Floor Statements

Mr. President, I know my colleagues will be coming to the floor to speak more about the situation in Iraq, but I take a moment as one of the managers of the DC bill to give a few closing remarks on that subject and wrap up a couple of issues this morning. Then I understand the Democratic leader will come to the floor. When he does, I will be happy to yield. And I see one of my other colleagues.

For the record, I follow up a couple of comments from my friend from Missouri who spoke just a few minutes ago on the subject.

One, he referred to a letter from Secretary Paige. We on our side do not have a copy of that letter. It has not been submitted to us. We would be pleased to receive it if there is such a letter indicating support for this three-sector approach, because all we have is the ``Statement of Secretary of Education Rod Paige On the DC School Choice Initiative Before the House Committee on Government Reform,'' dated June 24, 2003.

I have spent the last 30 minutes reviewing again the statement, which I had read once before, and there was no mention at all in this statement of any three-sector approach. It is approximately 20 pages long, and I have highlighted every reference to the choice initiative fund proposed by the President, and there is no reference in here for charter schools or for education reform for traditional public schools.

So I want to submit this statement for the Record. That is all we have on this side. If there is a new statement from the Secretary, we would be happy to review it. I ask unanimous consent that the statement of Secretary Paige be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, another point I would like to make is that the Senator made a statement that needs clarification. As I started out this morning, I said the details of this are very important, because if you pursue the details and you dissect the details, you will eventually get to the truth. So there is one detail I must repeat. And I guess I am going to have to stand here, I don't know, every day or a month or a year to continue to say this until the other side cries uncle. This proposal is not--it never was, it is not today--limited or designed for failing schools. Let me repeat, this proposal is not--not when it was initially proposed, not last week, not yesterday, not last night, not today, not this morning at 5 minutes to 12--limited to children in failing schools.

Although the proponents say they are interested in helping children in failing schools, the real issue for proponents of vouchers is they simply believe in choice. That, of course, is their prerogative. But to stand behind the visual of poor people struggling in schools that are failing is absolutely false. This proposal, as written, if anyone reads it, is not limited or directed to failing schools. It gives a preference to students in failing schools, but it is not designed to students in failing schools.

That principle is worth fighting over because the whole accountability system we have put into place is about identifying schools that are failing, and then providing resources to those schools to make them better.

If the other side gets away with saying, ``Well, that is what we said, but that is not really what we meant, because we aren't interested in putting resources into failing schools, we are interested in putting resources into all schools, because our job is to make parents happy,'' I think that is just such a foolish goal.

Let me say why I think it is foolish. As much as I would like to see every parent happy, in my 25 years in public life I don't know how in the heck we would measure that because some parents are real happy, some parents are a little happy, and some parents are happy in some ways and not happy in other ways, and I would have no way of measuring what is a good measure for parental happiness. If someone in this Chamber has any way to measure parental happiness in a way that taxpayers could know if parents are a little happy, just a little happy, happy on Mondays and not on Fridays, and that was our goal, please tell me because I would be open to discuss it.

It is foolishness. We should be directing revenues, if we are going to do that, to failing schools. This proposal is not directed to failing schools. They can say it 1,000 times. I ask you to read the details.

Now my third point. I know my colleague has been very patient, but I have to make this point. My colleague from Missouri asked me, What difference does it make? What difference does all this make?

It makes a huge amount of difference. We, as a Congress, with this President, in a bipartisan way, have embarked upon a new effort, a new journey, to take good public schools and make them great, knowing that some schools are excellent but some schools are really bad. And as a Nation, we are saying since 1965 our general plans are not working as well as they should have, so let's make a big adjustment. We have made a big adjustment, and that difference is worth fighting for, the strengthening of public education in the greatest democracy in the world.

People on my side say to me: Senator Landrieu, you have spent a lot of time on this issue. For Louisiana, the State I represent, and for the country I love--and all of us love our country and our States--this is about as essential as it gets.

The fourth point I want to make: My friend from Missouri talks about the single moms. Please help these single mothers, poor single mothers who are working and can't afford to send their children to school. Please help.

And they show pictures of African-American single moms and Hispanic single mothers, kind of indicating, in a very insulting way--I know they do not mean it to be insulting, but you could interpret it as that; and I know that is not the intention--but there are those of us over here who think we spend a lot of time fighting for poor women. I have spent my whole life, basically, doing that. So it is really hard for me to accept this criticism. But I am not perfect, and maybe I have failed in some way in that effort. But when my friends say things to me, that we need to help single mothers, let me just ask them a question. Is it that party or this party which does not support the increase in the minimum wage for these same women? Is it that party on the other side of the aisle which refuses to raise the wage from $5.15 to help poor women have more choices in their life, or is it this side of the aisle? Is it that side of the aisle which refuses, year after year, to put more money into day care so the same poor women who are working two jobs--early in the morning until late at night--could have some sense of satisfaction that their children will be well cared for while they are contributing to the great economy of this Nation, or is it our side?

So you have to understand--I hope people understand--this is a very important debate. The facts will speak for themselves. They can run all the ads they want, all the bumper stickers, and all the headlines, but that is what the facts are.

I have this letter we received today. It is dated September 26. It is from Secretary Paige.

I am writing today to express my strong support for the

District of Columbia education improvement initiative. . . .

This bill includes a three-pronged initiative to:--

And here it is--

(1) improve DC public schools . . . (2) create new charter

schools . . . and (3) provide scholarships.

This is the first official letter we have received.

This letter is a step in the right direction.

I see the leader on the floor. But let me just say, until this administration says they will veto any bill that does not have this in it, the Members who are willing to negotiate on this have no assurance that this is the way it will ultimately come out.

So I thank the Secretary for clarifying the position. I commend him for his innovation. But again, until we have a statement of a veto from the President unless this proposal includes these three provisions, with permanent funding for all three, we do not have any assurance these words will actually match the rule of law. And that is still a problem.

I see my leader and yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

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

I commend the Senator and thank him. Other colleagues will speak of the issues, including the international challenges that face America, as well as the domestic challenges.

Mr. President, before the Senate prepares to consider and pass S. 1375, the Small Business Administration 50th Anniversary Reauthorization Act of 2003, I would like to bring an important issue to the Senate's attention that I hope will be addressed in conference with the House. It relates to the HUBZone program, specifically the price preferences for food aid contracts. I would like to discuss this matter with my colleague, the Chair of the Small Business and Entrepreneurship Committee, so that we have a clear record of our position on the issue prior to final passage of the SBA Reauthorization legislation.

Let me begin by first congratulating her for bringing this bill through Committee and to the Senate floor where it will pass unanimously. The Committee held informative and useful hearings and roundtable discussions to learn from small business owners and leaders about the value of the Small Business Administration's programs. We also heard from SBA Administrator Hector Barreto, about the Bush administration's reauthorization proposal for improving the agency's ability to respond to the many challenges facing small businesses and the increasing number of start-ups. In the end she put together an excellent bill that I supported when it passed the committee unanimously. I expect the Senate to do the same.

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

I am pleased that the Senate has decided to leave the HUBZone program intact with these limited, but sound modifications. An issue has been brought to my attention involving how the Department of Agriculture has interpreted legislation regarding the treatment of HUBZone price preferences for food aid purchases. The current system provides HUBZone firms with a price preference on the first 40 percent of a given tender of food aid. A tender is essentially a contract for aid that spells out how much of a particular commodity--corn, wheat, vegetable oil--would be provided under the contract. The remaining 60 percent of the contract volume is not subject to the preference, so HUBZones companies compete with all other firms, large and small, in full and open competition for this portion of the contract.

The Department of Agriculture has misinterpreted the statute and unfairly limited the participation of HUBZone firms to only 40 percent of any food aid contract. This effectively locked them out of 60 percent of every tender contract offered. The Department has since corrected its interpretation and is allowing the program to perform as it was intended by Congress when these provisions were added to the HUBZone program in 2000.

I am glad that the Department of Agriculture has changed its interpretation. Louisiana has 10 HUBZone firms that are exporters and may be able to participate in the food aid program and compete now that the proper interpretation is in effect. Officials with the Port of Lake Charles in Lake Charles, LA came to me and expressed their concern with the Department's initial interpretation because they operate in a HUBZone and want to attract more businesses to the port. This interpretation limited the amount of contracts HUBZone firms were eligible to bid on. The correct interpretation allows them to bring new businesses to the Lake Charles area and help them to reinvigorate an area that is working to regain its footing in the current economic climate and provide critical jobs for the families who live there.

