[Congressional Record Volume 149, Number 135 (Monday, September 29, 2003)]
[Senate]
[Pages S12108-S12125]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2004
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will
resume consideration of H.R. 2765, which the clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
A bill (H.R. 2765) making appropriations for the government
of the District of Columbia and other activities chargeable
in whole or in part against the revenues of said District for
the fiscal year ending September 30, 2004, and for other
purposes.
Pending:
DeWine/Landrieu Amendment No. 1783, in the nature of a
substitute.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio.
Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, we are back on the District of Columbia
appropriations bill. It is my hope that we will, within the next
several days, be able to conclude our deliberations on this bill.
This bill, as we have discussed at length already, is a very positive
bill. Senator Landrieu and I have worked on it with the help of the
other members of the committee. It does a great deal for the children
of the District of Columbia. One of the things Senator Landrieu and I
are both proud of is the work it does for the foster care system, a
system that has truly been broken in the District. The District of
Columbia has had some serious problems in regard to its foster care
system. The Washington Post and other news media outlets have reported
time and again about the foster care system. This legislation, for the
first time, commits the Federal Government to try to assist in the
repair of the system.
The bill also continues the work of the Congress with the District to
deal with some very severe infrastructure problems--a sewer problem,
for example.
It also addresses the school problem in the District of Columbia,
which is the one area that has been contentious. We have taken some
time already to debate the issue. As I have pointed out, this bill
takes a balanced approach to the school challenge. It is a program that
has been designed by the Mayor. It is an innovative program that
provides for $40 million of new money--I emphasize that this is new
money--that will be injected into the system: $13 million that will go
to public schools, $13 million to charter schools for the creation of
new charter schools, and $13 million used for a brand new program to
create scholarships for the poorest children in the District of
Columbia.
It is a program that, as the Mayor has said, was designed by him, a
program he supports, as he has publicly stated, and that he has asked
the Congress, the Senate to approve. It is a program that will go a
long way to help the children of the District of Columbia.
I ask this afternoon for my colleagues who do have amendments--I know
Senator Landrieu will be discussing in a moment an amendment she and
Senator Carper will be proposing; I know Senator Durbin has an
amendment, and some of the other colleagues may have amendments--to
come to the Chamber and offer their amendments so we can move the bill
forward. We are prepared to vote on the amendments. It is time for us
to do that so we can move this legislation forward.
I yield to my friend and colleague, Senator Landrieu.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana.
Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Ohio who has
been a great partner in this effort. He and I share a great deal of
pride in the underlying bill. It was built and crafted with a
tremendous amount of bipartisan support.
As he mentioned, one of the cornerstones and key provisions is a
push, an initiative, to help support, change, and transform the foster
care system in the District. Although it is not a Federal
responsibility directly, as the District of Columbia, and as a major
city in our country, we hope to have a model that is beneficial not
only to the District and the residents in the region but also a model
that shines as a bright line around the country as jurisdictions all
over the country, including many jurisdictions in Louisiana, are
struggling with this same question of how to give the taxpayers the
accountability they deserve, how to give the parents and families the
respect they deserve, and how and when to step in and separate
children, for their own protection, safety, and health, from a family
situation that is disintegrating or dysfunctional and try to heal the
situation, reunite the child with the family, or, if that cannot
happen, move that child through a temporary nurturing foster care
situation until that child can either be reunited with the family or
placed with an adoptive family.
I commend the District leadership publicly for the improvements that
have been made, although we are a long way from where we need to go.
With Senator DeWine's leadership, we were able to put millions and
millions of dollars in last year's bill--as I recall, somewhere around
$70 million--for a new court system to redesign the superior court, to
actually identify--and Senator DeWine and Senator Durbin led this
effort--and design a special court for domestic cases, for family
cases, for child welfare cases, so hopefully we now have coming into
play one judge--one child and one judge, one family, so children do not
get lost between courtrooms or their files are not lost between social
workers. We have one team, one judge working with the child for good
resolution.
It takes not only good planning but it takes money. It takes
resources. The mayor and the locals have stepped up to increase their
budgets. We have stepped up to try, even with things as tight as they
are, to find additional funding to support that foster care reform.
That includes the courts, in getting the social worker ratios tighter
so we do not have 1 social worker for every 50 children but 1 social
worker for a manageable 15, 20, or 30, which is still a heavy caseload.
Those are two of the important initiatives. Having the right kind of
database, having the right kind of people step to the plate to become
foster care parents, to promoting adoption as a way to move children to
a permanent, loving home--that takes the cooperation of the social
workers, the families, the extended family, and the court.
All of those initiatives are funded in this bill to some degree--not
to the extent, of course, that we would like but I think to the extent
we can begin to see some real headway in terms of improvement for the
children of the District.
There are anywhere from 6,000 to 8,000 children ranging in age from
infants to 18 to 21 who need this assistance. The chairman has also
been very eloquent regarding the needs of children aging out of the
system, children who were taken away from their parents, where parental
rights were terminated, and the system we created failed to find that
child a new family. So at the age of 18 or 21, the child ages out and
is literally handed a plastic bag with a few pieces of clothing and not
much else other than good luck, good wishes, and goodbye.
That, of course, is not sufficient. In this bill and other efforts
this Congress
[[Page S12109]]
is making, we are trying not only to help children aging out of the
foster care system in the District of Columbia but all over the Nation.
There are 25,000 such young children who age out each year. There are
exciting projects underway to help these young people despite the fact
that they got a short straw in terms of the way their first 21 years of
life went. We are hoping to step in, in a more comprehensive way, and
give these young people opportunities for college, for skill
development, for social development.
Of course, all the money in the world spent on the back end is not
worth the effort that could be in the front end regarding prevention.
That is what Senator DeWine has so correctly done and why I support him
in his efforts.
Now a word on the school reform proposal being considered and
debated. There were a number of points I tried to make on this proposal
Friday. I agree with Senator DeWine; we should have our Members present
amendments to try to get some sort of idea in terms of time. Perhaps we
will have today and tomorrow to discuss this issue. Senator Durbin and
a few other Senators on our side will have amendments to lay down.
One of the issues I will discuss is the issue of choice. It was one
of the goals of Leave No Child Behind, and an important goal. It was
not the central goal. It was not the underlying goal. It was a
desirable goal. The goal of Leave No Child Behind was excellence
through accountability--excellence for the children in the public
school system and accountability to their parents and taxpayers who
pick up the tab for that system.
In that legislation, we laid down many ways that jurisdictions can
provide more choices for students all over this country, for the
millions and millions and millions of children who are in public
education. We want real choices, not false choices. I am afraid some
voucher proponents who continue to talk about vouchers for private
schools say the real issue is choice. It is not choice; it is real
choice. It is informed choice. It is not just choice. And it is
affordable choice.
Senator Carper and I, in one of eight points in an amendment we have
discussed, tried to point out to the proponents that the $7,500
voucher, while it sounds like a lot of money--and $7,500 is a lot of
money--the average private school tuition in the District of Columbia
is $10,800. We are trying to point out, as written in the proposal
being considered, there is no guarantee that $7,500 voucher would
actually get a child into the school of their choice for that amount of
money because the school of their choice might have a tuition of
$20,000 or $18,000 or $12,000.
One of the aspects of our amendment is, if you are for choice, then
be for a real choice; make the voucher real, not fake. We have been
criticized as having a filibuster on the cheap. I say that proposal is
like vouchers on the cheap.
It is not going to work if the tuition is $20,000 or $15,000 or
$12,000. The proponents want to say the taxpayers should be prepared to
pick up whatever to give a real choice. Well, that is an expensive
whatever. But the opponents want to say we will pick up a voucher for a
child to go to a private school, then pick it up. That is what I say.
Pick it up. Why stop at $7,500?
One of the parts of our amendment is to have the voucher basically be
accepted by the private school--this is all voluntary on the private
schools' part, which is a very good part of the underlying bill. This
is not mandatory. No private school has to participate, and there would
be many reasons, as written in many newspapers in the country, why many
private schools in the District would not want to participate. If they
are going to participate, they would have to follow certain
guidelines--not cumbersome and, in my mind, not anything that would be
very difficult to follow--again, just trying to meet the minimum
accountability standards. But if we are going to give children a
choice, let's give them a real choice and not vouchers on the cheap,
No. 1.
No. 2, one of the most important things about creating any system of
choices, whether you create more choice in a public school or more
choice for children to go to private schools, is to have informed
choices. I would think that we could be spending more money--or more
effort and money than we are, and I would be surprised that the
proponents who have argued for choice, choice, choice, have not put
forward a proposal to try to help the parents of the District of
Columbia to have more informed choices about the choices they have now,
which is completely public school choice.
In order to make good choices--as we have seen, the choices you make
are only as good as the information you have with which to make them.
We are experiencing this with our foreign policy as we speak. If your
information is not as secure and as thorough and deep and as tight as
you would like it, maybe sometimes the choices you make would be
different if you had the right kind of information. It is the same
thing about public schools and about school choice. If you could have a
consumer report, like many of us get for the appliances that we
purchase, you could tell what kind of washing machine or dryer you
would like, or what car you would like to buy. It is quite easy. Not
only can you view the product in a number of different locations
without a lot of pressure, but you can read in detail about the way the
product carries out its work or the way the product functions. The same
effort should be underway here.
That is one of the things that Leave No Child Behind put forward in
its reform effort, trying to help improve choices, increase choices but
informed choices, and why is there now a report card, a report,
accountability? It is so parents can know. If I have a choice to send
my child to this or that school, it is not just walking in the front
door and shaking hands with a few individuals and observing if the
school looks like it is in good repair and observing the children in
the school; but it is also looking a little beneath the surface. What
are the teacher/parent ratios? How large are the classrooms? Is my
child getting this kind of attention? What do the records show? How
many children have become national merit scholars at this school? How
many things do parents want to know about their children? If we are
interested in choice--of which I am a strong supporter, which is why I
have supported charter schools and this kind of accountability and
information--then I would think that the voucher proponents would be
interested in that kind of information.
