohio goes from $298 million to $412 million; Louisiana, my home State, goes from $187 million to $279 million. But no State loses money. Let me say that title I should be about funding children. It should be about giving children a chance, being a partner with children. Whether they live in rural or urban areas, they are poor; they don't live in districts with large companies and a big tax base. If we don't help, no one will. This amendment is the right thing to do. I ask for a good vote on this amendment.

Ms. LANDRIEU. I ask for a vote on our amendment. We had a good 2-hour discussion about targeting the funds. As I said in my presentation, no State will lose money. There is a hold harmless provision in this amendment. Every State will gain money. Most importantly, this amendment is there for every child who needs a helping hand, every child who needs the Federal Government to be a partner, so we can make sure these children meet their requirements. That is what this amendment does.

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

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I want to acknowledge before I begin the fine work my colleague from Massachusetts has done on this bill and on education in general. His leadership in this area has been extraordinary and breathtaking in terms of the energy and enthusiasm he puts forward year after year on this issue. I join with him in thanking our colleague, Senator Bond, for offering his amendment that will help to provide some of the resources for early childhood education. I also join with Senator Kennedy in suggesting it would be a very wise expenditure of our dollars to move them at the very early end when children are so impressionable, young children, particularly between the ages of 0-3, helping them to come into this world healthy, helping their parents or their one parent to be as responsible, caring, loving, and nurturing as possible so that family unit gets off to a very good start. As a parent--and you know this as a parent, Mr. President--I believe all parents want to be good parents. I really believe that. I believe all of us have an innate sense of wanting to do the best for our children. But some adults who have not had a good example in their own parents or some adults who have suffered abuse and gross neglect themselves, some adults who have been oppressed and have very low self- esteem have a very difficult time trying to be that responsible parent. With these early childhood initiatives so we can perhaps reach out through our elementary and secondary bill, as well as other efforts in this Congress, I believe we can identify some wonderful community- based, statewide national organizations that are sprouting up everywhere recognizing this and for the Federal Government to be a real partner. In my State, we have created Steps to Success which is the first statewide effort but community based, community built but networked, working with hospitals and other agencies in the private sector in Louisiana and, as Senator Kennedy has mentioned, in Massachusetts. While this is not the topic of my short remarks on the floor today, I lend my support to this area of early childhood education and thank the Senator from Tennessee, Mr. Frist, for his remarks. I come to the floor today to offer an amendment related to title I, that has to do not with spending more money, necessarily, but spending the money we are already spending better--spending whatever new money we can negotiate in this new approach, this new accountability system, this new system of real consequences for students and their families, teachers, and the schools that fail to meet the new accountability standards for whatever that new money is, to target it so we hit our target, so we hit a bull's eye. We have been spending money for education at the Federal level for over 30 years. We have been spending, in some people's minds, a lot of money. We have been creating program after program after program for 35 years. In my opinion, and in the opinion of many who offer this amendment today, including Senator Lieberman, Senator DeWine, Senator Bayh, Senator Carper, and many others, we have not targeted this money well enough to meet the challenges of yesterday, today, and most certainly not of tomorrow. What do I mean by that? It is as if we shot our quiver of arrows, we continue to shoot arrows, but we are not hitting the bull's eye; we are not hitting the target. That target, as far as the Federal Government is concerned, based on the initial concepts of Federal aid to education, is to use our resources--which represent only about 7 percent of the total dollars spent for elementary and secondary education--to reach the students who need the most help. Who are those students? Those students are from poor areas or students in poverty themselves, students who find themselves in schools with high concentrations of poor students. This is where the Federal resources should be directed. I am sad to report to all of my colleagues, this is not where our resources are going. In fact, there was a startling and wonderfully written article called ``How the U.S. Tax Code Worsens the Education Gap.'' I ask unanimous consent to have this printed in the Record.

