Mary Landrieu

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. I thank the Senator from Oklahoma. I have the floor. I want to make clear for the record, as the Senator from Oklahoma just clarified, he and the administration are willing to close loopholes, but only if the savings from those loopholes go to make permanent the tax cuts that drain the education budget and leave our children at risk. I am glad we got that cleared up. Let me begin the remarks I wish to make this morning. The Senators from Massachusetts and Washington are absolutely correct about the dire situation in our States and communities all across the Nation. They are also correct that one of the strongest aspects of the American dream--and I could argue the strongest aspect of the American dream--is the dream parents have for their children, the dream Americans share that no matter how tough their life has been, no matter how shortchanged they might have been when they started, they work hard because they want their children to get the kind of education that will help them be the human beings parents dream their children can and should be and to make their communities stronger. When this administration took office, they noted that dream. The President said: The time has come for excuse making to end. With this No Child Left Behind Act, we have committed the Nation to higher standards for every public school, and we have committed the resources necessary to help children achieve those standards. We want accountability with results, and we are willing to fund it. That is what was said, but is not what was done. Budgets are difficult to put together. This document does not look very thick, but this document is a blueprint. This document sets a course for the Nation. This document, if it is not written correctly, cannot meet the promises I have just described. You know what, Mr. President, this document does not meet that promise. This document does not provide the money promised to every Governor, every superintendent, every teacher, and every parent in this Nation. This document is short $9 billion, and not one Senator on the other side is willing to close one loophole to fill that hole. They are only willing to close loopholes to give more tax cuts. That is the debate on this floor, and that is the choice the American people are going to make in the next election. With the surplus disappearing, with the war at hand, with the war on terrorism perhaps escalating, the question is, Do we want to make some adjustments in our plans to provide tax cuts or do we want to provide some tax cuts and fund education, invest in homeland security, and support our troops? That is the issue. But this administration, faced with the facts of declining and evaporating surpluses, faced with the facts of a war that is costing more than we anticipated, faced with those facts, chooses to ignore the facts and put out a budget that goes straight dead ahead 100 miles an hour into deficits and in doing so robs the opportunity, pulls the rug out from under every superintendent, every Governor, and every teacher because they are struggling in the schools. This is what the President says, but this is not what he does. This is what the President says: Once failing schools are identified, we will help them improve. We'll help them help themselves. Our goal is to improve public education. We want success, and when schools are willing to accept the reality that the accountability system points out and are willing to change, we will help them. We are doing this in Louisiana. We have received accountability. We have identified our schools which are failing. We believed the President, but when we turned to him to ask him and this administration to help us hire new teachers, help us to train the teachers who need to be certified by a date certain the President and the administration forced us to do in this act, when we asked them please help us put on two new classrooms in these schools because we have to meet these new goals, they said we do not have any money, because he wants to extend the tax cuts permanently. He will close the loopholes, but not for them. Sorry, kids, we cannot close the loopholes. I have to close the loopholes for people who need tax cuts. Now I am going to talk about the increases in education. I know Senator Kennedy is going to speak about this and he knows these numbers better than I do. I will admit, and I understand and know--so don't anybody bother coming to the floor to tell me I do not understand-- there is increased funding in education. I am clear and so are the people in my State that the Federal Government has increased funding. That is not the point. The point is, the increases have not been what the administration promised and do not help us meet the new goals that have been mandated on every county and every parish in this Nation. I will also say, if the Senator from New Hampshire wants to come to the floor and debate this issue--and as Senator Murray knows very well--the increase in education in 2001, which was the last budget of the previous administration, was 19 percent. That is how much the increase was. The next year is 2002, which was 18 percent. In the years of the President's budget, which is right here--this is the administration's budget and this is the chairman's mark. The chairman's mark is a little different than the President but it is basically the same document. These are the increases they provide: 19 percent, 18 percent, down to 6 percent, 5 percent, and 3 percent. The outyears look even bleaker. They put No Child Left Behind basically in here, and as we can see, they pulled the rug out from everybody. That is what this election is going to be about. I know I only have a couple minutes remaining, but I want to say I know, not because I represent and am a leader from my State and I travel just like Senator Murray does all over her State, how angry people are about this. The front page of the Washington Post yesterday issued a poll that says 57 percent of the American people polled all over the country do not think the country is going in the right direction. This budget sets the direction, and 57 percent of the people know what is in this budget, not in every line but they are getting the general gist of it. They do not like it, and I do not blame them. There are many things it does, but one thing it does is it breaks the promise to their kids, and when you start fooling with people's children and you start upsetting the dream people have for their children and their education, there is going to be a repercussion from that. In conclusion, to use the President's own words: The time for excuse- making has come to an end. We have committed to our schools and our children. We have said if we ask for accountability and results, the Federal Government will be there, will be a reliable partner, and this administration has made different choices. I end with a quote from another President. We have had many great Presidents in our history, thank goodness, and we had a great one in President Kennedy who said: I believe we possess all the resources and talents necessary, but the facts of the matter are we have never made the national decisions or marshaled the national resources required for such leadership. He was speaking about the space program. We have never specified long-range goals on an urgent timetable, or managed our resources and our time so as to insure their fulfillment. . . . [L]et 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 . . . if we are to go only half way, or to reduce our sights in the face of difficulty . . . it would be better not to go at all. That is what I am saying. If we have set a course by this budget, we owe it to our parents, to our teachers, and our children to stay the course, and if we are not ready to go the whole distance, we should not have started. That is the promise that has been broken. I yield the floor.