But, again, the amendment we have discussed, laid down--the necessity
of gathering that kind of information and evaluation, not telling the
public schools what they have to do, or ratios, but reporting
mechanisms that would allow parents to make wise choices and would also
allow the taxpayer who is picking up this tab to have some sense of
whether their money was being used for a good purpose or not. Maybe the
taxpayers would have a different view. But no matter what we do,
whether we have a voucher that goes--which I have argued goes only to
children in failing schools, not a broad-based voucher--to have an
opportunity to put the system in place for those children to leave that
school and to move to a different school, you are going to have to have
better information than the proposal that is before us. So the issue of
basically voucher on the cheap choice might sound good but it is not
real unless you have the right kind of information.
The third point I wish to make is this. My colleague just said this,
and you could argue--and I hate to argue with him on any point because
he and I have agreed on so many issues for this bill. But I have to
take issue with one statement, and he is not the only one who said it.
The other Senators have talked about the concept of extra money or new
money. This $40 million that exists in the Senate bill, which is a
third for vouchers, a third for charters, a third for traditional
public schools, is not new tax dollars. There was no new revenue stream
created to pay for this. Part of the money came from the Defense
allocation. Part of the money came from Commerce-State-Justice and part
of it came from the allocation for the District of Columbia. So this
money has come from other places in the budget to come to the District
of Columbia. It is not new money. It was here before. It is here now.
It is just now shaped for this education initiative.
I agree that the District should get $40 million for a demonstration
project
[[Page S12110]]
for any number of reasons. I don't agree with all of the details of the
voucher proposal, but I hope we can stop saying this is new money
because, in my mind, unless there was a proposal like everybody is
going to pay one more dollar for their parking tickets or one more
penny for sales tax or everybody is going to pay one more something, it
is not new money; it is coming from somewhere else to fund this
initiative--not from the education budget, that is true, but it is
coming from other budgets.
The Wall Street Journal writes about this every week in a very
critical way of my position. I say to them, as they wrote again today,
several of us who have supported the modification, they want to remind
me--they say:
Senator Landrieu should remind herself that this is extra
education money.
Let me say to the Wall Street Journal and to any other newspaper that
would be reporting on this, I don't know if you can convince any
educator in America that there is any extra money anywhere for
education. I don't think you could argue with any educator anywhere and
say there is extra money. People may say we are spending too much in
this area, and our money is not being spent well, so let's move it and
repair schools; or we have too much money in the repair school budget,
so let's move it to buy computers; or we have great computers but we
don't have the teachers who have the training to operate the computers
and to teach them, so let's take that money and move it. But I don't
know anybody who thinks there is extra money in education, and
especially extra money for a program that doesn't accomplish the goals
that you have outlined and doesn't meet the objectives of Leave No
Child Behind.
I will have some other things to say about this article as the day
proceeds. I wanted to talk for a minute about the concept of new money,
extra money, about choice and the difference between real choice,
informed and uninformed choices, and, again, the issue of vouchers on
the cheap, because $7,500 will not get many children in the District
much because the schools here are quite expensive--not just in the
District but in the region and throughout the country. There are many
expensive schools that are much more than $7,500.
If we are going to try to help children who are in failed public
schools to get a real informed choice, then at least give them a
voucher that will get them through the front door and they will not
have to go out and have a bake sale in their neighborhood to get the
extra money to go because that is not a real choice.
Those are the comments I wanted to make. There are other Senators who
will be coming to the floor to speak. I suggest the absence of a
quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I wish to respond to my colleague's
comment about ``new money.'' I hesitate to do this because my colleague
and I agree on so many issues. We have worked so well on this bill. But
we disagree about this phrase. I will say why I have used this phrase.
First, this is new money. This is new money to the Mayor. If you ask
him, ``Mayor, is this new money to you,'' he is going to say: ``Yes, it
is, Senator, new money. I didn't have this $40 million, and would I
like this $40 million for my schools, for my kids? Yes, I would. I
would like 13 million new dollars for my public schools. Yes, I would
like 13 million new dollars--new dollars--so I can have these
scholarships; I would, indeed.''
It is new money. It is, in fact, new money. It is new to these kids.
It is new to their parents. It is new to the schools. It is 13 million
new dollars for charter schools, and it will create new charter schools
and they will, in fact, be new.
Why do we use the term ``new''? We have to understand the context.
One of the arguments made many times against these scholarships, or, as
my colleague would say, vouchers, is that you can't do that or you
shouldn't do that because it takes money away from public schools. As
the debate is taking place across the country, people will say: You
shouldn't be taking money away from the public schools and putting it
into scholarships; that is not fair.
When this program was designed, when this bill was put together, the
decision was made that we were not going to do that. What we want to do
and what the Mayor wants to do is make this a win-win-win situation,
with no money taken away from the public schools. In fact, money would
be given to the public schools. So, yes, in fact, it is new money. That
is the context in which the term ``new money'' is used.
Those of us who are in favor of this bill and in favor of this
program use the phrase ``new money'' simply to emphasize no money is
being taken away from the public schools, and, in fact, it is new money
to the public schools, new money for the charter schools and new money,
yes, for these scholarships. That is why we use that phrase. Quite
frankly, that is why I am going to continue to use it, and I think it
is very important to point that out.
I wish to go back to another point my colleague made about the $7,500
scholarship, that it might not be enough at some of these schools.
First of all, I think in most cases it will be enough. Let me tell you
why. A recent survey conducted by the Washington Scholarship Fund, with
assistance from the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee
staff, found the average weighted tuition among DC private schools with
vacancies to be $6,172, well within the $7,500 scholarship amount
provided by this program. That is something we need to keep in mind.
Furthermore, two-thirds of the schools that reported vacancies charge
tuition under $7,300 and most have a sliding scale to accommodate a
family's ability to pay. We think the fact is this is not going to be a
problem, but I say to my colleague, I already indicated to her when we
were negotiating earlier last week that I don't have a problem with
that particular language in her amendment. It certainly makes sense to
me. I don't have any problem with that provision in her amendment.
We have reached the point in this debate when we need to know about
the amendments. We talked a lot about them. We need to get them. I am
not going to propound a unanimous consent request at this point, but I
put everybody on notice, within an hour or two I am going to ask
unanimous consent that we set a time certain later today that we have a
specific cutoff time so we can get these amendments noticed and so
everyone will be notified what the amendments will be. There is no
reason we can't put everyone on notice and have a time certain later
today when these amendments all can be filed so that we know where we
are so we can move forward.
Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
IRAQ
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, this week, the Senate begins a debate on
the most important question facing any government. It is not just about
the administration's policies and its conduct in Iraq. It is about the
way we pursue American interests in a dangerous world. It is about the
way our Government makes one of its most important decisions--whether
to send young American men and women to war.
Everything we do this week--every amendment we consider and every
word of our debate--should be focused on protecting our men and women
in uniform, providing for the support and care of their families, and
helping them complete their mission and come home with honor.
It is wrong to put American lives on the line for a dubious cause.
Many of us continue to believe that this was the wrong war at the wrong
time. There were alternatives short of a premature rush to a unilateral
war that could have accomplished our goals in Iraq with far fewer
casualties and far less damage to our goals in the war against
terrorism.
[[Page S12111]]
But above all, at this time, as our men and women face constant
danger, as American lives are lost almost daily in Iraq, it is not only
wrong, but an irresponsible failure of leadership for the
administration to have no plan for Iraq. Our troops deserve a plan that
will bring in adequate foreign forces to share the burden and restoring
stability and building democracy as part of a vision for the future of
Iraq, and bring us closer to the day when our troops will come home
with honor.
There is no question that the Senate owes it to our men and women in
uniform to provide the support they need. But $87 billion cannot be a
blank check. The administration must tell the country what it intends
to do with $87 billion and its plans for sharing the burden with our
allies at the U.N. and achieving our goals. The American people are
entitled to know whether, with all the current difficulties, the
administration has a plausible plan for the future, instead of digging
the hole even deeper.
During this debate, my colleagues and I will raise questions about
the administration's failed policy in Iraq. We do so not only out of
concern for its effect on American security but especially out of
concern for the safety of American service men and women, who are
paying for that failed policy with their lives.
In its effort to secure swift approval of this enormous $87 billion,
the administration and its allies undoubtedly will criticize those who
raise questions about its policy in Iraq. Rather than acknowledging its
failures, the White House and its friends in Congress with attack those
who question its policies,and may even accuse us of undermining our
troops.
Nothing could be further from the truth. It is the administration's
failure to consider other alternatives before rushing recklessly into
war that has now put our soldiers at risk. It is the administration's
failure to gain international support that has put our soldiers at
risk. It is the administration's failure to have a plan to win the
peace that has created a breeding ground for terrorism in Iraq and put
our soldiers at risk.
The embarrassing rebuff of President Bush by the United Nations last
week has made these errors even worse. We may never know for sure who
or what persuaded President Bush to go to war in Iraq. We know now that
we should not have accepted at face value the claims that Iraq was
linked to al-Qaida, or that Iraq was building nuclear weapons, or that
Iraq had stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons. Our
intelligence agencies clearly had inadequate information to justify
such claims by the administration, but it is far from clear why
President Bush was persuaded to accept that information as adequate.
There is a greater responsibility now than ever on Congress to have
an open and honest debate about these failures, and do all that we can
to put our country back on the right course in Iraq and in the larger
ongoing war on terrorism.
Our soldiers' lives are at stake. Patriotism is not the issue.