Ms. LANDRIEU. The author is supporting my point but with a different approach. He is saying not only, basically, are Senator Landrieu and others right to say that title I is underfunded--and I am paraphrasing--but we are also not giving as much direct aid to poor students as to more affluent students. To make the matter even worse, the Tax Code itself, which is indirect aid, helps to underwrite education in more affluent, middle-income districts throughout Louisiana, Texas, California, and throughout our Nation. The combination of not getting the title I money to the poorest districts, together with the Tax Code that subsidizes home ownership to a degree proportionately greater in more affluent neighborhoods, is a combination of giving Federal resources to middle-income, affluent students, which is fine, but we are not reaching the poor students, and we should reach them first. With what is left over, in addition, we can reach more middle-income and affluent students. I think the Federal Government should try to help all students. We want every school to be excellent. We want every child to have an opportunity to enjoy a technology lab, a science lab, a math lab. We want to be in partnership with the affluent districts, with middle- income districts, but we must be in partnership with poor districts. They are short on partners. Those children are short in their future. Their dreams are cut short. We have to meet them more than halfway and then do our very best to be partners with our other districts. We can do that. We can adopt this amendment which will help target the funding to these poor students. Let me show ``A Tale of Two Schools.'' I will give some specific information for the Record. We picked a couple of States for this discussion. People might be interested to hear about Mississippi, or Pennsylvania, California as one of our largest States, and then, of course, Louisiana. I begin with Mississippi. Before I get into the specifics, 35 years ago, in 1965, President Johnson created title I for this express purpose. He said when he created this program: ``By helping some, we will increase the prosperity of all.'' President Johnson put forward that providing a quality education for every child, regardless of whether they were a child in poverty, a child in a difficult situation, was not only the right thing to do, not only the fair thing to do, but it was the smart thing to do for our Nation. If we are a nation blessed with natural resources, clearly the greatest resource is our own people. That is even more true today than it was in the agricultural age or the industrial age. Today, as we build a society based on intelligence and skill and comprehension, building those skills inside of each human and developing them is more important to help strengthen our economy. Any businessperson in this Nation--whether with the Chamber of Commerce or the Business Council, which have been supportive in many of these areas--will say that. President Johnson had this idea 35 years ago. He went on to say that ``in the future, as in the past, this investment will return its costs manyfold to our entire economy.'' He was right. What we have done from that initial ``birthing'' of this idea is we have allowed this child, this teenager of ours, ``title I,'' to go off in a different direction than we first intended. We need to pull this back and get back to its basics, as it was created 35 years ago. Let me explain why. Taking ``A Tale of Two Schools,'' in Mississippi, Taconi Elementary School in Ocean Springs, the poverty rate in Ocean Springs is 27 percent. They are receiving $546 per title I child. However, across the State of Mississippi, in Jackson, there is a school, Brown Elementary, with a poverty rate of 99.5 percent for children. In this school, there are only a handful of households with parents working. These are parents who were working because we have welfare reform. People work at minimum wage jobs, but 100 percent of these children have households with a parent or parents bringing in less than $13,000 a year. Because we are not funding our targeted grantees, each child doesn't receive $546; they receive $268. The children who need the most help are getting less money in Jackson. The principal to whom we spoke yesterday, Hazel Shield, when we told her of this situation, said: That is ridiculous. We are talking about my kids who need the most attention. She says her top priority for the funds is reading and math supplies, but she said: We run out of paper, pencils, and their parents don't have them, crayons, just the basic tools. I suggest if we expect all our students at Brown Elementary School to master this new test that this underlying bill is requiring, to be able to compete in math and English and language, to be able to be computer literate, they are going to need more than crayons. They are going to need more than pieces of paper and pencils and crayons. Mr. President, $268 is not going to do it. Let's go to Pennsylvania. This is two schools in Pennsylvania. I know our Senators from Pennsylvania, Mr. Santorum and Mr. Specter, will be very familiar with these schools. No doubt both of those Senators who worked so hard in education have visited these or other schools similar to them. Rolling Hills Elementary only has 3 percent poverty. It is in Holland County. It is a very wealthy district. You can see, $2,361 is received for each child under the poverty level in Holland. But in Aliquippa Middle School in Aliquippa County, where the poverty rate is 85 percent, these children who need the most help are only receiving from the Federal Government $878 per child. These children in Aliquippa need help; they need a partner; and