Ms. LANDRIEU. Will the Senator yield?

Ms. LANDRIEU. Will the Senator yield?

Ms. LANDRIEU. Will the Senator yield?

Ms. LANDRIEU. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, I thank my friend from Washington. I wanted to ask the Senator from Oklahoma, before he leaves, since he has gone on record several times this morning as to what loopholes he would agree to close, would he for the record indicate or give us some idea what some of those loopholes would be and how much money could be generated by those loopholes, because there are many people in Oklahoma, Louisiana, Massachusetts, and Washington who would be interested in identifying those dollars so we could apply them to fulfill the promise the President made to fund education. As the Budget chairman, I am very interested in what specific loopholes he would be willing to close.

Ms. LANDRIEU. Will the Senator yield?

Ms. LANDRIEU. Is there any additional time that could be available? This is such an important amendment. Could we take an hour and a half?

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I thank those managing the bill, and I thank the Senator from South Carolina for bringing this amendment to the floor. I would like to cosponsor this amendment because it helps our veterans and Guard and Reserve in two very important ways. The Senator's portion of this helps to extend the TRICARE piece and extends also in this amendment the GI benefits for the Guard and Reserve. As I have said many times, the Guard and Reserve that is protecting us today, that is serving as the core in many instances of our Armed Forces, is not the Guard and Reserve of our fathers' or grandfathers' generations. They are citizen soldiers. They are professional soldiers. Because of policy changes we put into place, the Guard and Reserve now are picking up about 40 percent of the battlefield burdens, and they deserve a greater portion of the overall budget to support them. Do our active troops deserve support? Absolutely. But our Guard and Reserve, because they are picking up an ever-increasing responsibility regarding this war against terrorism, the war in Afghanistan and the war in Iraq, and even right here on the homefront, deserve more help and support. I am proud to be a cosponsor of this amendment. I believe it will pass with great support on both sides. I wanted to take a minute to also talk about something I hope we can find a way in this debate to fix. I want to see if we can find a way to fix the survivor benefit plan, which was enacted in 1972. This survivor benefit plan was a pension benefit for military spouses, after the retirees passed away. We said if the retired veterans wanted to basically pay into a certain account, when the retiree died, their wives would receive 55 percent of the veterans retirement pay. We created this fund. However, after it was established, budget policies were put into place that basically cut out that benefit. So we now have the unbelievable and untenable situation where spouses--most of them women; I would say 85 to 90 percent are female--who, by the request of our military, move themselves and their families every 2 years, which makes it extremely difficult for anyone to develop any consistency in a career outside the home, even if they were able and willing. Moving every 2 years doesn't give them the opportunity to expand their earning capacity. That was a sacrifice many spouses and their families made to support the men in this case--in most cases-- serving in our military and to support the country. Yet for all that great commitment and service and dedication, we tell them, thank you very much, but we are going to cut your benefits from 55 percent of what you and your spouse put in, in some instances, down to 32 percent. It is not fair. There are Senators on the floor--I see the chairman of the Budget Committee--who say we cannot afford to cut back the tax cut to provide for this. They say the tax cut is too important and we cannot even modify it or change it or postpone it or adjust it even in the slightest amount to pay for that. I disagree. I think we can find a way to adjust the tax cut to pay for the widows who moved every 2 years, paid their own money into the fund, and now they get shortchanged. When we talk about supporting our military families, let's remember the soldier on the battlefield, and let's also remember the soldiers who are at home, both the spouses and children who bear a tremendous burden, who do it willingly and with great patriotism. Let's not ask them to sacrifice when others in this country are not willing to make that same sacrifice. I will be offering this amendment later, supporting the amendment that is on the floor. Hopefully, we can convince some of the leadership to make adjustments in their tax cut plans to do some things we need to do for our men and women in uniform and their families. I yield the floor.