Support of our troops is not the issue. The safety of the 140,000
American service men and women serving in Iraq today is the issue, and,
it is our solemn responsibility to question, and question vigorously,
the administration's current plan to request for funds to restore
stability in Iraq, achieve democracy in Iraq, and bring our soldiers
home with dignity and honor. So far, the administration has failed, and
failed utterly, to provide a plausible plan for the future of Iraq and
to ensure the safety of our troops. America's military is the finest in
history. It is no surprise that we won the war in just 21 days.
The war was a spectacular victory--but the postwar effort has been a
resounding failure. Our soldiers and Marines in Iraq are displaying
their extraordinary military skill, but their mission has become
infinitely more complex and difficult.
Our soldiers were told they would be welcomed as liberators. Instead,
they are increasingly resented as occupiers and are under siege every
day. They face surprise attacks and deadly ambushes from an unknown
enemy. It is increasingly difficult to tell friend from foe. The
average number of daily attacks against American troops has recently
increased from 13 to 22.
We are losing a soldier a day; 309 Americans have been killed in Iraq
since the war began. In the 150 days since President Bush declared
``mission accomplished'' aboard the USS Liberty, 171 American soldiers
have died. Ten soldiers from Massachusetts have made the ultimate
sacrifice in Iraq.
This chart shows the list of casualities and total deaths. We do not
see the number of wounded; we do not hear that number quoted in the
Senate because it isn't published. I wonder why it isn't published.
What possible justification is there for concealing the number of brave
young men and women who have been wounded over there? Why can't the
public know the number of these young Americans who have been wounded
so we have a better understanding of what the cost has been?
What possible national security threat is there to publishing of the
number of American service men and women who are wounded, along with
those killed?
These are not just statistics. Each fallen soldier has someone who
mourns. The loss--whether it is a parent, a husband or wife, a brother
or sister, or a child--weighs heavily on us, and we must do our best to
see that their sacrifice is not in vain.
The administration's failure to plan for the security of our forces
in Iraq has created a crisis for the military. It is already stretched
thin. We do not have enough active-duty soldiers to sustain their
presence.
Half of our Army divisions are in Iraq or Afghanistan. Of the 33
active-component Army combat brigades, 18 are in the Middle East.
According to the Congressional Budget Office, by March of 2004, all of
U.S. active-component combat units will be serving in Iraq or will have
served there in the last year.
Let me repeat that. By March of 2004, all of the U.S. active-
component combat units will be serving in Iraq or will have served
there in the last year.
To solve this urgent problem, some have advocated creating two new
divisions in the Army. But that is a long-term answer. These divisions
would not be available for another 5 years, and would cost more than
$40 billion.
The real crisis in our troop levels comes this spring. If the
administration is unsuccessful at getting an additional multinational
division, they will have to send in another division of American
troops--some combination of Marines and National Guard--and we don't
have enough Active-Duty Forces to do the job. Without those
international troops, we would have to notify reservists before the end
of the month to ensure they will be available by spring. This means
more American troops in Iraq.
Even with this large contingent of Active Forces, close to half of
the troops now in Iraq are reservists, and they are under increasing
strain.
Already, more than 170,000 National Guard soldiers and reservists are
on active duty. Of those, about 13,000 have been on active-duty for at
least a year. Others return home from deployments, only to turn around
and head overseas for another tour.
One reservist I recently spoke to had only 17 days off between tours
in Iraq and Afghanistan. The average reservist spends 13 times longer
on active duty today than during the 1990s. Many reservists cannot
leave the service when their original time is up, and are repeatedly
sent on new overseas deployments. As our colleague Representative John
Murtha recently said, ``the reservists are stuck. . . . In fact, we
have a draft. We cannot sustain this force.''
Even worse, our National Guard soldiers and reservists believe they
are being sent to combat with substandard equipment. Reservists have
told me that they used Vietnam-era night vision goggles that obscured
more than they revealed, when the latest technology is being used by
the regular military. They tell me that they used outdated and less-
effective flak jackets. They didn't have the latest body armor with
bulletproof ceramic inserts. They tell me that they had to wait for 3
months for appropriate gear. Many units lacked armored Humvees, and
needed to hang flak jackets in the windows to protect themselves from
attack.
While we haven't seen a fall-off in recruitment or retention in
military to some extent, the high unemployment rate is keeping these
numbers high.
[[Page S12112]]
But inevitably, the hardship and back-to-back extended deployments will
take their toll over time. One soldier I recently talked to said that
he was leaving the Reserves to avoid being sent away from his new
family.
Other families feel the strain of deployment both emotionally and
financially. Many give up large civilian salaries when they go on
active duty. Some reservists are unwilling to tell employers of their
military service obligation for fear they will not be hired.
This was a conversation I had 10 days ago, in my own State of
Massachusetts. It is against the law to discriminate against those who
are part of the Reserves or the Guard, but they are finding increasing
numbers of people who have found their jobs eliminated as a result of
the declining economy. They have been trying to find employment. But
there is a clear pattern that those who are part of the Reserves or the
Guard are not being favorably considered for employment.
As a result, some reservists are unwilling to tell employers of their
military service obligation for fear they will not be hired. It is a
sad day for patriotism that service to our Nation is considered a
negative by employers.
Despite these hardships, the administration proposes to rely even
more heavily on the Reserves in the months ahead, increasing their
proportion of the force in Iraq to close to two-thirds. Last week, the
administration announced that the tours of the 20,000 Army Reserve and
National Guard in Iraq could be extended for up to a year, even though
those brave of men and women had planned to be home months earlier.
Our National Guard soldiers and reservists love their country. They
are proud of their military service. They want to do their job, and
they expect to be called to service when the Nation needs them, and to
endure periods of difficult separation from their families.
But enough is enough. It is one thing to spend occasional months away
from their families and their careers, but it is quite another to spend
a year or more in active duty, only to have further callups possible in
the near future. Under this administration, they are no longer citizen
soldiers. They are treated as full-time troops, and this cannot be
sustained.
Much of these problems would not exist if the administration had
abandoned its go-it-alone, my-way-or-the-highway foreign policy, and
had worked with the international community. If the administration
hadn't rushed to war without the broad support of other nations,
greater numbers of their peacekeepers would have joined our effort.
The administration agreed to go to the United Nations earlier this
month to obtain a new Security Council resolution, but it was a flawed
request. The administration still refuses to share power on the ground.
They are asking the international community to share the danger, but
other nations will still have no say in the future course of Iraq. We
have an all ``take'' and no ``give'' policy that does nothing to
encourage other nations of the world to share the heavy burden of
security.
America, for the foreseeable future, will continue to represent 85
percent of the forces on the ground and suffer 85 percent of the
casualties. Indeed, our failure at the United Nations last week led GEN
John Abizaid to tell the Senate Armed Services Committee last week:
The fight against terrorism is far from over. The enemy's
ideological base, financial networks and information networks
remain strong. Indeed, the demographic and economic
conditions that breed terrorists may be worsening and those
conditions are heightening the ideological fervor associated
with radical Islamist extremism.
It appears to me that statement is a fundamental truth; that is, in
the battle against terrorism, for us to assume that there is a limited
number of volunteers out there for terrorism is entirely inaccurate.
The number of recruits who are going to be resupplying these terrorist
groups can go on and on and on.
For us to imagine that with a certain number of troops we will be
able to eliminate these terrorists or we will be able to use the
military force in such a way that in Iraq can free ourselves from the
dangers of terrorism is a failure to understand history and to
understand, in terms of political challenges and ideological
challenges--such as the British learned in Northern Ireland, as we have
seen in Kosovo, we saw in Serbia, and we have seen in the West Bank of
Israel--that we have to deal with the idea behind the terrorism to get
to the root causes as well as to deal with the immediate challenge.
Secretary Rumsfeld says that if we can train the Iraqis to police
themselves, we can turn the country over to them. But in many areas,
Iraqi police are afraid to leave their stations for fear that they will
be killed for collaborating with Americans. Terrorists bomb police
stations and assassinate those who cooperate with us, including
moderate clerics and members of the governing counsel.
All of us are profoundly impressed by the dedication,
professionalism, and commitment of our soldiers in Iraq. They are
willing to endure hardships and dangers in Iraq to complete their
mission. But they want to know, their families want to know, and our
country wants to know that our policy makes sense.
Today that policy, I believe, is a failure, and American servicemen
and women are paying with their lives. Before Congress writes a check
for an $87 billion failed policy in Iraq, we must know that the
administration has changed course and developed a realistic plan to
protect our troops, win the support and respect of the international
community, and achieve long-term stability and democracy for Iraq. It
is time for the administration to convince Congress and the American
people that they have a plan to achieve these goals.
Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I had planned to come to the floor at
this hour and discuss the issue of vouchers for the District of
Columbia. I will still go back to that topic. However, having listened
to my friend from Massachusetts and the comments he has made about
Iraq, I will divert from the discussion of vouchers for long enough to
make a few points with respect to the situation in Iraq.
I will go back to my first experience with respect to the issue of
terrorism. It happened shortly after I was elected. It was back in the
early 1990s. I was elected in 1992, and I took office in 1993.
One of my staffers who has foreign policy experience said to me:
There are some people you ought to meet.
I said: Fine. What is the subject?
He said: Well, there is something you ought to understand, and these
people will come in and brief you on it. I can't sit in on the meeting
because my security clearance has expired, and I am not cleared at a
high enough level to be present when they brief you. But I think you,
as a U.S. Senator, should hear this briefing and understand what it is
they have to say.
So not really understanding what was going to happen, I had this
briefing take place in my office. Two officers from the CIA came in and
sat down with me and talked about the attack on the World Trade Center
that occurred in 1993. As they outlined the forces behind that attack,
they gave me my first glimpse of international terrorism. I won't go
through the details of what they said other than this particular
comment. They said: From our point of view, harsh as it may sound, the
main thing wrong with the attack on the World Trade Center is that it
did not kill more people.
I said: That is a very harsh judgment. What do you mean by that?