the Federal Government must be their partner. They do not have a tax base as Holland does. They don't have Fortune 500 companies in Aliquippa, as perhaps Holland does, there or close by. If they do not have the Federal Government as their partner, they do not have a partner, and these children will fail, not because they are not talented, not because they are not smart, not because their parents don't love them, not because they do not try but because they simply do not have the resources to compete. It is a shame and we need to fix it. Let's now go to California, which is one of our largest States. I thought it would be interesting, since most everybody knows where Beverly Hills is, to show the Beverly Hills situation which, of course, includes Beverly Vista, a wonderful school where the poverty rate is only 10 percent. This is a fairly well off community. Many people have seen Beverly Hills on television or visited there. We send to each of these children in Beverly Hills $1,100. But on a little different side of Los Angeles, which is a big city, there is a little school called Sixth Avenue Elementary where the poverty rate is 100 percent. There is not one child in this school whose family earns a little more than $20,000--I am just assuming it is a little higher than it would be in Mississippi. But if anybody has tried to live in Los Angeles on $18,000 a year for a household income, that is very hard. It is hard to live on that anywhere but particularly in a big city. We help these children with $270. We help them but we do not help them enough. We spoke to the principal and a teacher there at Sixth Avenue Elementary. The principal says her greatest need is teacher development. At this school, Sixth Avenue Elementary, 66 percent of the staff is not certified. In our bill, if I am not mistaken, there is either an amendment on the bill or there is going to be an amendment adopted which is going to say schools with 50 percent of teachers who are not certified have 3 years to get them certified. At $270 a child, I, for the life of me, do not know, even with the greatest principal in the world and the most active parent association possible, how they, in Sixth Avenue Elementary, are going to reach that goal when we are only helping them at $270 per child. The average fourth grade student at Sixth Avenue Elementary is reading at the third or below third grade level, and the pupil-teacher ratio in fourth and fifth grades is 35 to 1. Let me repeat, the fourth and fifth grade students are now reading below the third grade level, and the pupil-teacher ratio is 35 to 1. We are contributing $270 per student to help them pass these new tests that they are now going to have to take every year, which I support-- new accountability standards which I have supported. The cosponsors of this amendment have been some of the strongest on the floor for accountability. But if we do not step up to the plate on this, if we do not target our resources, we are setting our children up for failure. As a mother of two children, I hate to see my own children fail. But I realize some failure is part of life and you cannot be successful without some failure. But my children wake up every day knowing they will succeed because I tell them so. I don't set them up for failure. I don't put them in places where they will be consistently failing. I give my children opportunities to succeed even in the small things because I want to build them into a sense of accomplishment, a sense of well-being, a sense that they can do it. What in heavens name are we doing if we set up our children in this Nation so they can fail and fail and fail and then say it is their fault. They are not living up to their responsibilities when we are not living up to our responsibilities--at $270. Two people who go out to eat in LA--I know because I have been there--at one restaurant one night could spend $270 on a meal. But that is all we do at Sixth Avenue Elementary in Los Angeles to help these children for a year of learning. It is, in my estimation, a crime and a travesty. Let me talk a minute about Louisiana. I see my colleague, Senator DeWine. I am going to try to wrap up in about 10 minutes because I know he is here to speak. But let me go through three examples at Capdau Middle School in New Orleans, right in my hometown. I want to show you some pictures. We did not go out of our way to find the worst pictures. They couldn't get much worse than this. But we thought this was an interesting picture because on the front--I don't know if the camera can pick it up--it says: ``You are about to enter a learning zone.'' The artist had to airbrush off the graffiti that was here because it was not appropriate to show on the camera. So after we polish up this picture, it still doesn't look very good. This is the learning zone--a very attractive entrance, as you can see. I am being sarcastic here. It is not a very attractive entrance for children to walk into in the morning. If a child got thirsty somewhere out in the playground, I don't think they would be very interested in drinking the water that would come out of this faucet, if water could come out of it. We have seen many comparable slides on the need for school construction. It is not only spending more money but also managing our schools well so the maintenance keeps up. I venture to say you cannot just pour in money and solve these problems. It has to be a maintenance effort and good management of the schools. I want to show you what the school looks like so you can get the sense that this school has an 83-percent poverty rate. But the unbelievable thing I want to share with you is that this school in New Orleans doesn't get any