I know there are some who feel that under the current interpretation HUBZone firms may have an unfair advantage. I welcome the opportunity to work with the chair and the other members of the committee to investigate this further. Perhaps the committee could hold a hearing to learn more about this issue.

Mr. President, I thank the leadership on both sides for allowing us the opportunity to get back to the DC appropriations bill, a bill Senator DeWine and I have worked very hard on over the last, actually, several months. We are very proud of so many portions of this bill that do such good work for the District, and do so in conjunction with the leadership of the District and the residents of the District. So we are thankful that as it has worked out today, we can actually get back on this bill.

It is my hope, and I think the chairman of this committee shares this goal, since there are a couple of points in this bill that warrant further debate, the most obvious one being the issue of education improvement in the District of Columbia, it would be my idea, and I hope it is shared by my colleagues and even on the other side, that we give as much time to this debate as possible because it is a very important issue, not just for the District but for the whole Nation. As a public policy, we would be hard pressed to find a public policy that is more important right now, other than, of course, national defense and homeland security. I think we all agree the challenge to our public education system is one that continues to warrant our attention.

Tonight it is my intention, and Senator DeWine understands, to speak for a minute about an amendment Senator Carper and I want to lay down at some time, and to talk in detail about what that amendment is. He and I are prepared to talk for maybe an hour about the details of it.

I understand there are other Members who might want to speak tonight. We have no intention, obviously, of having the vote tonight or tomorrow, but we hope next week to proceed with some voting on this very important bill.

The way I would like to start, just for a few moments, though, is to say the reason our amendment would be necessary and other amendments would be warranted is because the debate will show the publicly stated goals, however laudable--and we have read those goals in the newspaper, we have read them in press releases, we have heard the goals stated by the voucher proponents, that the aim of this is to help children in failing schools, poor children in failing schools have options--this debate will show the bill itself does not actually do that. Even with the Feinstein amendment, the bill does not do that.

There is another really puzzling aspect to this. I want to submit something for the record to show why I will say it is puzzling. We received today the Statement of Administration Policy. I would like to read it for the record and then explain why it is confusing. This is the Statement of Administration Policy that was issued today on the DC bill. This policy, not from the House but from the White House, says this: We like the DC bill, basically. I am paraphrasing the first part. The administration looks forward to working with Congress to ensure its priorities and amounts of money are within the overall budget goal.

Additional Administration views regarding the Committee's

version of the bill are, [No. 1], School Choice Incentive

Fund.

The Administration is pleased the Committee bill included

$13 million for the President's School Choice Incentive Fund.

This innovative reform will increase the capacity of the

District to provide parents--particularly low-income

parents--with more options for obtaining a quality

education for their children who are trapped in low-

performing schools. The Administration appreciates the

Committee's support for strengthening the District's

school system and strongly urges the Senate to retain this

initiative.

The puzzling thing about this is the White House has said they support the Mayor's position. The Mayor was on the floor today. Mayor Williams is one of the most honorable people I know. He is a reformer for public education. But I don't know if the White House realizes that is not the Mayor's position.

The Mayor's position is a three-pronged approach: A third for vouchers, a third for charter schools, and a third for improvements to public schools. That is because the Mayor has suggested that vouchers- only is insufficient, and the Mayor has also said some other things about the voucher-only proposal. So I just lay this down.

I ask the chairman if perhaps he could get to the bottom of this. I don't know why the White House wouldn't say we understand the Senate bill has three clear sections on this issue. We like all those sections. We ask you to keep them all in the bill. But it doesn't say that.

I am going to have this printed in the Record. That is why we are going to have a lot of debate on this, because we have to get clear what the administration is really asking for or advocating.

I ask unanimous consent to print the Statement of Administration Policy in the Record.

I would like to start with the Landrieu-Carper amendment that we will offer at some time, and describe again why it is puzzling that we are having difficulty with the administration and the voucher proponents coming to some agreement. I am going to read the simple text, and without any rhetoric or signs or charts or anything, I am going to read the text of it because it is quite simple. I want the people who are listening--and, of course, there is alot of interest in this--to understand what basically has been rejected.

Before I do that, I will give a very brief history of how we got here because it will help to set this debate.

Three years ago we were in what I would call a quandary in public education in the Nation. That quandary was this: Our schools were improving but not fast enough. We had a lot of kids who needed help. We really had to do something.

There were a group of people who wanted to give up on public schools and go to vouchers and say we can't, we tried, nothing is working, let's go to vouchers. There was a group of people who said no, what we need is just more money, the same thing, pump the money in and more resources will do it.

Both proposals were rejected. They were rejected by a broad-based coalition of Democrats and Republicans who rejected both. We said no to vouchers which will undermine public schools; no, vouchers will not work. And, no, just dumping more money in the system, as much needed as the money is, just dumping money is not going to help.

We found a third way called Leave No Child Behind which the President himself led. Many of us were proud to work with him to do that. We crossed party lines. Republicans went to the Democratic side. Democrats went to the Republican side. There were great coalitions forged to get that done.

Here we are not even 2 years into Leave No Child Behind and there are still grumblings on both sides. You can understand why. The money we promised isn't forthcoming. So people have a legitimate argument. They say: We haven't received the money. I understand. I keep saying: Let us go forth.

I know people want vouchers. No matter what we do, they want vouchers. They want them yesterday, today, and tomorrow. That is just what they want.

Here we are with Leave No Child Behind. One would think if the administration wanted to prove something, they would try to prove it anywhere in the country--the District, New Orleans, Louisiana, Ohio-- that Leave No Child Behind could work.

There is some confusion. From my point of view, I think what would come out of the President's proposal is something like this: I am sorry. We are short of money. I am sorry. We can't fund everything that we thought we could fund, but let me just give enough money to the District of Columbia, which is a city and a symbol, and let me fully fund Leave No Child Behind. Let me double the amount for charter schools. Let me push contracts for public schools. Let me increase tutorial services. Let me have afterschool and let us implement early childhood education.

As a person who helped write the bill that laid those principles down, that is what I would fully expect. I would have stood shoulder to shoulder with him, and I would have said with the Mayor's help, with the Congresswoman's help, with the Republicans' help and the Democrats' help, let us show the country what we meant when we passed the bill. They don't believe it. Neither sides believes it. So let us show them what we meant. Instead, we get the same old, tired, worn out, inadequate vouchers--vouchers, vouchers.

Mr. Carper, the Senator from Delaware, and I, and others who worked very closely, think we are not hearing correctly. We think this couldn't possibly be. So we tried. The chairman could not have been more gracious. We tried. We think maybe it is something we don't understand. So we tried to talk. The talks aren't going very well.

So we think: Let us just put it down in an amendment form and see maybe if we are missing something. This is our amendment. I will read for the Record what the gist of the amendment is because it is very simple. Tomorrow I will have this blown up so when I speak on it next week people can see what it is.

This is what we said. Even though you don't want to fund title I in the District, you don't want to double the amount of charter schools, you don't want to have private contracts which the law allows, you don't want to increase tutorial services, you don't want to have afterschool, you don't want to have early childhood, we will just take what the administration thinks--or what the voucher proponents think-- and we will just go back to see if we can make vouchers work.

We say: OK. We will do a couple of things. If you will agree that the same children will take the same test because the administration was very strong on tests--they wanted the same test--that took a little work but we finally got the same test.

Then they said last year that it is very important for teachers in public schools to have a college education. That was a big deal. We said, yes, at a minimum. They can have alternative certifications but you have to have a college education. Let us have a college education for teachers who would be teaching students using public money to go to private schools. That has been agreed to.

Because one of the problems with this debate is that nobody has the research to tell whether it really works or not--we agree with that--we said, let us have a very rigorous evaluation so that after 5 years we would know for sure, I mean for positive.

Let me speak for a minute about this. The Milwaukee program has been going on for 13 years. There are 11,000 children in vouchers and there are 89,000 children who aren't in vouchers. The Senators from that State can talk more about the details than I can. But what I do know about it is many studies have been conducted, and there is still no definitive data that I have been able to find--that anybody has been able to find--about whether those children are doing better academically. There is some evidence to suggest that

some parents are happier and more satisfied. I acknowledge that. That is very good.