They said: Because it killed only six people and the physical damage
was cleared up in a relatively short period of time, the American
people have been lulled into a false sense of security that they are
not at risk.
Then they outlined the full description of international terrorism,
where it was, how it operated, and what its goals were. We talked about
the religious aspect. We talked about the ideological aspect. I
remember saying, as they described the way it was organized: Let me see
if I understand exactly what you are telling me. As I understand it,
this is basically a church
[[Page S12113]]
without a pope; that is, there is no hierarchical structure with a
single individual or group of individuals at the top calling the shots
all the way down. Instead, it is a series of cells of people who have
the same ideological fervor but report to no one. They coordinate but
they are not controlled.
These two briefers said: Yes, Senator, you have that about right.
Now, we know there was a center for training for indoctrination and
for finance. It was run by Osama bin Laden, and it had as its
headquarters, physically, the training camps in Afghanistan. But that
does not mean Osama bin Laden or any other central group controlled or
coordinated everything that was done worldwide. These are freelancing
people, in many respects on their own. They would send people to
Afghanistan to be trained and indoctrinated. They would contact Osama
bin Laden for funds. But they would develop their own operations and
their own initiatives of how they would attack Americans. And
this early briefing made it very clear to me that their target was, in
fact, Americans. It has always been fashionable to think the primary
target for people in the Middle East is Israelis. No, the primary
target is Americans. Israelis are seen as surrogates for Americans, but
the primary target is Americans.
The concern is that the Americans somehow have entered that portion
of the world where these people have previously been dominant, and the
Americans have contaminated that world with American ideas. The ideas
that are so repugnant are the ideas of freedom, the ideas of equality
for women, the ideas of education for children in secular ways to teach
them skills so that they can survive in the modern world rather than
education that is concentrated entirely on indoctrination of ideas that
go back centuries if not millennia.
I came out of that first briefing very disturbed. I tried to ask
those who came to brief me if they could give me any timetable. They
said: No, we don't know when this will erupt. No one does. But it is
there. It is growing. It is powerful. We are the target.
They also said--I remember very clearly--that the primary challenge
to Americans would be in chemical and biological weapons. This was
before the attempt was made to put a chemical agent into the subway in
Tokyo and raised the specter of that kind of thing being done in
America.
Well, the years went by. Nothing happened. I tended to forget that
briefing and put it aside. I focused, as many in this Chamber know, on
the issue of cyber-terrorism and attacks through computers. I held a
hearing where I asked the CIA witness who appeared before us: Isn't it
likely that the next attack on this country will come in the form of a
computer attack because you could do more damage to the economy if you
could shut down the computers than any other way?
The CIA witness said: No, Senator, I don't think that is true. It is
true that you could do more damage to the economy with computers, but I
don't think that is where the attack will come from. The terrorists
want something dramatic that will show on television around the world.
Television pictures of computers not working just won't cut it for that
purpose.
That hearing was held less than 60 days before September 11, 2001,
when we saw that particular prophecy--they want something dramatic on
television--fulfilled enormously.
What does that have to do with the issues raised by the Senator from
Massachusetts as he is complaining that there is no plan in Iraq? He is
complaining that the reservists are going to be held too long in Iraq,
that we have not leveled with the world, that we don't have enough
allies in Iraq, that everything is going terribly wrong in Iraq. It has
everything to do with what the Senator from Massachusetts was talking
about because the Senator from Massachusetts--and others like him who
have chosen to focus on difficulties that America is having in Iraq--
has turned his gaze away from the overall challenge of terrorism in the
world.
That which I was told in that first briefing is still true. The
primary target of terrorists throughout the world is Americans. The
primary purpose of terrorism around the world is to drive America out
of the Middle East. And the lesson that those terrorists have learned
from America's activities since the Vietnam war says that if they just
keep chipping away at our resolve, if they just keep bloodying our nose
a little bit, Americans will tire, Americans will decide to pull back,
and Americans will withdraw. That happened in Somalia. That happened
when the first al-Qaida attacks occurred against American Embassies.
That happened after the attack on the USS Cole.
We protested; we made a brief military gesture, and then, afraid of
American casualties, afraid of what public opinion might say in
America, we pulled back. Thus emboldened by that kind of history and
particularly encouraged by the rhetoric in the United Nations, the
terrorist groups are convinced that if they can just hang on in Iraq
long enough to cause us to lose resolve at home, we will withdraw our
troops from Iraq, we will say it wasn't worth it, we will say, yes,
there was some faulty intelligence, and therefore we must correct that
by withdrawing altogether, and then we turn not only Iraq but
ultimately the entire Middle East over to the terrorists. If we think
we have a lot of problems with terrorists now, just wait until they are
encouraged by America's lack of resolve.
Of course, things are not going well in Iraq, according to the
rosiest of scenarios. They never do in wartime. Think back to the other
wars America has fought--more traditional wars to be true, but
nonetheless wars that were for our survival. Did the Second World War
start out with a series of American victories? Did the Second World War
start out with a series of American bungles because we didn't have an
adequate plan to deal with the surprise attack on Pearl Harbor? There
was a great deal of second-guessing about Pearl Harbor. Franklin
Roosevelt was heavily criticized for not having known Pearl Harbor was
coming, and some even suggested the conspiratorial theory that he
looked the other way in order to provoke a Pearl Harbor. I don't
believe that for a second, but that was a part of the political
rhetoric of the time. We did not, as a nation, respond to that
rhetoric. Instead, we said: Let the books about what may or may not
have been done be written later; let us concentrate now on the task at
hand. We refused to be distracted or diverted from the task at hand.
My primary challenge and my primary problem with the position
enunciated by the Senator from Massachusetts is not that he lacks
patriotism. There are those who say that by challenging him, I am
challenging his patriotism. I don't do that for a moment. It is not
that I challenge his motives or his integrity. I don't for a moment. I
challenge his focus. He is focusing on everything that might be
challenged as not going correctly and perfectly from the beginning, and
he is ignoring the big picture. He is ignoring the primary threat that
has been with us for decades, finally exploded on our shores on the
11th of September, and has not gone away. And the question must be
asked: If we in fact refuse to put up the money for the $87 billion
that has been requested, if we refuse to proceed with the effort to
establish a stable and free market-oriented economy and government in
Iraq, if we refuse to stay the course and pull back now, all in the
name of some abstract sense of balance because the intelligence might
not have been perfect, what will be the result?
If we lose focus on the war on terrorism, the terrorists will win. If
we decide that short-term political advantage is more important than
long-term success, the terrorists will win. It has been said--perhaps
it is a cliche, but it is very true--that America is better off
fighting terrorists in the streets of Baghdad--yes, even if soldiers
die--than we would be fighting them in the streets of Detroit or New
Orleans or San Francisco.
One of the reasons we have not had successive events to the bombing
of the World Trade Center with airplanes and the attack on the Pentagon
since September 11, 2001, is that we have been focusing on destroying
the terrorist infrastructure, hunting down their leaders, and
disrupting their financial networks. We came to the conclusion that one
of the key factors in doing all of those things was an attack on Iraq.
Oh, some say, you cannot prove any connection between the people who
flew
[[Page S12114]]
into the World Trade Center and Saddam Hussein and, therefore, you made
a mistake in going into Iraq.
Is there anyone looking at the results of what happened after we went
into Iraq who would say the Iraqi people would be better off if we had
not done it? Two-thirds of the Iraqis are saying over and over again in
various polls and surveys that are done that their lives are better now
than before the Americans came in.
Those who say the intelligence was faulty should look at all aspects
of the intelligence we didn't have. I will acknowledge that there were
many things we did not know until we got on the ground and perhaps the
intelligence people should have told us. One of those, about which we
hear nothing from the Senator from Massachusetts and others who hold
his same position, is that we did not know there was a holocaust going
on in Iraq that, percentagewise, was almost as great as the one that
went on in Nazi Germany.
Tom Korologos, a friend to many of us in this Chamber, is now serving
in Iraq. He takes the congressional delegations that go there to visit
the mass graves. He said that is the first place they go, and it gets
very quiet very quickly.
We didn't know Saddam Hussein was systematically murdering,
torturing, and burying his people in tremendous numbers. The
intelligence didn't tell us that. If we had known that, would it have
said to us, stay out? If we had had the correct intelligence, would we
have said, oh, we cannot go in there if that is going on? There are
those who criticized Franklin Roosevelt for not focusing on the
Holocaust during the Second World War and not doing more to prevent it.
If we had known that, I believe it would have made us go in more
quickly and more powerfully than we did. Now we know.
There are those who say we have no plan for the reconstruction of
Iraq. Look at how badly it is going. Look at the number of people who
are without power and water, and look at all of the damage that was
done. Then we realize from the reports on the ground that the lack of
power, the lack of water, and the lack of services in Iraq was because
of Saddam Hussein, not because of anything the American bombs did. Many
Iraqis are saying they have more food, more power, and more water now
than they did before the Americans came. But you didn't hear that on
this floor from people who are complaining that we have not solved all
of the problems in the time we have been there.
Mr. President, as I say, I did not come prepared to talk about that.
I have more I want to say on that in a more prepared fashion. I will do
that later in the week when we get into the actual debate over the $87
billion supplemental.
The point I want to make--and I will make it again--is that the true
story of what is really happening in Iraq is not being told to the
American people. That is primarily because those in control of the
media, for whatever reason, are not anxious to tell that story. Maybe
they consider it as not news. Maybe they consider it will not get as
many viewers to show the progress that is being made in Iraq, as
compared to what they are showing now, which are the difficulties that
are being created in Iraq. I will talk about that also later in the
week.
I believe that when the truth comes out, when everything that is
really happening in Iraq is truly known, the American people will
discover this is an effort of which we can be enormously proud. This is
an effort of America at its best. We have not gone into Iraq for
territory; we have not gone into Iraq for economic advantage; we have
gone into Iraq for the highest possible humanitarian motives, and with
all of the difficulties and all of the problems, and all of the
guerrilla attacks, we are daily increasing our ability to fulfill those
humanitarian motives.