title I money. At least the Sixth Avenue Elementary School in Los Angeles got $278. Why? Because we don't fund the targeted grants at all and never have. They are in the law but they are not funded. The amount of money in title I is not enough to reach all poor children. Even in New Orleans, the school with 83 percent of the children in poverty is not receiving one dollar of title I money. And the principal says they need basic supplies and textbooks. There is simply not enough to go around. Half the staff is not certified. This is one of the low-performing schools in our parish. We are in an accountability system right now. Louisiana has adopted one of the leading accountability systems in the Nation. Despite the fact these children have no water to drink on the playground, despite the fact they don't have enough textbooks, despite the fact they have to walk every day into this place that is called a learning zone--it surely doesn't look like one--these kids are doing better on their tests. Why? Because they want to succeed. Why? Because their parents want a better life for them. They are doing their best. They are not where they need to be. If I were in a school such as this, I might not be where I needed to be either. But we can do better. Let me show you Johnson Elementary School. Johnson Elementary School in Lake Charles was forced to cut its summer program to just 3 weeks. Three percent of the students are at the poverty rate. Last summer I think they were able to provide 6 weeks of summer school to the children who were behind so they could catch up and so they would have a safe place to play in those hot summer months. Lake Charles, unfortunately, with this hurricane, is having a lot of problems, as in southwest Louisiana. This school, in addition to these pressing and chronic problems, may be in a flood zone at this moment. There may not be any summer school, but if there is, they will just have enough money for 3 weeks. At Greenlawn Terrace Elementary in Jefferson Parish, there are 33 students for each teacher in the fourth and fifth grades. The ratio is 1 to 33. The principal says, obviously, these students need more individual attention. It is hard to teach a fourth grader and fifth grader. It is not the easiest grade to teach. The students are at a very interesting age, shall we say, at a time I think in their life where they need extra special attention. These are 10-, 11-, and 12- year-olds at this particular age in the fourth and fifth grade. That school does not receive any title I. Finally, at Scotlandville Middle School in Baton Rouge, our capital city, 68 percent of eighth graders fail to pass the math portions of their statewide exams. People would say: Why? How could 68 percent of the students fail their exams? One of the reasons is the school has a math lab and it is fully equipped, but they don't have enough money to hire a teacher to teach the math class. They have the laboratory; they have the best software; they have the computers; but because they do not have the extra title I money, they do not have the instructor. So it sits empty, and 68 percent of eighth graders have failed their math portion. Let me share with you some successes. Despite the fact we have not targeted our money, despite the fact we have never allocated enough money, there are some successes with title I. That is the point of my message. This is an amendment with hope. This is a story that could have a happy ending. This is an exercise where if we did what we could we could most certainly hit that target. When we hit it, it would make a big difference for these children. In Baton Rouge, they were able to use the title I dollars they received last year to hire one additional teacher. They took their third grade class size down from a ratio of 32 to 1 to 21 to 1. Now you are talking; now kids are learning; now there is teaching going on, and students will be able to meet these high standards we have set for them. When a school that we contacted in Lake Charles used their title I funds, they extended their schoolday. They went to a year-round learning program. The students in that school, within just a short period of time--I think less than 1 year--showed clear and drastic improvement on their State tests. The great thing about funding title I is that it is in some way the perfect block grant. The locals have total flexibility as to how they would like to spend it. It is tied to student achievement. Senator Feinstein has an amendment on this subject to tie title I to student achievement so the locals can decide if they want to have afterschool care, learning, and extended days. How about Saturday school for some kids who would need the extra help? Alternative schools, extra reading, extra math, tutoring, computers, textbooks, software, special teachers, guidance counselors, and even nurses I think should be encouraged to be funded under title I, because students who are not healthy have a hard time learning. Students who have a learning disability are perhaps victims of child abuse at home. Perhaps they have been exposed to a tremendous amount of violence and they are just unable to learn. They are sad children. They are despondent. They don't see joy in their house. They see violence in their house. Guidance counselors cannot substitute for that, but they most certainly can help to get a child mentally to a place where they can learn. Yes, nurses and guidance counselors, there are successes. That is one of the reasons I believe so strongly in title I because we are not mandating to the local governments. We are giving them complete flexibility. They can use it to meet these new accountability standards. I most certainly know