Ms. LANDRIEU. Five minutes.

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, is there 5 minutes available to speak for the amendment?

Mr. LANDRIEU

Mr. LANDRIEU. Madam President, I rise today in support of Senator Murray's amendment that, put simply, proposes to close unfair tax loopholes and use the funding closing them brings to fulfill the promises we made to the parents, teachers, principals, superintendents and, most importantly, our children. For the past hour, my colleagues from across the aisle have tried to put a different spin on this amendment, claiming that it raises taxes to cover increased spending. That is what they would like the American public to believe because then their opposition to it is easier for them to explain. But the fact of the matter is, the underlying budget resolution now before us already proposes that we close these very same tax loopholes, the only difference is that under this budget the revenue generated would be used to pay for new tax cuts for corporations and millionaires. So it seems what we have here is a difference in priorities. Democrats are against tax evasion and for investments in education and Republicans are against tax evasion and for tax cuts for those who do not need them. That is a choice I will leave to the American people come this November. Two years ago, we challenged our schools to reject mediocrity and failure and to embrace excellence and high standards. We laid out legislation that provided a blue print for reform and we promised we would be there every step of the way, in partnership, to bring about change in our public schools. I was one of the 13 Members of the U.S. Senate who advocated for the kind of change embodied by the No Child Left Behind Act long before it became a part of President Bush's political platform. I believe in the potential of this law, its founding principles, and the direction it leads our Nation. It is by no means a perfect law. No law, in the history of Federal involvement in education, has ever been perfect on the first try. But that does not mean we must abandon it and go back to the drawing board. What we must do is come together to both fund it and fix it. As the old saying goes, ``talk is cheap.'' Unfortunately, this administration does pays a great deal of lip service to principles such as accountability, teacher quality, innovation and school choice, but are not willing to do a whole lot to be sure that these principles are reflected in the budget. For example, this administration says the following when it comes to the importance of teacher quality. ``We know that our children's future depends on their education. And the quality of their education depends on our teachers. Strong schools and quality teachers are the President's priorities,'' Laura Bush said on the First Anniversary of the Passage of NCLB. Yet, what they do to fulfill the promise of a qualified teacher in every classroom is a different matter. In this year's budget, President Bush proposes to cut funding for Troops to Teachers and freezes funding for grants to States to improve teacher quality. What this means is that States like my own, are faced with the congressionally mandated challenge of closing the gap in the number of qualified teachers, and have had to try and meet this challenge with approximately $100 million less than they were promised. The administration maintains that their goal is to improve public schools. In fact, in January of 2001, President Bush made the following promise: ``Once failing schools are identified, we will help them improve. We'll help them help themselves. Our goal is to improve public education. We want success, and when schools are willing to accept the reality that the accountability system points out and are willing to change, we will help them.'' If this is not a promise, I am not sure what is. States like Louisiana believed in this promise and they believe in accountability. For the past 4 years they have been working hard to identify schools that were failing and turn them around. They have done such an outstanding job that they were just recognized by Education Week for having one of the best accountability systems in the country. Is President Bush fulfilling his promise to support and encourage these efforts? No. He is pulling the plug just when they need help the most. This year's increase in education, which has been shrinking a little more every year since Bush took office, is the smallest increase in education spending in 7 years. What's worse, is that according to his budget, next year, not coincidentally a year after the election, education