Let me close with this final comment. I was in this Chamber when the
proposal was made that America invade Haiti. I was opposed to that. I
voted against it. But we were told it was our duty to invade Haiti, not
because there was an imminent threat from Haiti, not because Haiti was
developing any weapons of mass destruction, not because Haiti was
harboring terrorists, not because Haiti was financing terrorists, all
of which applied to Iraq. No, we were told we had to invade Haiti
because there was an illegitimate President in charge; that that alone
was sufficient reason for American military power to be applied to the
situation in Haiti. Obviously, there was no military challenge worthy
of the name awaiting us in Haiti. That was an easy decision to make in
terms of a military activity.
Colin Powell, then a private citizen, along with former President
Jimmy Carter and Senator Sam Nunn, went to Haiti in advance of the
invasion and essentially talked the Haiti regime into abandoning their
posts and leaving peacefully. Sam Nunn reported to those of us in the
Senate after that experience what went on, and basically the individual
who convinced the Haitian leadership to give up without a fight was
Colin Powell. He sat down with the leader of the Haitian armed forces
and convinced him that military chivalry did not require that he die at
his post; that he had a responsibility to his troops and if there was,
in fact, a shootout with the American military, his troops would be
destroyed for no good purpose. The man, responding as one military man
to another, agreed with Colin Powell and left the country.
We can look back on that event and discover the following: We
replaced a brutal dictator, much beloved of American conservatives,
with a man who had the claim of being the legitimately elected
President. So technically we replaced a usurper with a President who
was legitimate.
I remember raising the question on the floor of what would happen if
we put this man in charge because his past history suggested that he
would become just as brutal a dictator. Oh, no, I was told, no, because
the Haitian Constitution does not allow him to run for a second term.
We will put him back in power with the military might of America behind
him. He will serve out the balance of his term, and then he will step
aside because he is a democrat who responds appropriately to democratic
institutions and his constitution says he cannot serve a second term.
You need not be concerned that he will seize power in a way that will
be dictatorial and brutal to his people, Senator Bennett, because the
Haitian Constitution forbids it.
The Haitian economy was in terrible shape at the time the American
military invaded Haiti, and we were told: We will have to do something
about that; we will have to rebuild Haiti, so we will turn that
responsibility over to the United Nations.
Now, not quite a decade later, looking at Haiti, what do we find?
Yes, we replaced a brutal dictator who was much beloved of American
conservatives, with a brutal dictator who is much beloved of American
liberals, and he is still there, the Haitian Constitution to the
contrary notwithstanding. He is going to be dictator for life, as long
as he can maintain his military power.
How has the United Nations done in rebuilding Haiti? How has the
United Nations fared in bringing democracy and prosperity to Haiti? The
average Haitian at best is no worse off than he was prior to the
American invasion. And at worst he is considerably worse off
economically. The island's economy has continued to deteriorate.
Brutality, government murder, and assassination has continued to
thrive. Nothing is better; a great deal is worse.
I am not suggesting that Iraq is a perfect analogy with Haiti, but I
find it interesting that people who are now complaining that we went in
to remove a brutal dictator should consider leaving quickly and, thus,
open the door to replacement by a brutal dictator and turn the
responsibility of seeing that the country is rehabilitated over to the
United Nations.
I think the track record demonstrates that the Americans do a better
job than the United Nations and, indeed, if the United Nations is to
succeed, should we do that in Iraq, the only way they could do it, and
Kofi Annan and others realize this, would be to plead with the
Americans to provide the security forces, to provide the money, to
provide the expertise to see that it happens. If we are going to
provide that, we should be in charge of it.
Mr. President, now I return to the subject I came to the Chamber to
discuss, and I will do that much more expeditiously than I would have
otherwise, having taken that time to respond to the Senator from
Massachusetts.
[[Page S12115]]
The issue is the question of whether or not we should allow a voucher
pilot program to be tested in the District of Columbia. Let me make it
very clear the implication of what I have just said: a voucher pilot
program to be tested in the District of Columbia. By voting for this
pilot program and the funds that would support it, I am not voting for
vouchers in Salt Lake City, I am not voting for vouchers in Cleveland,
Detroit, St. Louis, or Los Angeles, and I am not voting for a national
voucher system. I am voting for a pilot project to be tested in the
District of Columbia.
Once we have tested that pilot project and learn how well it works in
the District of Columbia, then we can have the debate of whether or not
it belongs in other cities around the country. Then we can have the
debate as to whether or not it works.
Right now we hear all kinds of rhetoric about how terribly
irresponsible it will be. Do we know? No. Let's test it. We can't just
turn the whole school system in the District of Columbia over to
private schools. No, we can't. Let's have a pilot program.
A pilot program to be tested in the District of Columbia does not
threaten public education across the country, does not threaten the
budgets of school boards around the Nation, does not threaten anything
except those who are in love with the status quo.
What is the status quo in the school system in the District of
Columbia? On a per pupil basis, it is wonderful. On a per pupil basis,
more money is spent in the District of Columbia than any other
jurisdiction in the United States. That sounds terrific. We are
spending more money per pupil to educate kids in the District than
anyplace else. We are spending about a third more than the national
average, and we are spending about two-thirds more than we spend in my
home State of Utah. From a spending per pupil point of view, nothing is
wrong with schools in the District.
The only problem is the vast majority of kids who are being educated
in those schools are not being educated. The vast majority of the kids
on whom that money is being spent are coming out of the system badly
shortchanged. They can't read. They can't figure. There are whole gaps
in their knowledge of things they don't understand.
There are those who say we are just not supporting them enough; we
are just not spending enough money. The late Senator from New York, Pat
Moynihan, once said half facetiously, but also to make a point, that if
you drew a chart with one line being spending and the other line being
accomplishments, you could draw the inference that the more money we
spend on education, the worse it becomes because, he said, as the
spending line has gone up, the accomplishment line had gone down. He
didn't want to suggest there was a cause-and-effect relationship there,
and I don't either, but I do think from that chart, particularly with
respect to the District of Columbia, we can understand that more money
for the present system is not the answer.
The people who are most concerned about the education in the District
of Columbia have come forward with a request. By that I mean the Mayor,
I mean the president of the school board, and I mean ultimately the
people most concerned. The parents of the children have said: Will the
Congress please give us the opportunity to do a test of a pilot program
in the District of Columbia to see if it works? We in the Congress, in
the Appropriations Committee so far, have said: Yes, we will give you
the money to test a pilot project in the District of Columbia.
From the rhetoric we heard in the committee and the rhetoric I expect
on the floor, one would think we had challenged the entire structure of
public education in America from the time of Thomas Jefferson forward.
We are not. We simply want to have the money to test a pilot project in
the District of Columbia, a pilot project which the leaders of the
District of Columbia and the parents in the District of Columbia have
asked for. I think it is time we gave them what they asked for.
I am perfectly willing to hold out the possibility that after 3, 4,
or 5 years of experience, if we determine that it is a failure, I will
vote to cut off all funds for it. I am perfectly willing to stipulate
that I don't guarantee in any way that this is a silver bullet that is
going to solve all of the problems.
I anticipate that at the end of 4 or 5 years, reading scores are
still going to be lousy in the District, mathematics skills are still
going to be lousy in the District, but maybe, just maybe they will get
a little better as the District schools decide they want to compete
with those private schools that are educating the children a little
better. I am assuming that will happen.
Yes, but we are only providing this for a small percentage of the
students in the District of Columbia, and therefore we are
shortchanging the others if it is going to work.
Again, we don't know if it is going to work. We are just providing
money for a test of a pilot project in the District of Columbia to see
what will happen. I believe, as I say, that it will demonstrate better
things and more important things. But I say to those who say you are
not doing it for all of the kids, it is like the old story which I
first heard from an educator. I know it is almost a cliche now that
others have used it, but it is appropriate here, and it is the proper
way for me to conclude this presentation.
People are walking along the beach and they are seeing on the sand,
away from the ocean, starfish that have been washed ashore by a heavy
wave, and the wave has then receded and the starfish are in danger of
dying outside of the water.
One of the two picks up a starfish and throws it into the water, and
the other says: Why are you wasting your time? Look at all these
thousands of starfish that are going to die out here and you can't make
a difference. It won't make any difference what you do.
And as the first one threw another starfish back into the ocean he
said: It will make a difference to this one.
I suggest that there are many children in the District of Columbia
for whom this will make a very significant difference. Just because we
can't, here, make a difference for them all, we can at least make a
difference for this one, and for that one, and for the next one. Let's
have the courage to test a pilot project for the District of Columbia
and see what happens.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio.
Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Utah for a very
strong statement. I think he said it very well. We hope this pilot
project will cause the competition that we want to see. We hope it will
cause the public school system in the District of Columbia to improve.
Certainly, at the very least, what we hope to see is 2,000 children who
will directly benefit, who will receive these scholarships. We hope it
will make a difference in their lives. That is what we think will, in
fact, make a difference.
As he said in his little story that he ended with, it will make a
difference in these children's lives. If we can make a difference in
one child's life or two children's lives or, in this case, 2,000
children's lives, isn't it worth doing? I think the answer is clearly
that it is.
The situation in the District of Columbia school system--my colleague
has described that. Other colleagues have described how bad the
situation is. We can't turn our backs.
The Mayor has said he will not turn his back. He has tried over the
last several years to do what he can to improve the school system. He
has dedicated himself to this. He has set it as a priority. He has come
to us and said this package that is in front of us today is an integral
part of his efforts as Mayor of the city of Washington, DC, an integral
part of his efforts to try to improve the lives of the children who
live in this great city. Frankly, it is the least we can do to have the
courage to follow his direction and come forward with this well-
balanced approach.