I remind this body that we did not start down this road to make parents happy. That is not what the President said. We want parents to be satisfied. We want parents to be satisfied, but that is not the goal. It is desirable. But the goal is a quality education with public accountability because public dollars are being spent. We don't know after 13 years.

We said: OK. Let us have an evaluation component. The evaluation component in this bill, to date, is inadequate to, even after 5 years, give us those answers, and we think that is a real problem.

This is the most important. All of these are important, but this is really the telling portion of why I think we are at a real standstill and a crossroads.

We said in our amendment that you say you want to limit this or you want to help children who are in a trap. That is what this says. I want to read it again. This is the administration's policy. This is for children who are trapped in low-performing schools, which would mean trapped in failing schools. That is what we can do in Leave No Child Behind. We said no more of this. You have to be good. If you are not good and you are a failing school, you need improvement or you have to close and be reconstituted. We said let us limit it to children in failing schools. That is part of our amendment.

The word back so far is, no, I am sorry we can't limit this to children in failing schools because we want this to be available to children in all schools.

The sixth provision that we asked is to make sure all the civil rights laws which are required in Leave No Child Behind are adhered to. The other side said that wouldn't be a problem. We assumed that would be fine. But it is not in this bill.

The other part of our amendment says make sure the scholarship itself--whether it is $7,500 or $3,500 or $1,000--is sufficient to actually get a child by lottery from a failing school into another school. The school can't discriminate. The child gets to go. But that language was rejected.

I don't know what the other side is thinking. If a school costs $15,000 and the voucher is only worth $7,500, we can't figure out how that child gets to the school if their voucher is only worth $7,500. We wanted to make sure that the voucher would be received as payment in full so a parent couldn't be told: We would love to take your child into the school but your voucher is only worth $7,500 and we need $15,000. I am sorry. Our private scholarship fund is out of money. We would love to help you, Ms. Jones. We really know that your two sons would do great in our school. We would love to give them vouchers. You can either have a bake sale or raise money from your neighbors or go into your savings account, but we can't put up the other $7,500.

Senator Carper and I thought it would be reasonable to say the voucher--no matter where you get the money--has to get the kid in the school.

The seventh thing we asked was--because this White House, when we were debating Leave No Child Behind, insisted on yearly progress reports for children in public schools--we would like to craft a way to make sure these 2,000 slots available that we are talking about, where they take the same test that has been agreed to--we would have these yearly progress reports as defined by Leave No Child Behind. The same reports, no difference. No, I am sorry, we can't do that. We cannot have yearly progress reports. So, again, accountability is out the window.

And finally, our amendment said, OK, we do not believe this should be a Federal mandate. We are being told by the voucher opponents, that the city wants this; it is the choice of the city. I said, fine, remove the language that makes the money contingent because in committee I asked the Senator handling the bill if he could just state for the record: Does Mayor Williams have a choice? In other words, in order to get any money, does he have to take the voucher money? To get any money, does he have to take vouchers? The answer was yes.

I and others strongly opposed forcing any city, anywhere, at any time, being held hostage by voucher opponents that would say: We are happy to give you $40 million; we are glad to give you $20 million; we are glad to give you $8 million; but you have to institute a voucher program. And not just vouchers for children in failing schools, but you must have a voucher program for children in all schools.

That proposal will not pass with much Democratic support, let me assure Members.

This has been rejected today. Maybe cooler heads will prevail. The Senator from Delaware and I are still open to discussion. Why? I would stay here all night, all next week, all next month, all next year. My children are home; I would like to get home. His children are home. But that is how important this education reform is for this country. It was a hard fought victory and a wonderful victory and a powerful victory.

The ink is not even dry and we are talking about undoing it, unraveling it, undermining it. I don't understand it.

Senator Carper will talk, and then I will finish with a few more comments about our amendment. I would like Senator Carper to explain from his perspective what our amendment hoped or sought to do.

Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Delaware who, as usual, has described beautifully his position and the position which several of us on this side, who are cosponsors of the No Child Left Behind Act, believe in strongly. I would like to add to what he said briefly by referring to what President Bush, 2 years ago in August, as we were preparing for this debate, wisely said:

Accountability is an exercise in hope. When we raise

student standards, children raise their academic sights. When

children are regularly tested, teachers know where and how to

improve. When scores are known to parents, parents are

empowered to push for change. When accountability for our

schools is real, the results for our children are real.

This would be part of the Landrieu-Carper amendment that was, in essence, rejected. So it becomes a question, Is it just accountability for taxpayer money when it comes to public schools but not taxpayer money when it goes to private schools? Again, let me say, if we started out on this course with a goal, the only goal being parental satisfaction, we should never have started, because no amount of money in the Treasury will ever make every parent in America happy. It would be a false, foolish journey to that end.

That wasn't why we started. We started to say the public money, if spent and managed correctly, could provide a very good education measured by academic performance. And along the way, if we could increase parental satisfaction and taxpayer confidence, that would be the best we could hope for. Yet proponents want to twist that debate, forget the accountability piece, and just keep saying: If parents are happy, we have accomplished our goal. That is not our goal. We want parents to be satisfied, but that is not our goal.

Accountability is an exercise in hope. When we raise student standards, children raise their academic sights. When children are regularly tested, teachers know how to improve. When scores are known to parents, parents are empowered to push for change. When accountability for our schools is real, the results for our children are real and the taxpayers get their money's worth. That is what this issue is about.

I will close, because my chairman has been very gracious, with a quote from another President, John Kennedy, on a similar subject.

I thank, again, my chairman, who has been more than gracious in terms of the time on this, and his staff. The two of us can come to a lot of agreements. It is just other Members, other interests. So we will soldier on. But I just want him to know that he continues to have my greatest respect as we work through this very important debate.

Let me close with a quote from a former President on another equally urgent matter to sort of capture my disappointment. I am not angry, but I am disappointed. President Kennedy, many years ago when our Nation was faced with being left behind in the space race, as we are challenged today being left behind in public education, to marshall the forces necessary to achieve the goal at that time, which was to win the race to space and put a man on the Moon, said:

We possess all the resources and all the talents necessary.

But the facts of the matter are that we have never made the

national decisions or marshaled the national resources for

such leadership. We have never specified long-range goals on

an urgent time schedule, or managed our resources and our

time so as to ensure their fulfillment . . .

Let it be clear that I am asking the Congress and the

country to accept a firm commitment to a new course of

action--a course which will last for many years and carry

very heavy costs . . . [but] if we were to only go halfway,

or reduce our sights in the face of difficulty, it would be

better not to go at all.

He was right. We didn't go halfway; we didn't go part of the way. We didn't go for 2 years and then say I am sorry, we made a mistake, let's go to another proposal. We stayed the course and, because of that, less than 8 years later, we landed a man on the moon. In June in 1969, 8 years and 1 month after the speech, Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin landed on the moon and Neil Armstrong said, ``One small step for America, one giant leap for mankind.''

Mr. President, I will tell you as firmly--as I represent the people of my State--and as strongly as I can express

it, if we would stay the course, we would meet the goal. If we would marshal the resources, we would meet the goal. But this debate, getting us off course, going in a different direction, undermining what we are doing and underfunding what we are doing, will never get us there. That is what this debate is about.

I thank the chairman for allowing us to talk tonight. We will proceed with this debate over the course of the next week until we can come to some agreement as to how to proceed.

I yield back my time, and I thank the Senator from Ohio.

Mr. President, did the Senator know--and I fully appreciate his position and I most certainly understand that even as the powerful chairman he is, he is not able, of course, to make those confirmations. I also know there are powers that can make such arrangements, and the chairman is well aware of that. So we offer this amendment in good faith, recognizing that if there truly is a view or a desire to create a real, accountable pilot for children in failing schools in the District of Columbia that would show definitively whether it works or not in 5 years, that meets the parameters of Leave No Child Behind, that could be something that could be reached. That is what my intention would be. That is not the position of every single member of the Democratic caucus. So as ranking member, I will also represent their position. But at this point, we don't see the possibility of that. I thank the chairman. I understand his position.