funding will be cut by $1.5 billion. Our schools need more than lip service and empty promises, they need help. Now, I have asked the President and my Republican colleagues, why the President would not provide States with the resources he promised would be available to support their efforts. Here is what they tell me. They say, ``Senator Landrieu, the President did not make any promises when it comes to funding, the funding levels listed in the law are just goals. Congress never appropriates as much as they authorize.'' I think it is important for the American people to be able to separate fact from fiction. Let me tell you what the facts are on this point. When a program is a high enough priority for the President, you can bet it will be funded. Let me give you some examples. Last year, Congress appropriated $1 billion for a program called the Millennium Challenge Account, a brand new foreign policy program proposed by the administration. The President demanded $1 billion and he got a full billion. Same was true for the tax package in 2003. Congress authorized the passage of a $350 billion tax cut and we spent all $350 billion. Medicare, the Iraq Supplemental, the Compassion Capital Fund, the list goes on and on. The Secretary of Education claims that the reason for the decreased financial support from the administration is because States have too much money and are not even spending what they already have. In the words of Ted Stilwill, the school chief from Iowa, ``The implication that [States] have let huge sums of federal money languish that the funds are at our disposal to use at our discretion, or that we have not been good stewards of the public's money is not only unfair, but patently insulting.'' Here are the facts: According to data from the U.S. Department of Education, States are actually spending their federal money faster than expected. As of February 20, using normal spending rates, States should still be waiting to spend about 7 percent of their Federal education money from fiscal years 2000 to 2002. As a matter of fact, States have spent all but 6 percent. What our kids need is less excuse making, fewer empty promises, and more leadership. In the words of President Bush himself, ``The time for excuse making has come to an end Accountability for results is the law of the land.'' I would like to close my remarks this morning with one final Presidential quote. ``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 insure 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 go only halfway, or reduce our sights in the face of difficulty, it would be better not to go at all.'' Many of you may be saying to yourselves sounds like something President George Bush said when he urged Congress to pass the No Child Left Behind Act, perhaps the most sweeping reform of Federal education policy since 1965. But you would be wrong. This was from a speech given by another President making a historic challenge to the Nation. This is an excerpt from the famous ``Man on the Moon Speech'' delivered by President John F. Kennedy. In 1961, President Kennedy presented a bold challenge to Congress and the Nation: to reach for the stars, to put a man on the moon within the next decade. Most thought he was over ambitious, perhaps even crazy. It was such a large task, it could never be done. Put a man on the moon in less than 10 years? In June on 1969, 8 years and 1 month after this speech, Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldren landed on the moon and Neil Armstrong uttered the immortal phrase, ``one small step for man, one giant leap for mankind.'' The difference is that President Kennedy was not only willing to make the challenge. He was willing to stand strong and provide the leadership and the resources necessary to meet it. In 1961, all tolled, the United States was spending $1.6 billion, the equivalent of $8.7 billion today on space programs. By 1966, just 5 years later, we were spending $7 billion, which is close to $30 billion in today's dollars. But it was more than just money, he provided the leadership and the support. He made commitments and he stood by them. This program was more than his speech for the day, it was a top priority. And it worked. History may have been very different if it hadn't. In the words of the late President Kennedy, ``if we were to go only halfway, or reduce our sights in the face of difficulty, it would be better not to go at all.'' We made a promise to our States, more importantly, to our children. The Murray amendment fulfills that promise, it stays the course and that is why I am proud to support it.