Again, it is a well-balanced approach. We take this new money, $13
million for new charter schools, $13 million for public schools, and
$13 million for the scholarship program. It is, in fact, the right
thing to do.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record
two pages we received today from the Mayor. It is entitled ``Government
of the District of Columbia, Executive Office of the Mayor, Myths and
Facts About the D.C. Opportunity Scholarship Program.''
[[Page S12116]]
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
MYTHS AND FACTS ABOUT THE DC OPPORTUNITY SCHOLARSHIP PROGRAM
[Opponents of the District of Columbia Opportunity Scholarship Program
have cited several concerns and criticisms about implementing a
scholarship (voucher) program in the Nation's capital. These concerns
continue to be shared despite leaders' attempts to address each issue.
This document addresses these concerns, and describes the District's
broader effort to secure additional Federal support for public schools
and expanding options for low-income families.]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Myths and distortions Facts
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. DC Mayor Anthony Williams In February 2003, Mayor Williams and
is reacting to pressure by Kevin Chavous, Chair of the District
the White House and Council's Education Committee brought
Department of Education to their ideas for a Three Sector Education
start a voucher program in Initiative (includes funding for public
exchange for receiving and public charter schools, and private
Federal dollars for public school scholarships for low-income
and charter schools. families) to the White House and the
Department of Education (DOE). The White
House and DOE agreed to work with city
leadership on its plans for improving
education and expanding options for
District families.
2. The Federal Government is There is no violation of Home Rule with
``imposing'' a voucher this program because elected officials
program on the District of of Washington--Mayor Anthony Williams,
Columbia, thus violating the School Board President Peggy Cooper-
Home Rule Charter. Cafritz and Council member Kevin Chavous
are actively pursuing and supporting a
school voucher program for the District,
as are thousands of District families
who are seeking a quality education for
their children.
3. City Council and Board of In April 2003, the City Council tabled a
Education have voted against resolution by a vote of 12-1 that would
vouchers in the District. have resulted in the council voting
against the establishment of a voucher
program in the District. The positions
of the council and school board cited by
opponents are actually votes against
previous voucher bills before Congress.
The Council has never voted against
vouchers.
4. District residents do not Opponents cite a 1981 poll where District
want the program. residents overwhelmingly voted against a
tax credit plan for the District to be
funded by local dollars. However, a 1998
poll conducted by the Washington Post
found that 56 percent of District
residents favored ``using Federal money
in the form of vouchers to help send low-
income students in the District to
private or parochial schools.'' Only 36
percent were opposed.
5. The District has not At a public hearing of the District's
listened to the people of education committee on School Choice in
Washington. April 2003, 19 of 21 people who
testified spoke in favor of establishing
a school voucher program in DC. Each
year, more than 5,000 low-income
families in the District apply for 1,200
scholarships offered through a privately
funded scholarship fund.
6. A DC voucher program would Mayor Anthony Williams has increased
take money away from public funding to DC Public Schools by 57
schools. percent during his tenure and remains
strongly committed to public education.
He and Kevin Chavous have gone on record
indicating they will hold the District
of Columbia Public Schools ``harmless''
for any local funds they might lose for
students who might leave DCPS as a
result of the proposed scholarship
program. This means that DCPS will be
able to keep dollars for children they
are no longer required to educate and
spend those dollars on necessary
reforms, such as lowering class sizes,
recruiting talented principals and
teachers and contributing to the
transformation of additional DC public
schools. This coupled with $26 million
in new funding being sought through this
bill for both DCPS and charter schools
is a net gain to public education.
7. The scholarship program The scholarship program is one part of a
will only help a few carefully crafted education initiative
children and is equivalent to continue the reform of public schools
to abandoning the public and the build out of successful charter
schools and the majority of schools. The scholarship program will
children they serve. bring immediate educational relief to
the families who are on long waiting
lists for charter schools,
transformation schools and out-of-
boundary transfers and who can't wait
for reform to get their children a good
education today. The program is also
designed to spur further reform in the
public schools--as the scholarship
program in Milwaukee, Wisconsin has
done.
8. Charters and out-of- As Mayor Williams has said, you cannot
boundary program provide have too many good educational options
enough choice. for our children. Thousands of DC
families are on waiting lists for
charter schools and out-of-boundary
transfers, and spaces in those schools
simply cannot open fast enough. Why
should poor families--who often cannot
afford to purchase private education or
relocate to a neighborhood with a high
performing public school--be made to
wait on an education that meets their
child's needs when parents with money
and influence never would? Mayor
Williams seeks a scholarship program to
help these families now and level the
playing field for their children, even
as he continues to support reform in the
public schools and expansion of the
charter schools.
9. Supporting vouchers in the District officials have no interest in
District of Columbia will be pushing for a national voucher program.
the first step to starting a This effort is to establish a pilot
national voucher program. program in the Nation's Capital only.
Mayor Williams, DC Council Education
Chair Kevin Chavous, and DC School Board
President Peggy Cooper-Cafritz--with the
support of thousands of District
families--are asking Congress to support
a three-sector education initiative,
crafted to meet the distinctive needs of
the District of Columbia. Because of the
District's unique relationship with
Congress, and its lack of a State
legislature, it is appropriate for
locally-elected officials to seek
assistance from Congress.
10. The plan before the Currently the Senate Appropriation Bill
Senate will not benefit the for the District of Columbia will
District of Columbia and its provide $13 million to public schools,
children. $13 million for charter schools and $13
million for a scholarship program that
will enable low-income families to send
their children to private schools. The
funding will support a Three Sector
Education Initiative aimed at leveling
the playing field for under-resourced
families. The effort, championed by
Mayor Anthony Williams, Council member
Kevin Chavous, School Board President
Peggy Cooper-Cafritz and their many
supporters, is focused on expanding
education options among traditional
public, charter and nonpublic schools to
ensure all children in the District of
Columbia receive the very best education
possible in a school of their parents'
choice.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana.
Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I think the previous comments by our
distinguished colleague from Utah merit a brief response. Again, I
thank the chairman of the committee, my colleague from Ohio, for being
so cooperative on this issue. As I often say, there is usually no
disagreement between us, and this is an unusual situation where we have
a slightly different viewpoint on this particular education measure.
In reference to what the Senator from Utah said, I would like to make
a couple of points.
No. 1, I think part of the argument which he presented was that
opponents to this voucher plan fail to accept the fact that the Mayor
of the District of Columbia asked for vouchers.
I want to again reiterate for the record that at no time, to my
knowledge--and I have talked with the Mayor privately; I have heard him
speak publicly; I have been at any number of meetings; I have heard his
testimony; and I have read his testimony--did he come to the Congress
and to the President to ask for voucher money. He came to ask for money
for help with his school system and said he would be open to a variety
of different suggestions.
The administration said--and wisely when we passed Leave No Child
Behind--no to vouchers for about 10 or 15 good reasons. It said: Mr.
Mayor, we are happy basically to help, but you have to take a portion
of this in voucher money. The original proposal was, as I said, $10
million in vouchers only, broad-based vouchers, no help for public
schools, no help for charter schools, and vouchers to private schools.
No mayor should be blamed for wanting to have additional money for
schools--additional money which is not coming out of his budget, it is
not extra to us, it is not new money to the Federal Government, but it
is new money to the District--no mayor should be blamed for wanting to
have additional funding. So the Mayor said basically: I believe in our
charter school program, and I believe in our transitional program for
public schools. So I will basically take the vouchers portion and make
it the best I can.
If the Mayor has a different position, I would like to hear that. But
that is my general understanding. I have said that again. The reason
that is important is because part of the amendment that Senator Carper
and I wanted to lay down to clarify is one of the major issues in this
debate, which is that some of us don't mind having a demonstration
program if it is done in the right way for the District of Columbia.
But under no circumstances do we want every mayor in this country--or
every Governor or every school board president or every reform leader--
to think they have to come to Washington to ask for new money or
additional money. The only way they are going to get it is if they give
a portion of it to private schools for private school vouchers. We
don't think there should be a Federal presence. I don't think there
should be a Federal mandate, and certainly no Federal contingency, and
in this proposal there is.
That is not right.
The hiding behind and saying the Mayor asked, the Mayor asked--I will
tell you the Mayor asked, just as every mayor in the country is asking
for help, and every Governor is asking for help, and every school board
president is asking for help. Why? Because we raised the bar pretty
high on them. We said if 50 percent of your teachers aren't certified
by 2006, they have to be certified. We said we realize that you don't
have a 100-percent graduation rate. By X time--not mandated but
unified--you are going to have to improve your graduation rate or else;
and your testing scores, or you are going to have to close your schools
and reorganize.
I supported that accountability. I am not complaining that we did
that, although the responsibility now is very great on the local level.
I also supported additional funding that would go along with those
reforms. Unfortunately, this administration passed a law that left a
lot of the funding, basically, on the cutting-room floor. It is not
going to get to the communities around this country and in the District
of Columbia itself. It fell short by $21 million.
[[Page S12117]]
Yes. The mayor asked for help, but he didn't ask for vouchers.
The second thing I want to say is that I agree with my colleague from
Utah. That is one of the reasons I supported a middle-of-the-road, if
you will, principled compromise, suggesting to the administration that
if we really want to have a demonstration project, then I would be--as
one of the cosponsors of this historic No Child Left Behind Act, not
all Democrats, not all Republicans--most certainly interested in a true
demonstration program that lasts for 5 years where the money was
divided a third, a third, and a third between charter schools, public
schools under improvement, and then, perhaps for children in failing
schools to go into other opportunities in this District of Columbia, if
the accountability were there and if the measurements were tight enough
to show that truly at the end of 5 years we are making any progress.