We look forward to continuing to lay down amendments that will try to improve and perfect this proposal, or eventually to strike the language and try to move on a bill without any reference to the voucher proposal.

Mr. President, I begin by thanking the chairman for the breadth and depth of those excellent opening remarks, which demonstrate beyond any doubt his commitment to the budget before us and to the plans that it supports.

I also acknowledge our strong working relationship and commend him for his leadership on so many important issues for the District and also for the Nation at large. He has gone into great detail about the child welfare issues, which is one of the issues that he has led on not just in the District but in his home State and around the Nation.

We have been working together now for almost 3 years, sharing the chairmanship, depending on the majority of this Senate. It has been a joy to work with someone who shares so many of the same goals and objectives.

As Senator DeWine has outlined, our bill is small in size but it often carries a powerful punch, because it is a bill that supports a city but also a symbol. It is a city of 500,000 residents but it is a symbol in many ways of this great Nation and home to the Federal Government. Because of that, oftentimes on this bill--and we will experience that over the next couple of days--there will be some rigorous debates about issues surrounding this bill, which is understandable because this is a budget for a city but also a symbol.

I hope, as we move through the debate on this bill, that we can provide more light than heat, and I hope colleagues from both sides of the aisle will come to the floor with that in mind.

I want to begin my brief opening remarks saying that Senator DeWine and I in many instances share not only the same views about the District, but we also share the same priorities, which makes for a great working relationship and very smooth operations. One of the subjects he and I feel very strongly about is committing to the financial stability of the city. We both recognize

the great work the Mayor, the City Council, and Congresswoman Eleanor Holmes Norton have contributed, as have other officials who have the hands-on responsibility for the financial support and operations of the city. I commend them for their work.

This is particularly important because this city in just recent history was under the direction of a Control Board, established by this Congress because the city was in a huge deficit position. Mismanagement was rampant and that became necessary. Senator DeWine and I served at the time when that Control Board has been moving out, so it has been an imperative, and our first priority, that the safeguards and guidelines and parameters that keep this city moving in the direction of surplus and strength continue. I am proud to say that we have accomplished that goal in partnership with the city leaders, who get the most credit for keeping their city in a strong financial position. That is so, even with the very difficult times the city has faced, in terms of being a target, in some cases the No. 1 target, of terrorism in the whole Nation.

Along those lines, one of my priorities, shared with the leadership as well as the other Members--Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison, Senator Dick Durbin from Illinois--we have put into this bill a $25 million infrastructure investment because we want to be a strong, reliable partner for the financial security of the city. That is on top of the $50 million that was put in last year, which helps one of the major infrastructure challenges of the city, which is to clean up the Anacostia River. We have to remember this region is a region of two rivers, not one. We hear a lot about the Potomac but not a lot about the Anacostia. Both are great and contribute a lot to the health and vitality of the region, and the cleaner these are, for esthetics, for health and recreation, is important.

The city cannot do this on its own. It is a regional effort, and we are proud to step up, in the place of a State because there is no State, to serve in that role on the budget, to help them with these great infrastructure needs. I am thankful for the allocation of funds for that effort to the chairman of the Appropriations Committee and the ranking member, Senator Byrd, who has been strongly in favor of this particular undertaking, which will cost hundreds of millions of dollars, to be done over the course of the next couple of years.

The next issue on infrastructure, briefly, is one on which we are making some progress. We have budget constraints and we do not have, as much as we would like, unlimited money. We have budget constraints because there is not much money, but wisely the chairman has allocated funds to infrastructure initiatives--parks, recreation, and some help with transportation. Again, transportation is not just a challenge for the District residents, but it is a real challenge for the region. We have at least begun to lay down a small mark for help with transportation. I will get back to why that is so important at the end of these brief remarks.

Helping with the financial strength of the city, continuing to improve it, making sure the CFO is supported and his office is independent, streamline the management, and helping keep the city on a strong financial course is something I am proud of and is reflected in this bill.

The second important focus--and these are not in terms of priorities because they are all sort of equal, but I wanted to reflect, maybe, perhaps this is one we would agree is the top priority--is security for the Nation's Capital. Again, our bill reflects an ongoing commitment for investments in bioterrorism and investments, last year particularly, in the bill for interoperability for police officers in the District and the Federal agencies, as the District remains the No. 1 target in the Nation. That commitment is also found in this bill. It is an ongoing commitment I share with the chairman.

Senator DeWine did a beautiful and thorough job describing the child welfare initiatives in this bill. I will not repeat what he said. I will only say thank you to the Washington Post, particularly, for continuing to bring to light the deficiencies in the child welfare system, to thank my own staff and all the Members who contribute, and to say the District of Columbia is not alone in its struggle with reforming its child welfare system and improving foster care and increasing adoptions and establishing a family court. All cities, all communities, and all States are struggling with those same challenges.

Because budgets are tight, when budgets are cut, the first things, of course, that are cut, in many instances, are the services for children and courts and judicial systems that help to support excellent child welfare services in the Nation.

We are trying to fight against those budget reductions, adding money to this bill, with accountability, with mandates for new management, and with a new system to try to increase reunifications where possible, so children are not separated endlessly from their families and to give those families support. If that is not possible--and in many instances, as the chairman knows, it is not possible--then to move those children quickly through a caring and loving system that enables those children to get safely into a new family who will raise and nurture and love them, and to minimize the time in foster care.

That is not done by waving a magic wand or by rhetoric or by bumper stickers or by slogans. There is no substitute for that kind of work other than just tough slogging in terms of new policies and new investments. No one has done that better than this chairman. I thank him for that. This bill reflects a significant increase, in partnership with the District, working with them, to create a new court system, to create new opportunities in the child welfare system.

The fourth area the chairman and I focused a lot of time on, and I think we are making some progress, although it will be the subject of much of the debate on this bill, is in the area of education. I want to say what is in the underlying bill is a significant improvement over the shortsighted and very problematic education initiative that was placed in the House bill on the District of Columbia. What the chairman has laid down is a significant improvement over that shortsighted and problematic initiative which was basically a vouchers-only, take-it-or- leave-it approach by the House, which is going to be rejected pretty unanimously here in the Senate.

In its stead, there is a three-sector improvement approach offered by this bill which, in my opinion, still needs some significant work. But, as I said, it is a major improvement over the take-it-or-leave-it, vouchers-or-nothing approach by the House. The three-sector approach, as the chairman has outlined, is an equal amount of money distributed to charter schools, to public schools, and then to private scholarships for low-income children who are struggling.

Let me talk about charter schools for a minute and say something on the record. I will get back to this at a later time, when the debate gets underway.

There is not a district in this country, not one, not in Ohio, not in Louisiana, not California, not New York, that has made a stronger and better effort for charter schools than the District of Columbia, and that needs to go on the record as this debate starts.

There are more children per capita in charter schools in this District than any place in the Nation. With limited resources and with a relatively small jurisdiction, this community is making a superior effort in charter schools. Every one of them is excellent. We know they are trying new things that are important. They don't get enough credit for that. I want the Mayor and Eleanor Holmes Norton, who has been a strong supporter of charter schools and public choice, and Mr. Chavez, members of the DC Council, and members of the school board who have supported this charter school initiative to feel proud of what they have done. They do not get as much credit as they should. Those charter schools provide a real choice and real opportunities.

I am proud that in the bill last year Senator DeWine and I helped fund, at the request of many of our colleagues, the first urban boarding school for low-income children in the Nation--the first low- income boarding school for children in the Nation--so they can stay in school Monday through Friday and have an opportunity to go home on weekends, if they choose. Sometimes their home life is not conducive to academic excellence and achievement.

With accountability and oversight, we created that school. I am proud to say those children are extremely happy. And some of them were able to go to Greece because of the generosity of the Greek Ambassador. Nothing could thrill me more than to see real progress being made in opening up new educational opportunities for children.

The charter school movement is healthy and underway, and it doesn't need our criticism and it doesn't need our undermining; it needs our support.

The other leg of that is the investment in public schools. The progress is slower but it is still substantial, as is true of all major cities struggling with this issue throughout the country. But any number of improvements have been made. Later on in the debate, that information will be spread on the Record. But those two legs of the investment are universally supported.