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. I yield back the remainder of my time.

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I thank the Senator. I appreciate the leadership of the Senator from Washington. I am sorry the Senator from New Hampshire has left the floor because I do have about five points to make. The first point I want to make is, while I respect his leadership in education, and while I think he has absolutely put the best spin possible on the situation that we face, I would say, in Louisiana, that dog just won't hunt. Those numbers don't add up. His charts do not tell the true story. People in Louisiana and throughout this country are very anxious right now because what they want to hear is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. While I am not saying those specific numbers were not correct, the truth is not just about giving the specific numbers; it is about the whole picture. I will begin with the truth and the facts to put it in reference. I wish they would put the chart up, but they may not because they will not be able to defend it. But if they would put the chart back up that shows the years they put up there--1993, 1994 and 1995--the Senator said when the Democrats were in charge in 1993, 1994, and 1995, we did not have that much of an increase in education. That is true. But what is also true is that the previous Republican administrations had left this country in such debt and in such despair and the deficits were so high that we could not contribute money to any program of any substance because the country was going broke. So it is true we could not spend that much money on education because we had to take care of the deficit, this big red line. So we had to cut back. Although Republicans say the Democrats don't know how to cut back and Democrats never will cut budgets, that is absolutely not true. We, under good and solid leadership, started trimming back. And we had to raise some revenues to get the country back into surpluses. When we did get back into surpluses, the budget numbers will reflect that there were increases made by the Clinton administration in education. I will submit this document for the Record. It is a little scratched up and it is not very clear. I am sorry I don't have it in big print. But it will be put in the Record. If anybody wants to argue about this page, they are more than welcome. This is the official document of the U.S. budget. Nobody will refute these numbers. They are all right here. What they say is that there were increases of 15 percent, 12 percent, 12 percent, 6.2 percent, 12 percent, 18 percent. It is true that as we got surpluses, we gave more money to education. But what is also true is this budget, which Senator Murray is trying to amend but the Republicans won't allow it, is saying that this budget, then, with these surpluses, wants to take some of that surplus money and commit it to education. This budget says, no, we are going to commit to it tax cuts, all to tax cuts, and no money to education. In addition, when President Bush came into office, which was 2001, although we had increased funding for education as the condition of the country improved and we were doing as much as we could, the truth is, the President came into office and said: Even though we are increasing money to education, the past administration didn't do a good job, and I, as the new leader of the country, am going to put in a new law. We are going to step up the requirements and we are going to have accountability. If we do that, then I will fund those new efforts. As you know, he and the Republican leadership have decided they are not going to fund it. They are going to provide tax cuts. Let me talk about pressure. I know the Senator from New Hampshire, who was Governor and is now Senator, understands pressure. I don't know exactly what he was talking about. Maybe he could clear this up. But when I supported No Child Left Behind, 40 percent of the teachers in Louisiana were uncertified and their average salary was $27,000 a year. We are one of the lowest in the country. But when that law was passed, a mandate was put in that all of those teachers had to be certified by next year, 2005. We are in 2004. I don't know if the Senator from New Hampshire thinks that is not pressure, but let me tell you, my superintendents are feeling some heat. My legislature is feeling some heat. I am feeling some heat in a good way, because 40 percent of the teachers in Louisiana aren't certified. In this budget, which promised to help train them, help increase their skills, help recruit them, the funding is not there to do it. That is what I call pressure. Let me talk about the pipeline for a minute. The pipeline issue came up because our Secretary of Education, supported by this administration, after calling all the teachers in America and one of the leading organizations a terrorist organization, which he has apologized for but a lot of people don't think the apology went far enough, after calling them terrorists, he appeared before the committee and said, from a letter: States are not fully utilizing the Federal education funds available to them in a timely manner, allowing billions of dollars to remain in the federal Treasury instead of improving education for our children. He has put in writing, for this administration, a charge to every Governor, every superintendent, and every administrator across the country basically telling them, I don't know what you all are complaining about, because you have a lot of money. Wait until you see the reaction that is going to happen across the country. It starts with the superintendent of Iowa who has gone on record as saying: The implication that we have let huge sums of federal money languish, that the funds are at our disposal to use at our discretion, or that we have not been good stewards of the public money is not only unfair, but it is patently insulting. If this administration, the Republican leadership, wants to continue to insult everyone in America who is trying their best across party lines, across racial lines, across geographic lines to improve education, if they want to keep putting out insults such as this, they may go right ahead. But that dog doesn't hunt. The arguments won't stand. The facts do not justify the story that is being told. I am going to conclude with this. The facts are these: When the country was in huge deficits, which the Republicans, in large measure, were responsible for because of their irresponsible policies, everything had to be cut back. And as soon as the surpluses started to appear, which was a good thing and everyone worked on making that happen, we said: Let's set a new course for education and invest money but not just throw money at the problem. Because I agree money is not the solution, but let's have accountability and we will find results. We started down the path. We believed the administration. We pressed on, and then the rug was pulled out from under our feet. That is what this budget is about. That is what Senator Murray's amendment is about. I am proud to be a cosponsor of it and that is the truth. I ask unanimous consent to print the following material in the Record.

Ms. LANDRIEU. I would be happy to ask the question, but I think the Senator from Washington would like to ask the question, and then I assist her in that.

Ms. LANDRIEU. Can I clarify? The loopholes the Senator from Oklahoma is supporting are going to fund additional tax cuts for those at the higher end of the tax cuts?

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. I thank the Chair for consideration of that amendment at the appropriate time.