The reason I think that is compelling is because the situation in
Milwaukee--the ``test'' in Milwaukee that has been underway for 13
years with private school choice and private school vouchers--is still
inconclusive. The taxpayers in Milwaukee and in the United States want
to know whether their taxpayer money is resulting in better academic
achievement. There is some evidence to suggest that parents are more
satisfied, and that is most certainly a worthy goal. We want parents to
be satisfied with their children's education as consumers. But that is
not the central focus of Leave No Child Behind. The central focus is
academic excellence through accountability so that we can have a school
system with as much choice, as much opportunity, and as much
transparency for the taxpayer to see if we really get our money's worth
through our school system.
If we are going to have a test, the amendment that Senator Carper and
I offer would basically guarantee that at the end of 5 years we would
be able to say definitively there are voucher proponents who do not
want to know whether a voucher works or not because they are not
interested in the accountability portion. They are just interested in
the choice or the freedom portion. As long as people have choices, as
long as parents generally are happy, what does it matter if their
children are failing? If they had real choices and if they could go
anywhere with money and informed decisions, that might be something on
which we could rely. But they do not have informed choices because the
system doesn't allow for that kind of information. It is the same as if
you are going to buy a car or an appliance. The vouchers are sort of
vouchers on the cheap. You don't really get a voucher to go anywhere
you want. Some of these schools cost $20,000. Some of these schools
cost $15,000. The voucher they propose doesn't really give you that
choice. It is a false choice based on absent information.
But the final point that the Senator from Utah made warrants some
comments as well. I have been searching for a way to describe this and
to answer. I actually found a better way than I could have written
myself in the newspaper last Friday. It is written by Jarvis DeBerry,
an African-American columnist who has written on this exact question.
Why not save a few, if you can? That was the story spoken of so
eloquently by the Senator from Utah about walking along the sand and
saving a starfish and being questioned: Why are you wasting your time?
At least I can save one.
I actually happen to agree with that philosophy. But I would like to
read this article into the Record because it answers it in a way which
I think helps frame this debate.
It is entitled, ``Vouchers No Way Out of a Failing Society.''
It is not too long. I think I have the time to read it here.
He says:
If you had a child at a failing school, which person would
you look toward for help? Harriet Tubman or Frederick
Douglass?
Let me state the question another way: If you had a child
at a failing school, would your primary concern be helping
your child escape or making sure the schools were improved so
that escape would no longer be necessary?
I understand that the question has the effect of reducing
Tubman and Douglass to one-dimensional characters: One who
escaped slavery, then subsequently worked for freedom by
plucking slaves from bondage one by one; the other who also
escaped but then became famous for taking the podium and
urging the country's leaders to live up to the written
promise of freedom and justice.
But what about a better way to illustrate the crossroads at
which many black people stand? Is it better to take one's
promising child out of the system or stay put and make
sure that the system gets better for everybody?
Judging from the attacks that have been aimed at Sen. Mary
Landrieu by a group called D.C. Parents for School Choice,
it's clear that her opponents want black people to believe
that Landrieu is indifferent to black people's interests.
Why? Because she sends her children to the tony Georgetown
Day and hasn't supported a voucher program that would give
about 2,000 D.C. families $7,500 each they could use towards
tuition and private parochial school.
It further states:
. . . the woman leading the charge against vouchers in D.C.
is black, as is the woman who's pushing for them. The
argument that support for vouchers is the more authentically
black position is usually made by folks who aren't black.
And what those people usually fail to comprehend is this:
While deep down nobody wants a life of poverty and
oppression, escaping such a fate often brings with it its own
kind of guilt. Why do you think so many young black men who
come into money are determined to ``keep it real'' or that
poor black people destined for success are admonished to
``Remember where you came from?''
Because solo success seems empty. After she escaped from
slavery, Harriet Tubman would have been perfectly justified
if she'd never returned to the South. But she made 19 trips
back and helped about 300 people escape. The fact that she
had to pull out her pistol to keep some escapees on track
used to make me think that the people at the end of her
pistol were cowards.
But now I wonder if some of them were simply eaten up with
guilt because they were escaping and their loved ones
weren't.
If D.C.'s voucher program is to give private tuition money
to 2,000 students, it does not seem to me to be anti-black to
worry about the fate of the other 66,000 or so students who'd
be left behind.
But would I try to keep an individual student from trying
to escape to a better school? No, I wouldn't. Even though
that person's departure would further weaken an already
struggling school, and I know vouchers for everybody would
not be possible.
This might sound like an argument for the scholarship plan, but I
make two points: One, this columnist is writing about moving children
out of failing schools, not just any school. And he is talking about
only 2,000 slots, allowing children to move out of a system that is not
their fault. That is not what this proposal does. This proposal is not
limited to children in failing schools.
Although some people argue we should not allow children to move out,
I have not. I have argued that under certain carefully crafted
circumstances, children could move out while we are fixing the system.
But the problem with some voucher proponents is they focus on moving
children out and not helping the children still there.
As I have pointed out in this debate, although the proponents say
they support charter schools and public schools, there is no guarantee
that money will be divided the way it is represented. They state their
intention, but there is no guarantee until the administration, the
President, comes forward saying there will be no bill because I will
veto it if there is not help for the kids left behind. Then the great
efforts underway for reform, as well as giving these few 2,000 students
an opportunity to a higher performing school; we actually know it is
higher performing because we have accountability--the proposal pending
before the Senate--continues to have many deficiencies.
Again, Jarvis lays out in this article a key question to the debate.
While fixing the public school system--and it is a system that needs
fixing--it is not to be unaccounted for. It is clear how much work
needs to be done in fixing that system, but it is being fixed. Some who
have been working for 25 years to try to fashion the public spirit and
focus for fixing the system--some, not all--have also come to the idea
that if there are a few spots in schools that are available for these
children and it can be done in a fair way with the right kind of
evaluation and the right kind of parameters, am I going to stand in the
way of a few children getting an opportunity? Not this Senator. There
are other Senators who have a different view.
But to say that because I am of that position, that I should be for a
whole system of vouchers, which is what this voucher proposal is,
hiding behind a DC demonstration project, then absolutely no.
[[Page S12118]]
I ask unanimous consent that this article be printed in the Record. I
hope it answers points raised.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
[From the Times-Picayune, Sept. 26, 2003]
Vouchers No Way Out of a Failing Society
(By Jarvis DeBerry)
If you had a child at a failing school, which person would
you look toward for help: Harriet Tubman or Frederick
Douglass?
Let me state the question another way: If you had a child
at a failing school, would your primary concern be helping
your child escape or making sure the schools were improved so
that escape would no longer be necessary?
I understand that the question has the effect of reducing
Tubman and Douglass into one-dimensional characters: one who
escaped slavery, then subsequently worked for freedom by
plucking slaves from bondage one by one, the other who also
escaped, but then became famous for taking the podium and
urging the country's leadership to live up to its written
promises of freedom and justice.
But what better way to illustrate the crossroads at which
many black people stand? Is it better to take one's promising
child out of the system? Or stay put and make sure that the
system gets better for everybody?
Judging from the attack ads that have been aimed at Sen.
Mary Landrieu by a group called D.C. Parents for School
Choice, it's clear that her opponents want black people to
believe that Landrieu is indifferent to black people's
interests. Why? Because she sends her children to the tiny
Georgetown Day but hasn't supported a voucher program that
would give about 2,000 D.C. families $7,500 each they could
use toward tuition at a private or parochial school.
But Landrieu's reluctance to jump on the vouchers bandwagon
shouldn't be used to determine what she thinks of black
people. Besides, as The Washington Post points out, the woman
leading the charge against vouchers in D.C. is black, as is
the woman who's pushing for them. The argument that
support for vouchers is the more authentically black
position is usually made by folks who aren't black.
And what those people usually fail to comprehend is this:
While deep down nobody wants a life of poverty and
oppression, escaping such a fate often brings with it its own
kind of guilt. Why do you think so many young black men who
come into money are determined to ``keep it real'' or that
poor black people destined for success are admonished to
``Remember where you came from''?
Because solo success seems empty. After she escaped from
slavery, Harriet Tubman would have been perfectly justified
if she'd never returned to the South. But she made 19 trips
back and helped about 300 people escape. The fact that she
had to pull out her pistol to keep some escapees on track
used to make me think that the people at the end of her
pistol were cowards.
But now I wonder if some of them were simply eaten up with
guilt because they were escaping and their loved ones
weren't.
If D.C.'s voucher program is to give private tuition money
to 2,000 students, it doesn't seem to me to be anti-black to
worry about the fate of the other 66,000 or so students who'd
be left behind.
But would I try to keep an individual student from trying
to escape to a better school? No, I wouldn't. Even though
that person's departure could further weaken an already
struggling school, and I know vouchers for everybody will
never be possible.
Is what's good for a black person necessarily good for
black people? Not always. Though I would argue that the
converse is generally true.
What proponents and opponents of vouchers have to do now is
frame their arguments in a way that doesn't suggest that
those who disagree with them hate black people.
Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I also have some letters from other
African-American leaders in the District who are opposed to the voucher
plan, most notably the DC Delegate to Congress, Congresswoman Norton,
who gives a long and detailed explanation of why she is opposed.
Particularly of interest in her letter:
First, the city has the largest number of public charter
schools per capita in the nation.
She continues:
Charter schools are so popular here with residents that
they have long waiting lists, and many are housed in
inadequate facilities and need federal funds.
I am pleased to say part of this proposal is, in fact, for charter
schools, except we have no guarantee the administration would veto
anything if charter schools were not in the proposal. We are waiting
for clarification.
I ask unanimous consent to have this letter printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
U.S. Congress,
House of Representatives,
Washington, DC, September 22, 2003.
Senator Mary Landrieu,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Landrieu: On behalf of the home rule majority
in the District of Columbia--the majority of the City
Council, of the elected members of the DC School Board, and
myself--I am writing to ask that no appropriation for private
school vouchers be added to the DC FY2004 appropriations bill
but that our public and charter schools be funded instead.