There are additional investments. Leave No Child Behind does not meet the full requirements to which the District is entitled, but at least it is a $13 million increase to help the public school system meet the new accountability requirements and excellence that we seek in all of our schools when we are using public funds, and to help support charter schools.

The piece on the scholarship program sector, as I said, needs improvement. But because it is a three-sector approach and not just vouchers and take it or leave it, it is far superior to the House provision. With some adjustment, it could potentially receive votes of some Members on the Democratic side and have universal support on the Republican side. We will get to that later in the day.

Let me say in closing that the last 2 years have been unprecedented in the amount of discretionary Federal dollars that have gone to this city. Just this year alone, this budget reflects $124 million over the President's request for the District of Columbia. That is a substantial amount. That reflects the confidence that is being built in this Congress in the leadership of this city and the willingness to step out on issues that can help this city be the great city it was intended to be, and it is well on its way to being--across the board, whether it is in health care, transportation, public services, education, et cetera.

Nobody deserves more credit as a group than the city leadership collectively. They have done a very good job working together in that regard.

I close, however, with a challenge that Senator DeWine and I are faced with this year; that is, the landmark report that this city faces a structural deficit of $400 billion to $401 billion between their revenue capacity and their cost of providing services. This report was done by an objective agency. It was conducted by the GAO at the request of Congresswoman Norton and myself and others to really look at the structural deficit, if there were such a thing as a structural deficit, even though the city is in surplus, even though they are moving in the right direction by streamlining their operations. If you look at the path for the next year or two, there are dark clouds on the horizon. We want to basically know what the reason is for those dark clouds. Is it something that is under the control of the city or the Congress to fix?

I will paraphrase the study and will submit it for the Record.

While the city could continue to adjust and streamline its practices and make sure that fraud and abuse are taken out of the system, there is in fact a structural imbalance. Even if they did that perfectly--and no city does--they still would have a structural imbalance because their tax base is strained to almost a breaking point. That means their sales taxes are high, their property taxes are high, their fees are high. To continue to go back to the residents of the District and ask them to contribute more would be detrimental to the economic growth and vitality of this city.

We have in this bill a marker--basically a $3 million Federal share to contribute to the infrastructure, which is a small but I think substantial marker that the chairman and I are willing to lay down to say we understand there is a structural deficit, that we don't have the money right now to fix it, and that we are not even sure how to fix it nor have the answer but recognize there is one. Hopefully, that will be the subject of future hearings to help the city of Washington be the best city and the symbol for the Nation.

Finally, let me summarize. As the chairman said, this bill also includes $172 million for the operation of the DC courts, an $8 million increase over the President's request. We talked about that. There are certain things for which we are directly responsible. One of them is the Court Services and Offender Supervision Agency. I am very proud that the chairman has gotten that ratio down from 40 to 1 to 25 to 1, which will help. I again commend the Washington Post for their excellent series that helped to call our attention to this glaring and terrible problem. It is a tragedy that exists in the District. More work needs to be done.

But this bill and what it represents I think is a significant compliment to the city and its leadership. The considerable investment in the future for the residents of the District is something of which our people around the Nation can be proud.

I urge our colleagues as we move into the afternoon and the debate regarding education that we attempt to fill this Chamber with light and heat because this issue, the children who depend on our deliberations, their families, and the taxpayers deserve no less.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I thank the Senator for his comments. He is correct that there have been some improvements made to this section of the bill, but it remains a work still in progress. There are many Members on the Democratic side and some Members on the Republican side who are still not comfortable with the language. There are some who are absolutely opposed to the underlying concept of private school vouchers or scholarships.

I thank the chairman for remaining open and working on some amendments and language. That is taking

place at this time. We will proceed with the debate later in the afternoon.

Will the leader yield for a question?

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

I thank the Chair.

Mr. President, the Senate is expected to consider important legislation that will affect the pensions of millions of Americans and

their families during the 108th Congress. In the last Congress we provided greater security to pensions by correcting the accounting abuses that lay at the heart of the Enron and WorldCom bankruptcies-- bankruptcies that caused the employees of these companies to lose their life savings and hurt the investment portfolios of thousands of individual investors.

Today, I am introducing legislation to correct a unique problem under ERISA for States with community property laws. The issue came to light in the 1997 Supreme Court decision in the case of Boggs v. Boggs. The Court held that ERISA preempted the application of Louisiana's community property law in the disposition of pension benefits. While the case originated in Louisiana, the holding tears a hole in the fabric of community property laws of seven other States, Texas, New Mexico, California, Arizona, Nevada, Washington, and Idaho.

Long before the women's movement, community property laws stood for the basic premise that a marriage is an economic, as well as social, child rearing partnership in which the ownership of property acquired during the marriage is shared equally. The Boggs case involved a husband and wife. The husband began accumulating benefits in a pension plan after they got married. The wife did not have a pension plan, but under the community property law of Louisiana, half of her husband's benefits were hers. The wife died before her husband retired, and before the plan's benefits were subject to distribution. In her will she left her interest in the pension benefits to her husband for the rest of his life, with the remaining interest to her sons for after her husband died. The husband subsequently remarried, retired, and ultimately died, leaving property to his second wife and an interest in his remaining assets to his sons. The sons attempted to enforce their State-law interest in the pension benefits bequeathed to them by their mother against the second wife. The Supreme Court held against the sons, saying that they were not beneficiaries of, nor participants in, the pension plan under ERISA.

This holding goes against the fundamental principles of community property. What the Court is saying is that although a husband's 401K plan may contain a million dollars of deferred earnings accumulated during the course of his marriage, if his wife dies before he retires, her interest terminates; she co-owned none of it. The fundamental principle of marriage as an equal partnership under community property is rendered meaningless by this decision.

The Boggs ruling will also lead to conflicting results in the disposition of assets at death in community property States. If, instead, the money had been put in an ordinary savings account that is not covered by ERISA, half of it would have been owned by the wife as community property in recognition of her contribution to the marriage. At her death, she would have been free to dispose of the assets as she saw fit. Furthermore, after Boggs, if a couple has both a 401K plan and a savings account, upon the death of the wife the husband gets all of the 401K plan plus half of the savings account; the wife's estate gets only half of the savings account. That is not the equal outcome community property laws seek.

The legislation that I am proposing will create a narrow exception within the ERISA preemption provisions to address the circumstances under Boggs. Instead of losing the community property interest in any non-forfeitable accrued pension benefits at death, a spouse will retain that interest and will be able to pass that interest on to his or her heirs. This is not an exceptional change to ERISA. What I am proposing does not affect the joint and survivor annuity required by ERISA nor does it prevent the participant from having the use and enjoyment of the entire retirement asset until his death. It does not place any new burden on the retirement plan administrators. It envisions that upon the death of the participant, the State probate court will apply normal community property principles, taking into account the value of the retirement assets at the time of the participant's death, in distributing the participant's property between the heirs of the participant and the heirs of the predeceased spouse. Furthermore, each community property State will have the freedom to implement the amendment by whatever means the State deems best, including the option not to implement the amendment at all.

ERISA already contains exceptions to its preemption provisions. One applies to divorce or other Qualified Domestic Relations Orders. This exception, added to ERISA by the Retirement Equity Act of 1984, allows States to apply their community property laws or equitable division laws to retirement assets when a couple gets divorced. A divorced spouse can retain an interest in the undistributed pension assets of their ex-husband or wife. As it now stands, therefore, ERISA is more favorable to a spouse who divorced the participant before dying, than a spouse who remained married to the participant until death.

The Senate should act to reaffirm the principles of community property. My legislation upholds the basic ideal of community property law: that marriage is a partnership that values as equal the contributions of both the husband and the wife. This notion of equality holds true whether one spouse worked and the other stayed at home. I urge my colleagues to pass this legislation.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of this bill be printed in the Record.

I believe under the unanimous consent I am in line to offer an amendment and I send an amendment to the desk for its immediate consideration.

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

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

Let me be very brief before the Senator from California leaves the floor to say I ask her to add me as a cosponsor to the amendment just presented. She made a beautiful presentation, quite compelling about why this Congress should step forward

and live up to the commitments we made in a bipartisan fashion with the President of the United States to create and pass a landmark piece of legislation. That only works if the funding is attached. The Senator from California has been so eloquent, saying because the funding has not been attached, it is questionable whether the whole act will work. I commend the Senator and add my name as a cosponsor to her amendment.