Ms. LANDRIEU. Madam President, I thank the floor manager. It has been a long day, and perhaps we have made some progress and the hour is a little late. I am going to speak just on two amendments of mine that I will offer and which will be voted on tomorrow. I will take the time tonight to speak at some length about these amendments because our time will be so limited, unfortunately, because of the rules under which we are operating. Before I do, let me restate for the record that I intend to vote against this budget. It is not a budget that will put America on the right course. This is a budget that will turn a stream of red ink into a raging river that will threaten to wash away Social Security, and this is according not to the Democratic spin room or Democratic operatives, this is according to Alan Greenspan, who testified before the Budget Committee last week and basically said because of the choices President Bush and the Republican leadership are making in this budget, adjustments will have to be made to Social Security. He could have gone on to say--and I am sure he will in further speeches--that adjustments are going to have to be made to education and the Federal contribution to education. We are going to have to make adjustments to housing initiatives in this country, and we are going to have to make adjustments to the contributions we make to colleges and universities because if this budget goes into law, the country will basically be on a course to bankruptcy because the debt is rising so high. We have been attacked by terrorists. We have a war now that is costing us hundreds of millions of dollars. We have passed a major education initiative that the President himself said he wanted to fund, and the economy has, in many instances, tanked, contrary to all of our hopes and expectations. Yet the plan is for tax cuts every day, always deeper and greater, which is threatening to wash away a lot of things that are important to people in this country. One of the things we cannot fix because of this blind adherence to tax cuts for people who earn over a million dollars is a survivor benefit for our military personnel. There are a lot of issues for which we could fight. I want to show this document. It is from the Military Officers Association: Fighting for Fairness. The public is going to have a hard time believing this, so I am going to try to go over it as simply as I can. In 1972, our Government promised the spouses of people in the military--now, most of the spouses would be women but not all of them would be women. Most are women. Our Government promised them if they would contribute a certain amount of money into a special fund, after the member of the service passed away, they could provide a nest egg for their spouses. These are spouses, and everyone is familiar with this. These women--millions of them--move every 2 years, generally. They move themselves, their children, and most do it with a smile and joy on their face because they are committed to helping the country, and they are supporting their husbands who are protecting us every day. We promised to give them what we call a survivor's benefit. But we have failed to live up to that promise. We have, instead, said even though we said we would do that, we decided to save money so we could give money, as the Senator from Oklahoma said, to the millionaires who need tax cuts in this country. We said instead of making the promise to these individuals, we have another priority, and that is to give people who make over a million dollars tax cuts because they need it. But we cannot give spouses of the people in the military their full benefit. It gets worse because the document we gave them actually doesn't mention the offset. I am going to submit it because I want to make it clear that this is the document our military signed, and it will be read for the Record. Nowhere in here did it talk about an offset. An offset is, when the spouse gets to be 62 years of age, instead of receiving the benefit that her husband put aside specifically for her, thinking that he was doing a good thing to help protect her in her old age because she moved every 2 years and she has had to live under tremendous pressure--when you move every 2 years, I think people would understand it would be hard to keep a career going in the right direction and continue to increase your earnings, if you did want to work outside of the home. Maybe you could manage to get a minimum-wage job or something, but it would be very hard to develop a career when you have to move every 2 years. She did. These women did. Then they signed a document that said they would receive this benefit, and, lo and behold, they were told after they were in their sixties and their husbands had died, after their husbands served 20 and sometimes 30 years in the military protecting us and giving us the advantages, that the thousands of dollars they were counting on were not there. It gets worse. In addition to not funding this for our military families, we do fund, as the Federal Government, if you work for the Federal Government in civilian employment and you take out a policy for your spouse, you do not have the same offset. So we have the very unfair and terribly unjust situation today where if you are a spouse of a military person, and you have moved every 2 years, your spouse has protected the country for the last 30 years, and you get to be 62, you do not receive that full benefit because we need to save money to cut taxes for people who make over $1 million. That is the situation. My amendment, which I am going to ask be voted on tomorrow, would fix that situation. I do not think it is going to be adopted, but I am going to offer it anyway because I want my colleagues on the other side to be on the record saying the choice they make is not to fix this situation which will cost us approximately $2 billion because we cannot afford it. We can afford $2.6 trillion in tax cuts, but we cannot afford $2 billion to help our military families. I am not going to vote that way, but some people will, and they can explain it to the thousands of retirees in their States. I am not sure how. For the record, under the civil service retirement system, the percentage of survivor benefits, people receive 55 percent; the Federal employee retirement system receives 50 percent, but not the widows and widowers of people who served in the military. I do not understand it, and nobody in Louisiana understands it because we continue to increase the military budget. I know, because I voted for every increase in the military budget since I arrived in the Senate 7 years ago. I voted for billions of dollars because I believe in a strong military. I do not know how not living up to your promises to people in uniform to help them protect their spouses helps us to strengthen our military. If anybody knows, maybe they can communicate that to me because I do not know. I am hoping when we vote on this amendment tomorrow, perhaps we can find some money in this budget to take care of this situation. I understand the House has acted. I also understand a bill has been filed by the Senator from Maine, a Senator for whom I have a great deal of respect, Ms. Snowe. It is a bipartisan effort. I am hoping maybe we can find some money in this budget to make some adjustments for the survivors benefit plan. I ask unanimous consent to print in the Record a letter that was recently printed in the Washington Times that outlines this situation, and also the actual document our families signed that leads them to believe they are going to get this benefit.