they would take full advantage of this in making improvements. Let me end with the example of the research that has been done. There is a study which talks about funding for poor students. When we have been able to fund and target our dollars, the scores of poor students in high concentrations of poverty increase. The research shows this. We don't have to be the least bit worried about this money being put to good use. As we march forward on our accountability standards and new tests --and there are real consequences for failure-- the local governments now have a tremendous incentive. If they didn't have it before, they now have a tremendous incentive to put their money to good use and to get their test scores up and to create the kind of atmosphere in their schools of which we would all be proud. The Prospects study was done on the performance of seventh graders in high and low poverty districts. This shows the discrepancy between the way students perform in schools that have low-poverty rates and the way students can't perform in schools that have high-poverty rates. Again, let me stress that children who are born into poverty have as much talent and as many God-given gifts as children who are not. God really is very fair in his allocation of gifts. He doesn't reserve them to one group. He generously bestows gifts on children from many different walks of life. It is not a talent deficit that exists here. It is not an ability deficit that exists here. It is a political will deficit that exists. We need to correct it with this and other similar amendments. These are math grades for the seventh grade. You can see the low- poverty schools. These are more affluent schools and not very high- poverty rates. These are A students--who are getting A's in their tests. The pass rate for their math tests was 87 percent. A students, with the same ability--they are straight A students--but they are students in high-poverty schools, their average pass rate was 36 percent, a 50-percentage-point difference. For B students, it is the same: 56 percent pass, but in the poverty schools only 34 percent pass. For C students, 41 percent pass but in the poverty schools only half of that--22 percent--pass. Let's go to reading where it is even more dramatic. For A students in low-poverty schools, 81 percent of the students pass their reading proficiency test. But A students--bright students, good students--who are poor but are trying hard, they only pass at 36 percent based on this study. As you can see from the chart, for the B students, the ratio of low- poverty students to high-poverty students who pass is 49 percent to 19 percent; for C students, it is 23 percent to 13 percent; and for D students, it is 23 percent to 14 percent of the students. The pattern is set and the pattern is troublesome. The pattern shows that when students are in low-poverty schools, they tend to do better on their testing and excel at their studies. The studies show that even smart kids--good kids, kids who are trying hard, who are getting good grades--when they find themselves in high concentrations of poverty, which, unfortunately, exists in our country because of prejudice, because of unequal opportunity, because of past discriminations, even though they are trying, continue to fall short of the mark. In closing, let me just say one thing about reading. If we in this country do not help every child read--I know we cannot do everything; I know money does not grow on trees; I know taxpayers work hard for it; I know people do not like to pay a lot of taxes to any government--local, State or Federal, but paying taxes is an important thing to do when it comes to education. Supporting the education of our children is so crucial. It is important for every businessperson. It is important for everybody building a future in our Nation. It is important to our country. If we could just do one thing, it would be to get children reading well at that magic age of 8 or 9 because when a child masters that skill, a child begins to think positive about themselves. Even if their parents are not literate, even if their parents are having difficulty, that child can then take the role of educating the whole family. That child will think well of himself or herself and then can master math and science and social studies. When we have large numbers of children concentrated in high-poverty schools, and when we have our money so dispersed throughout the country, we are missing the target. And that target is poor children who need to learn to read early so that they can succeed in their studies and be part of their community and part of our Nation. Under this amendment, the funding would hold every school district harmless so no school district would lose money. But all the new money that was added, whether it was for Ohio or for Louisiana, would go to helping children who need the most help. Let's hit the bull's-eye. Let's be that partner that these children so desperately need. And I can promise you, they will do more than their share. I know the children. I know their energy. We have all seen them: our own and our neighbors' and our friends'. If we just help them, they will meet us more than halfway and succeed, not fail. They will be proud; their parents will be proud of them; their communities will be proud of them, and the Nation will prosper from their education and their efforts. I ask the Senator from Ohio, how many minutes would the Senator like?

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I inquire as to how much time is remaining under the unanimous consent agreement.

Ms. LANDRIEU. I yield back the remainder of my time, but I think we have 2 hours reserved for this debate.