I move on to describe my amendment, which is complementary but not on the same subject. The amendment I send to the desk is equally as important to Louisiana as the amendment presented by Senator Boxer, which would have provided in Louisiana the opportunity for our Governor, who is Republican--I am a Democrat, he is a Republican--and our board of elementary and secondary education, made up of Democrats and Republicans, her amendment would make it possible for the reformers in our State, made up of members of both parties, to give opportunities for children who find themselves in very difficult situations with no place to go, both parents required to be working or choosing to work, and children needing opportunities after school.

This amendment I have sent to the desk funds a similar program that helps stabilize families but in a different way. It actually builds on a bipartisan effort led on this side by the Senator from West Virginia, Mr. Rockefeller, years ago, that recognized a failing in our foster care system.

Let me give a minute of background, although the time is very short. We actually have 570,000 children in foster care in the country; about 6,000 are in foster care in Louisiana. It is very unfortunate that children find themselves in foster care at all. We would, of course, like to have a child welfare system in this Nation where, first of all, every child stays in the family to which they are born. We would love for every child to be wanted and nurtured and loved and every family to be strong enough to be able to nurture those children and bring them up in a family environment, of course, educating them and sending them off as we wish for our children whom we raise and for all the children in America.

Unfortunately, that situation does not exist in every family for a variety of reasons. Sometimes the parents are simply unable. In some awful situations they are unwilling--drugs, alcohol, very dysfunctional family situations sometimes cause children to be removed from those families, placed into foster care, and then the system is supposed to work.

We spend $8 billion a year on that system. And there are serious efforts underway to reform that system.

This Senator is convinced we could serve families better, serve the children better, promote adoption, promote family reunification, prevent child abuse actually for less money if we designed this program differently. And those efforts are in the works.

Recognizing this program needed so much reform and support, and recognizing the difficulty because it is a very complex, huge Federal program that has been developed over the last 30 years in pretty much of a hit-and-miss kind of fashion, Senator Rockefeller came up with a fabulous, excellent, effective bill several years ago called Promoting Safe and Stable Families.

We passed the bill about 7 years ago. The bill basically says we recognize we have this $8 billion Federal program that could work better, and we are going to work on reforming it, but while we are doing that, let's make sure we are doing everything we can to help States and courts prevent children from going into the foster care system--in other words, reducing child abuse; in other words, giving families support at the front end, so that children do not go into foster care, so we do not have almost 600,000 children having to be taken away from their families and moved into a system, sometimes to languish for years.

Then Senator Rockefeller and others--this was a bipartisan effort-- said: Let's create a program on the back end so that when these children ``age out''--at that time it was 18; now it is 21--we give them another step so they can become productive adults. Although they have lost their families--many of the parental rights have been terminated--because our system has failed them; they were not adopted-- at least let's give them a college education. That is Promoting Safe and Stable Families.

I think the American people, whether they are liberal, conservative, Democrat, or Republican, could most certainly understand the benefit of spending a small portion of money to make sure the $8 billion we are spending is being spent as wisely as possible, to prevent the taxpayers, basically, from picking up the tab for a program that is not working.

The fact of the matter is, this bill, even though the President requested the program to be at a level of $504 million, for which he should be commended--he has been criticized, and a great deal of that criticism, actually, I believe, should be leveled in his direction. But in this case, it is actually the opposite. The President put $504 million in his budget. I commend him for doing that. Yet this underlying bill is shorting that program by over $100 million.

My amendment seeks to fully fund Promoting Safe and Stable Families to the level President Bush requested. Again, that request was made because Democrats and Republicans believe this program is a way, first, to make sure the $8 billion taxpayers are spending right now is spent in the appropriate ways, and making sure we have the flexibility given to our States and local governments to prevent children from coming into foster care. And that is done by supporting community-based programs, time-limited family reunifications, and, in my opinion, most importantly, promoting adoption and the support services that go along with adoption.

Then, at the back end, this money would be given to States. It would be very flexible. States can design their own programs. It is given to the States in a very flexible way to make sure that if the system is failing--and right now it is failing thousands and thousands of our children--when the system takes their parents away, and then when the system fails to provide another family for them, the least this Congress could do, I would argue, for the most vulnerable children in America--some of these children are poor, some of them are not, some of them came from homes of middle-income families--the least we could do, though, for this group of children who have no parents to advocate for them, who have no family to advocate for them, is to fully fund the education component this Congress wisely put in place that gives children an opportunity, when they age out of foster care, to go on and try to build a life, despite the difficulties they have, to stay out of prison, to stay out of mental health hospitals. That is what this amendment does.

In conclusion, this amendment, which adds about $100 million to the underlying bill, would meet the President's request. It would fund the authorization of Promoting Safe and Stable Families. It would attempt to help the 1 million children last year in the United States who were confirmed as victims of abuse and neglect. It would do it in a way without Federal mandates, without Federal regulations, but would give the money to the States and to our cities and to our local communities to design these programs in the way they see fit.

In closing, Mr. President, let me just add some words from children who have actually received the benefit of this program. Let's listen to what they say in their own words about this program.

The first is written by Belinda J. from Juniata College in Pennsylvania. She says:

There are not enough words to express my gratitude to you

for donating money to further my education. When I received

the award letter--

which this amendment would fully fund--

I was speechless and almost started to cry. All those years

I worked hard in school because I knew I wanted a career in

science. I had a dream and people like you--

speaking to the Members of Congress--

helped me fulfill that dream. Things still do not come easy

to me and I still face the same challenges that I had in

foster care, but your belief in me has helped keep me going

towards my goal. At this point in my life, I do not know if I

am going to be a doctor, a scientist or a forensic

investigator, but I do know whom to thank when I become one

of these.

This is a young woman who has no parents.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for one additional minute.

The program I am attempting to fully fund meets the President's request. This is unlike some other amendments where the President underfunded it and the committee did the same. We just simply have not found the will to fund the program. This is a program the President put in his budget at a $540 million level, and it is being underfunded.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that statements from other individuals who have benefited from this program be printed in the Record.

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

I thank the Chair.

Mr. President, would the Senator object to giving me 2 minutes of his time to wrap up?

Mr. President, I appreciate the chairman's comments. I know how hard he and the Senator from Iowa have worked to keep this budget within the limits established. As a member of the Appropriations Committee, I am well aware of the process.

It seems as though the Republican leadership has allowed spending for programs using an advance funding mechanism for the priorities they believe are important; yet while saying they think this priority is important, they refuse to accept amendments that basically use the same offset. I want to make clear for the record that the funding for this would come from the exact same provision that the chairman has used for other programs in the health, welfare, and education bill. Yet it seems when it comes to full funding for Leave No Child Behind or full funding for a program the administration says it fully supports, there is all of a sudden no money available.

Again, this has been one of the priorities of this administration. Leave No Child Behind is something this administration speaks about on a daily basis. Yet there are billions of dollars of shortage in funding in that program. That is not just another Federal program. It was a very important historic meeting of the minds on how to reform education and how to give cities--whether it is Washington, DC, or New Orleans or rural areas throughout the country--the resources they need to reform public education. Also, upgrading foster care, promoting adoption, making sure that every child has a family, a loving and stable home because that is the fabric and essence of our society, again, we find that the will is simply not there. That is what I wanted to say in response.

I understand this amendment will not be accepted. I wanted to say that it seeks the same sort of offset that other programs have in the bill.

Madam President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

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

Madam President, we have had a series of very important amendments. The priorities of Members and their States are reflected in each amendment that has been offered, and the amendments of Senator Breaux, one of the cosponsors, Senator Daschle, Senator Johnson, and others, is the same. This is a very important issue to our State and an issue we hope we can find some redress to in this appropriations bill.

My amendment seeks to fund a new piece of legislation passed last year with a great deal of fanfare because the situation is so obvious relating to the West Nile virus sweeping the United States.

Because of this very frightening situation, the Congress acted appropriately last year. Several Members joined together with States that had been very hard hit to pass a new piece of Federal legislation saying yes, the Federal Government should step to the plate and help our States with treatment, with education for the population, with prevention, and also with methods in place to basically kill the mosquitoes and kill the dangerous larvae that create the situation.