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, from May 1-3, 2004 more than 1,200 students from across the United States will visit Washington, D.C. to take part in the national finals of We the People: The Citizen and the Constitution, the most extensive educational program in the country developed specifically to educate young people about the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights. Administered by the Center for Civic Education, the We the People program is funded by the U.S. Department of Education by act of Congress. I am proud to announce that the class from John Ehret High School from Marrero will represent the State of Louisiana in this prestigious national event. These outstanding students, through their knowledge of the U.S. Constitution, won their statewide competition and earned the chance to come to our Nation's Capital and compete at the national level. The 3-day We the People National Finals Competition is modeled after hearings in the U.S. Congress. The students are given an opportunity to demonstrate their knowledge before a panel of adult judges while they evaluate and defend positions on relevant historical and contemporary issues. Their testimony is followed by questions designed to probe the students' depth of understanding and ability to apply their constitutional knowledge. Columnist David Broder once described this annual competition as ``the place to come to have your faith in the younger generation restored.'' Most recently, the We the People program was highlighted at two national conferences held in 2003: the White House Forum on American History, Civics, and Service, and the first annual Congressional Conference on Civic Education. Evaluations and independent studies have validated the effectiveness of the We the People program on students' civic knowledge and attitudes. This innovative civic education program continues to be one of the best antidotes to apathy and cynicism in our Nation. I wish these students the best of luck at the We the People national finals and applaud their achievement. We should all be proud that they are learning and advocating the fundamental ideals that identify us as a people and bind us together as a Nation.

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, every year, Americans commemorate the birthday of America's greatest civil rights leader, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Last year I was pleased to introduce legislation to authorize the Secretary of the Treasury to mint coins to recognize Dr. King's contribution to the people of the United States. Revenues from the surcharge on the coin would go to the Library of Congress to purchase and maintain historical documents and other materials associated with the life and legacy of Martin Luther King, Jr. I had hoped that this bill could have been enacted last year on the 40th anniversary of Dr. King's ``I Have a Dream'' speech, but we were unable to do so. Today, I would like to reintroduce the Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Commemorative Coin Act of 2004, to have the coin minted in 2009 in commemoration of the 80th anniversary of Dr. King's birth. Dr. King's significant contributions and his message should live on for future generations. America should remember him as a national hero and a pioneer. In recognizing Dr. Martin Luther King's legacy, it is important that we continue to learn from his actions and words. When I was a young girl in Louisiana, I learned from Dr. King that the struggle for civil rights and racial equality was more than simply changing the law, it required changing our hearts as well. Dr. King recognized that the civil rights movement presented Americans with a choice. We could choose hate and fear, or we could choose love and understanding. Dr. King believed that when Americans choose love in their hearts, peace and equality would follow. Dr. King offered us a peaceful way to reach equality through non-violent protest and action. I believe that this should continue to be a fundamental moral challenge for our country. In his famous ``I Have a Dream'' speech, Dr. King said, ``I have a dream that one day, the sons of former slaves and the sons of former slave owners will be able to sit down together at the table of brotherhood.'' I would also like to take the time to thank my good friends on both sides of the aisle for supporting this important legislation. I urge others to join us in remembering the selfless deeds of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., by cosponsoring this bill.