There are a lot of serious issues. I don't mean to compare this in any way with the degree of the heartbreak in which we engage in the war in Iraq because that is such an international and extremely important issue. Just to let the taxpayers know, to date we had 286 people die in a war; we have had 246 people die in the United States of West Nile virus. The small, modest amendment I am offering, which is only $100 million, to fully fund this program makes small grants available to the States. This would help save lives, would help the country become more aware of what individuals and communities can do to protect themselves. Hopefully, with just a little bit of help from the Federal Government, our States will step to the plate.

In 2002, we had 884 cases reported in Illinois. In that State alone, 64 people have died. In Michigan, we have had 614 positive cases of West Nile and 51 people died as a result. My State has been hard hit. In Louisiana we had 329 cases in 2002 and 25 deaths. Other States that have registered high numbers of cases are Colorado, South Dakota, and Louisiana for 2003. Mosquitos are not a new enemy in Louisiana. As a low-lying swampy place, we have been battling this for literally hundreds of years. However, they are more than a nuisance; they are deadly. This is a very serious public health issue in the United States.

The bill last year was passed with great fanfare, authorizing a very simple, modest, but important Federal program to help give moneys to local counties--in our State that would be parishes--to help with mosquito abatement programs. It requires a local government match. Without this money there will be no assistance for the State and local governments to help with the West Nile virus and mosquito control. This funding will make it possible for State and local jurisdictions to develop and implement effective programs. I am proud to say Louisiana has been a leader. Of course, for 300 years we have been fighting mosquitos. We have a lot of experience. Many of the coastal States, including North Carolina, have experienced difficulties, as well as Alaska, I understand. It is interesting to note that it is not limited to just the coastal States.

Again, the highest incidence is in Illinois, Michigan, and Ohio. People are dying. This can be a fatal condition.

Madam President, my amendment seeks to fund the new but very important program to help local governments deal with the West Nile virus. I hope we find the resources in this budget to do so.

Madam President, there are fewer issues that bring consensus to the table than the issue of adoption. We in this Congress have worked in a bipartisan manner to help our families be stronger and safer and to help children in foster care.

There are 570,000 children in foster care. This amendment allows us to help them with $118 million to live up to the commitments we have made to these children.

Madam President, 100,000 of them are orphans. We promised to help 25,000 who age out of foster care get a chance to go to college. These children have no parents. We are their parents. If we do not help them get to school, they are not going. That is what this amendment does.

We agree on adoption. We agree on improvements to foster care. Let us vote to increase the funding. It is minuscule and inconsequential to this budget, but it is of enormous importance to this group of people and to these children.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the list of States and the amounts of money that will be lost be printed in the Record.

Madam President, pursuant to section 504(b)(2) of H. Con. Res. 95, I move to waive section 504 of that concurrent resolution for the purposes of the pending amendment. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Madam President, I am glad to have a quorum. This is a very important amendment. I need my colleagues' help, if they would direct their attention to this chart I have in the Chamber.

This amendment is called the MASH amendment. It is a very serious amendment: mosquito abatement, safety, and health.

We are fighting multiple wars--one in Iraq, which is very serious, with far-reaching consequences.

I know my colleagues are interested in knowing about how many people have lost their lives in their own States in this last year. It has been quite a few from this new and very deadly disease.

We have lost 286 men and women in Iraq, which is very serious, and we are spending a great deal of time, energy, money, and treasure, but we have also lost 246 individuals in the United States. The highest instances have been in Louisiana, South Dakota, Michigan, and Ohio.

This amendment will provide the only Federal funds available to help our States combat this deadly disease. I ask for your support. I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record data on the number of confirmed cases of people who have contracted this deadly disease and the number of people who have died from it.

I ask for my colleagues' support on this amendment.

Mr. President, pursuant to section 504(b)(2) of H. Con. Res. 95, I move to waive section 504 of that concurrent resolution for purposes of the pending amendment, and I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, it is almost like the change of season around the Capitol when young people from all over the country descend on the Capitol to learn about their Government. We all meet with groups of these students from our State. We take photos, we answer questions. But if you take the time to look at the badges the students and teachers are wearing, more likely than not, they will say Close Up.

Like thousands of young people around this Nation, I got my first real taste of our Federal Government from a trip sponsored by the Close Up Foundation. Since 1972, more than 26,000 students from my State have learned about their Government through the auspices of this organization. Close Up has awarded some $3.7 million in fellowships for students in need and their teachers to encourage the broadest base of possible participation. Furthermore, this program was started by a legendary member of this body, who also hailed from Louisiana--Allen Ellender.

Moreover, there has never been a greater need than now for young people to understand what our Democracy is all about. As we face enormous challenges at home and abroad, the better understanding our young people have about their Government, the brighter our future will be.

Sadly, Mr. President, the Close Up Foundation, which has enjoyed the support of the Senate for several decades, did not receive any resources in this bill. They are seeking funding of $1.4 million, an amount equal to last year's level. I would ask my friend, the Senior Senator from Pennsylvania, and chairman of the Labor, Health and Human Services Subcommittee, if he is aware of the precarious situation of this program, and if he would be willing to work with me to find additional resources during the conference process.

I ask unanimous consent that Kathleen Strottman be granted the privilege of the floor.

Mr. President, I come to the floor to support Senator Harkin in his call for additional funding to support the reform underway for education.

I would like to speak a minute about the reforms, the importance of living up to our promises and meeting the requirements of the quite historic act of Leave No Child Behind, as well as to support Senator Harkin in his call to scuttle an unneeded, untimely, and in many ways unsettling and disappointing rule that the Labor Department is proposing to strip away overtime pay for 8 million workers.

Since the Senator spoke in just the last moment on education, let me start with that. I listened during the last several weeks to so many different speeches about the level of education funding. Let me be the first to say as a Democrat that I am proud to have led the effort to come up with a bipartisan bill that holds out hope and promise to every child in our country for a better education.

I tire of the criticism this side of the aisle receives when people say all the Democrats care about is more money and more money. Let me remind people about the fact that many of us on this side of the aisle rejected the call for more funding just being dumped on the same old system. We stood our ground and argued with some Republicans--not all-- whose initial efforts were in many ways to just abandon the public school system, eliminate the Department of Education, remove all Federal involvement in education, walk away from our Governors, walk away from our legislators, and say: Fine. The school system is yours. But luckily there were enough Republicans so we rejected that wrong- headed thinking. We came together and said it is not a straight voucher system that is going to solve public education and we don't need to abandon public schools. Then some Democrats said it is not just more money which we need. It is accountability with added investment and an expectation of results that are going to work.

People would ask me: Senator, how do you know this? Why do you feel so strongly about it? How can you be so confident about it? It is not a concept for me and for Senator Breaux who represent the State of Louisiana that it would be 3 years down the road of reform and accountability before we passed the Federal law. We started out--along with about five other States--pioneering this new effort to identify through strong testing the schools that are working and those that aren't; when we identify those that aren't, to give added resources, whether they are urban areas or rural areas, to help them turn around and improve; when they can and when they fail.

Then we have the power at the State and Federal levels to close those schools or reconstitute those schools so we can provide better leadership, a better framework, and better opportunity so the children in those schools, along with better qualified teachers, more committed administrators, and more involved parents and communities can learn and get the job done.

But all of those new requirements for every child to take a test and pass, for teachers to have certification and not willy-nilly certification--not the old-fashioned certification but the new kind of certification--obviously a college degree but also nontraditional certifications such as teachers and executives who have been successful and perhaps retired and want to come into the classroom--new and innovative ways but still a standard to be met and teachers coming into the classroom with good skills and good requirements. We said if we are going to raise the bar and increase the mandates and require accountability and certification, then we will fund those efforts.

The other side of the aisle wants to keep saying that all Democrats want is more money. We don't just want more money. But we do want this administration and we want the President to commit and live up to the promises he made to fund the reforms.

Yes, the amount of money for education has increased, but it does not increase because the President has asked for enough money to meet the new and rigorous demands that he and we are expecting from our school system. We have deadlines in the bill to require States such as Louisiana--and in some parishes 40 percent of the teachers are unqualified and uncertified, not because people do not want to teach but because the salary levels are so low; because of the underfunding and the traditional ways we fund education, which is not at all equitable throughout this Nation--for any number of reasons we are not able to keep those teachers' salaries up. Yet the new law which we all supported requires that we have certified teachers.

While we have doubled, tripled, and quadrupled the mandate, or the expectation, or the standards--however you want to define them--we have not quadrupled or tripled funds. Therein lies the problem.

As we raise the standards and expect higher accountability and, as Senator Byrd from West Virginia has pointed out a number of times on this floor, refuse to step to the plate and fund that level, we leave our schools and our local communities--whether it is out in the mountains of Montana in big sky country or the bayous, flatlands and lowlands of Louisiana, or whether it is an urban center like New York or Chicago, we leave our schools and our administrators struggling with a mighty task and limited resources. It is wrong.

Finally on education funding, several decades ago we said to the States, we will help you identify special-needs children. The deal is if you put up X amount of dollars we will put up X amount of dollars because we believe even if children are visually impaired, hard of hearing, or have some mental

incapacities, they still should receive a quality education. We submit to the States, if we identify these special-needs children, we will pick up the tab. Again, that was an empty promise because today we are picking up much less than the 40 percent we promised--I think perhaps 10 percent when we promised 40, 50, or 60 percent.

Yes, we do need a higher level of commitment from this President and from the administration, not to throw money at the old system but to help build the new system he and the Republican leadership helped to craft. But it is like putting up the framework of a skyscraper and not providing the rest of the money necessary to make those changes real and to make them stick.

I know Governors and administrators are struggling. I want them to know that at least this Senator and many Democrats, some Republicans, are in Washington trying to do what we can to squeeze out additional dollars to live up to the promise we made.

A final point. I am tired of the other side saying, we never meet authorization levels. What are you talking about? We authorize X in housing, yet we only fund X. We authorize X in research but we only fund X. I know that is normally what we do. But Leave No Child Behind is not just routine business. It is not just another day at the office. It is not just, we will do it when we get to it, and when we don't, we can't. This is a national priority this Congress resolved to commit to, saying yes, we believe it is an American birthright not just to be able to walk into a school but to be able to walk out with a diploma that means something. It is in the family's interest, the individual's interest, and in the Nation's interest to have that kind of school system. We will fund it. And then the next year we didn't.

The President and the administration deserve and should stand up and take the criticism they deserve for not funding it fully as was implied, if not directly promised.

It brings me to, interestingly, in this debate over education funding, which the underlying bill helps to focus on, another interesting fight or debate about the District of Columbia. This is a school system of 500,000 people, a school system with about 75,000 children. We have been debating in Washington a proposal by the original sponsors, Republican leaders in the House. Their basic solution to the fact this school system is not quite doing what it should do was not, why don't we fully fund what we promised in Leave No Child Behind? Why don't we fully fund Title I for the District of Columbia? Why don't we fully fund special education? Why don't we really hold these teachers and the school system accountable and make sure these schools that are failing are closed?

No. Before the ink was dry on the Leave No Child Behind Act, there was a group that said, Vouchers are the answer.

With all due respect to well-meaning colleagues, vouchers are not the answer to education challenges in America. Full funding for Leave No Child Behind, funding teacher certification, smaller classroom size, funding to repair dilapidated school systems, and funding research and innovation, and giving flexibility at the local level is what will help our local school system.

If there was an opportunity under Leave No Child Behind, if a school was identified as needing reform and it had to be closed and there are several hundred children or perhaps even 1,000 in some of these schools--it is allowable now, permissible now at the local level, without any action Congress might take with that local school system, to use a voucher proposal; not federally mandated, not federally required, not contingent upon getting any new funds, but it is allowed now for those students in failing schools to opt out to either higher performing public schools or charter schools or to a private school that is accredited with that money. And that maybe if it is designed specifically for children in failing schools, if there is the same accountability requirements--in other words, children in public schools have to take certain tests to make sure the public dollars being spent are being spent well--if those accountability measures are followed by the accountable voucher proposal, then perhaps that is something that should be considered, but in the context of more full funding for Leave No Child Behind and in the context of supporting other admirable reform efforts in the schools like charter schools and the transformation of some of the public schools that are going on today.

I was recently criticized by the Wall Street Journal for my position in this particular debate. Although it is not worth putting it into the Congressional Record, the article was factually incorrect on so many different points, including criticizing me for changing my position. My position on this has been constant over the last several years. Again, I don't believe a mandate in public schools of going to a system of vouchers helps to strengthen the public school system. However, I believe when failing schools are identified, children from families with limited resources should be allowed but not required, if the vouchers meet the same accountability standards as Leave No Child Behind allowed, to be able to move to a higher performing school.

My position has been consistent. I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a beautiful letter written by the head of the Georgetown Day School, Peter M. Branch, where my children attend. This letter is in response to the Wall Street Journal editorial.

Mr. President, today I rise to introduce the Environmental Health Research Act. Science has long since shown that the environment plays an important role in an individual's health. We have made the correlation between clean drinking water and a person's well being. We know that there is a link between childhood asthma and unclean air. Through scientific research we have been able to shed light on these findings, and as a society we are healthier form knowing how our environment affects our physical condition, as we are now able to take steps to ameliorate our environment so we can improve our health.

With all of the advancements we have made in recent decades, we must still research further, especially in the area of how the environment affects women's health. There is evidence that shows that environmental factors contribute to numerous diseases in women. For example, there are synthetic chemicals in numerous regularly used pesticides and natural compounds in many plant products in our regular diet that produce compounds that mimic the female hormone estrogen. Many scientists believe that these `environmental estrogens'' may block the natural hormone. If this is true, then environmental estrogens may play a role in diseases such as cancers of the breast, uterus, and ovaries, endometriosis, uterine fibroids, and osteoporosis. As we come into contact with environmental estrogens everyday through eating, drinking, and breathing, it is very important that we have research dedicated to discovering how they may affect women's health.

In addition, 12 million American kids suffer from developmental, learning, or behavioral disabilities. Attention deficit disorder affects three to six percent of our schoolchildren. Research shows that exposure to certain environmental factors during pregnancy may increase the risk of disabilities after birth. The research called for by this bill would help us to answer the many questions raised by the incidence of birth defects in certain environments.

One in three women will be diagnosed with cancer at some point in their lives. Uterine fibroids are present in between 20 and 30 percent of women over the age of 30. Endometriosis affects an estimated 10 to 15 percent of pre-menopausal women. Millions of women are affected every year with diseases that are more than likely linked to the environment. We must further our scientific knowledge in this area. For this reason I ask for your support for the Environmental Health Research Act. Thank you.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, today I rise to introduce the Environmental Health Research Act. Science has long since shown that the environment plays an important role in an individual's health. We have made the correlation between clean drinking water and a person's well being. We know that there is a link between childhood asthma and unclean air. Through scientific research we have been able to shed light on these findings, and as a society we are healthier form knowing how our environment affects our physical condition, as we are now able to take steps to ameliorate our environment so we can improve our health.

With all of the advancements we have made in recent decades, we must still research further, especially in the area of how the environment affects women's health. There is evidence that shows that environmental factors contribute to numerous diseases in women. For example, there are synthetic chemicals in numerous regularly used pesticides and natural compounds in many plant products in our regular diet that produce compounds that mimic the female hormone estrogen. Many scientists believe that these `environmental estrogens'' may block the natural hormone. If this is true, then environmental estrogens may play a role in diseases such as cancers of the breast, uterus, and ovaries, endometriosis, uterine fibroids, and osteoporosis. As we come into contact with environmental estrogens everyday through eating, drinking, and breathing, it is very important that we have research dedicated to discovering how they may affect women's health.

In addition, 12 million American kids suffer from developmental, learning, or behavioral disabilities. Attention deficit disorder affects three to six percent of our schoolchildren. Research shows that exposure to certain environmental factors during pregnancy may increase the risk of disabilities after birth. The research called for by this bill would help us to answer the many questions raised by the incidence of birth defects in certain environments.

One in three women will be diagnosed with cancer at some point in their lives. Uterine fibroids are present in between 20 and 30 percent of women over the age of 30. Endometriosis affects an estimated 10 to 15 percent of pre-menopausal women. Millions of women are affected every year with diseases that are more than likely linked to the environment. We must further our scientific knowledge in this area. For this reason I ask for your support for the Environmental Health Research Act. Thank you.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.