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, every year, Americans commemorate the birthday of America's greatest civil rights leader, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Last year I was pleased to introduce legislation to authorize the Secretary of the Treasury to mint coins to recognize Dr. King's contribution to the people of the United States. Revenues from the surcharge on the coin would go to the Library of Congress to purchase and maintain historical documents and other materials associated with the life and legacy of Martin Luther King, Jr. I had hoped that this bill could have been enacted last year on the 40th anniversary of Dr. King's ``I Have a Dream'' speech, but we were unable to do so. Today, I would like to reintroduce the Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Commemorative Coin Act of 2004, to have the coin minted in 2009 in commemoration of the 80th anniversary of Dr. King's birth. Dr. King's significant contributions and his message should live on for future generations. America should remember him as a national hero and a pioneer. In recognizing Dr. Martin Luther King's legacy, it is important that we continue to learn from his actions and words. When I was a young girl in Louisiana, I learned from Dr. King that the struggle for civil rights and racial equality was more than simply changing the law, it required changing our hearts as well. Dr. King recognized that the civil rights movement presented Americans with a choice. We could choose hate and fear, or we could choose love and understanding. Dr. King believed that when Americans choose love in their hearts, peace and equality would follow. Dr. King offered us a peaceful way to reach equality through non-violent protest and action. I believe that this should continue to be a fundamental moral challenge for our country. In his famous ``I Have a Dream'' speech, Dr. King said, ``I have a dream that one day, the sons of former slaves and the sons of former slave owners will be able to sit down together at the table of brotherhood.'' I would also like to take the time to thank my good friends on both sides of the aisle for supporting this important legislation. I urge others to join us in remembering the selfless deeds of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., by cosponsoring this bill.

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I am honored to recognize Isidore Newman School as it celebrates 100 years of educating the children of New Orleans. When the school opened its doors on October 3, 1904, it was in a class by itself. Then called Isidore Newman Manual Training School, it adopted a philosophy, in vogue at the time, that teaching children skills such as sewing and woodworking would enhance their minds. It was the only school of its kind in New Orleans. On Newman's opening day, the principal, James Edwin Addicott, explained the little-understood teaching concept to The New Orleans Times-Democrat: ``The manual training school does not attempt to teach any particular art or trade. What it does attempt is to educate the hand as an invaluable and necessary aid in the development of the brain.'' The school was unique for another reason: its unusual assortment of pupils. On that historic first day, the young Mr. Addicott stood at the doors of his brandnew school and waited for 102 children to arrive from a Jewish orphanage a few blocks away. It was for them that Isidore Newman, a German-Jewish, rags-to-riches immigrant, had endowed the school. But Mr. Addicott also waited for 23 children from private homes, Jewish and non-Jewish. For Mr. Newman had specified that this school be open to all children, regardless of religion. The school's reputation for academic excellence and top-notch facilities spread, and within a few years, children from private homes outnumbered those from the orphanage. Gathered together in this unique environment--for New Orleans society was quite segregated at the time-- the children did just what the founders dreamed they would do: they got along. The school became a haven of inclusiveness, and friendships formed on the playground lasted a lifetime. By the 1930s, Newman had become a college preparatory school, no longer offering courses in the manual arts. By the 1940s, the orphanage had closed. But Newman continued to be the most religiously mixed prep school in the city. Newman's first century has been filled with triumphs, tragedies, and lots of laughs. The school has always felt like a large, extended family, where the development of the individual and the individual's devotion to the whole are stressed equally. Newman instills in its students the value of service to one's community, while at the same time encouraging the personal growth, intellectual and otherwise, of each child. The results have been remarkable. In 1985, Newman was recognized as 1 of 281 exemplary schools in the United States by the U.S. Secretary of Education. It was one of only seventeen private, nonsectarian schools chosen. And Newman has been a model of diversity. In 1968, Newman became the first private, nonparochial school in New Orleans to desegregate. Today, Newman is an accredited, independent, coeducational school serving more than 1,100 students from prekindergarten through 12th grade. The school's record of academic excellence is on a par with the best prep schools in the Nation. Its graduates have gone on to the finest colleges and universities. They have presided over Federal courts. They counsel Presidents. They write bestsellers. They are Rhodes scholars. They play professional sports. They run large media conglomerates and Fortune 500 companies, and they have been generous, important philanthropists and civic leaders in New Orleans and beyond. I congratulate the school on reaching this important milestone, and I wish Newman all the best for another century of excellence.

Ms. LANDRIEU

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

Ms. LANDRIEU. Is there any way the votes could be stacked at a set time so we would know about votes later tonight?

Ms. LANDRIEU. Senator Breaux and I are entertaining for Mardi Gras this weekend. We are honored to have 2,000 of our friends in town. But he will have a good time anyway.

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I understand there is a pending amendment, the Dorgan amendment?