Especially today when the District, like your state, carries
large unfunded No Child Left Behind mandates, we strongly
oppose funding private school vouchers with federal money.
Our opposition to vouchers matches the consistent position of
the congressional majority as well, and we ask that you
respect our strong position to the same effect. District of
Columbia residents are no different from the almost two-
thirds of the American people who oppose private school
vouchers or the 37 states that have turned down vouchers.
Please also understand that the federal appropriations
voucher proposal is not additional money at no cost to the
District. Too little attention has been paid during this
controversy to the $25 million in combined federal and local
per pupil funding that private school vouchers would cost the
DC public schools. We ask that Congress refrain from forcing
this expensive additional burden on the District today when
the city has already made $40 million in cuts to its public
schools. Moreover, the private school voucher authorization
is for five years while the proposed public school funds are
a one-time appropriation.
We believe that the recent close House vote is an important
indication of the national significance of the DC voucher
proposal. On September 5, after several votes had been taken,
House leaders pulled the DC bill because of the strong
possibility of losing. On September 9, 2003, the House passed
a voucher proposal by only one vote, and my earlier amendment
to eliminate funding for DC vouchers tied 203-203. On both of
these votes the majority of House Members favored removing
vouchers, but the vote was held open for an extraordinarily
extended time in order to get a Member to change his vote so
as to achieve a voucher majority. Members understood the
precedent for the nation they would be setting in voting to
include private school vouchers in any bill for the first
time.
We hope that you retain the urgently needed funds for
charter school facilities and public schools in the Senate
appropriation, but we oppose the three-sector approach that
where one-year funding for public and charter schools has
been included the public school funding cannot erase the
precedent that would be set by funding private schools. Mayor
Williams testified that his major objective was to secure
funding for vouchers. The belated response to offer some
funds to private schools came only after D.C. residents and
officials demanded that all funds be directed to charter
schools and public transformation schools.
As the city's only congressional representative, I am
completely confident in assuring you that the majority of
D.C. residents remain as opposed to vouchers as they were
when they strongly supported the Clinton veto of the D.C.
appropriation bill that included federal money for vouchers,
as proposed now. Far from supporting vouchers, District
residents responded to the recent vouchers bill by forming a
broad coalition, the Coalition for Accountable Public
Schools, consisting of many organizations of every variety,
elected officials and individuals. Hundreds of D.C.
residents, led by ministers and rabbis, recently held a
Public Funds for Public Schools Lobby Day in the Senate and
House to ask that vouchers be removed from the D.C.
appropriation. The most recent resolutions of the D.C. City
Council and the School Board and the individual letters from
members that you have received strongly repudiate private
school vouchers paid for which federal money.
It would be particularly ironic if vouchers were forced on
the District. The city out flanks every state in offering
three thriving alternatives to its traditional public
schools, all publicly accountable, as private schools are
not. First, the city has the largest number of public charter
schools per capita in the nation. Charter schools here are so
popular with residents that they have long waiting lists, and
many are housed in inadequate facilities and need federal
funds. Second, the District also has established 15 public
transformation schools separate from the D.C. system, and the
transformation schools have achieved the first ever
breakthrough in raising the scores of low income children and
children in low performing schools. This success is due
almost entirely to additional services for parents and
children alike, which, tragically, the city is now in the
process of cutting for lack of funds. Third, the District has
long allowed any parent dissastified with the neighborhood
school to send the child to an out-of-boundary school. Please
do not force on the District of Columbia what Congress has
not required for the rest of the country, especially
considering that the city's track record in establishing
publicly accountable alternatives to traditional public
schools is better than that of virtually any of the states.
I am enclosing a short statement elaborating my position on
vouchers. I ask that you vote against including any proposal
for
[[Page S12119]]
vouchers in the District of Columbia appropriations bill.
Sincerely,
Eleanor Holmes Norton,
Member of Congress.
____
Vouchers--Where I Stand and Why
(By Eleanor Holmes Norton)
WHERE SHOULD FEDERAL MONEY FOR D.C. CHILDREN GO?
Two groups of D.C. kids qualify for the federal grants: our
children in charter schools and our low-income students in
transformation schools where significant test score gains
have been made for the first time. The Mayor and Council have
made sizable cuts in our schools this year.
WITH FEWER STUDENTS, WILL D.C. PUBLIC SCHOOLS BE BETTER OFF?
The most serious problem with the proposed vouchers has yet
to be discussed or to be taken seriously. Our traditional
public and charter schools will be hit hard financially if
the predicted 2,000 students exit in the fall. Our public
schools will lose a combination of $12,557 per pupil in D.C.
and federal funds because every school system must be funded
on a per pupil basis. That would be a blow D.C. public school
funding cannot afford today when it has already been cut.
MUST D.C. KIDS WITHOUT VOUCHERS GO TO ``BAD'' D.C. PUBLIC SCHOOLS?
I have always believed that a child is entitled to a public
school alternative to a neighborhood school that does not
work for that child. For decades D.C. has allowed children to
choose schools elsewhere in D.C. In addition, D.C. leads the
country in providing many alternatives to our public school
system. Our extraordinary 42 charter schools are the most
extensive in the country. They are the most important
innovation in the history of public education here. However,
their success has brought charter schools mile-long waiting
lists and facilities in churches and other crowded facilities
that need federal funds.
The best hope for our low income children are our
transformation schools that surround these children and their
parents with extra services, including tutoring and other
services for the children and special services for the
parents. All 15 transformation schools have significantly
improved their Stanford 9 scores. The extra services these
children get are available in none of the other D.C. public
or private schools. These are our poorest children, often
with the least motivated parents. The least any bill should
do is to encourage and fund the improvements we see for the
first time in these children. Instead, cuts will make it
impossible to fund many of the extra resources that are
producing these results or to quickly expand transformation
schools.
WHERE DOES D.C. STAND?
When the Congress tried to impose vouchers, the city
preferred to see its appropriation vetoed rather than accept
vouchers paid for with extra federal funding. Council and
School Board resolutions continue to go well beyond the
insult of congressional riders. The city's resolutions,
including the most recent, specifically argue that federal
money should be spent on publicly accountable schools.
DO VOUCHERS WORK BETTER THAN PUBLIC SCHOOLS?
Although the proposed voucher program is called a ``pilot''
by some, the results are already in on vouchers. The GAO
study of the Milwaukee and Cleveland vouchers found no
evidence of student gains. Ten years of independent, verified
research of public and private voucher programs in Cleveland,
Dayton, D.C., New York, Chile, and New Zealand have shown no
substantial academic gains.
Ms. LANDRIEU. Parents United for D.C. Public Schools sent a long
letter opposing the use of precious dollars--although they are new to
the District, they are not new dollars to the Federal Treasury--saying
they would prefer to use that money in other ways. Their letter
warrants a great deal of thought and I ask unanimous consent it be
printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
Parents United for the
D.C. Public Schools,
Washington, DC, September 15, 2003.
Hon. Mike DeWine,
Chairman, Appropriations Subcommittee on the District of
Columbia, Washington, DC.
Hon. Mary Landrieu,
Ranking Member, Appropriations Subcommittee on the District
of Columbia, Washington, DC.
Parents United for the D.C. Public Schools and the District
of Columbia Parent Teachers Association (DCPTA) oppose any
action by the Congress of the United States that would use
federal funds to support a voucher program in the District of
Columbia. Together, we represent the parents of the District
of Columbia. Members of Congress may remember Parents United
for the lawsuit that compelled the city to correct safety
violations and which led to the development of a master
facilities plan for the D.C. Public Schools (DCPS).
The majority of our membership has overwhelmingly voiced
strong opposition to funding vouchers in the District of
Columbia. As the public schools continue to work hard to meet
the needs of all students and are held to higher standards,
federal dollars should not fund private schools that will
choose their students and are held to no standards.
As parents who are engaged and involved with our local
schools as well as at the citywide level, we also want to
bring to your attention a particularly urgent concern. Since
our schools are formula funded, 2000 fewer students leaving
DCPS at once mean a loss of $25 million. Recently, the Board
of Education took a vote to rescind negotiated pay raises for
all staff, part of a $40 million cut in DCPS. More losses
would cripple school funding.
On behalf of thousands of D.C. Public School parents, we
ask that you cast a no vote for this and any other voucher
bill.
Sincerely,
Iris J. Toyer,
Co-Chair.
Darlene T. Allen,
President, District of Columbia Parent Teachers Association.
Ms. LANDRIEU. And from Kathy Patterson, who represents Ward 3, I have
another thoughtful letter. She states in her letter:
There are several other education reforms proposed
previously in the District of Columbia schools. I urge you to
consider one of these alternatives when the D.C.
appropriation comes before the Senate.
Pre-kindergarten education. Today, District of Columbia
policymakers allocate sufficiently locally generated tax
revenues to provide pre-kindergarten education for roughly
half of the 4-year-olds in the city. Many of us view
expansion of pre-K education to ALL district 4-year-olds as a
top priority for funding. . . .
Not one of the priorities, it is a top priority.
So, again, we can understand why voucher opponents would say why are
we so intent on taking this $10 to $13 million to spend on a voucher
program, not limited to children in failing schools, saying it is a
demonstration project but not really having the evaluation mechanisms
to support that contention when you could ask a broad range of liberal
to conservative, the whole range of people, what would be the most
important thing we could do for education in the District. It would be
to fund pre-K and early childhood education. Why? Because we know the
benefits of quality early childhood education.
She goes on to say the second great use of this money would be
additional bilingual schools.
The Oyster Bilingual Elementary School provides an
excellent education to District children, with English and
Spanish-speaking teachers in each classroom. While Oyster is
located in my Ward, Ward 3, it serves a broad cross-section
of children throughout the District. The D.C. Board of
Education has fought to replicate the successful program in
other areas, an effort that requires additional funding. The
Congress could earmark $10 million in support of a second
bilingual elementary school within D.C. public schools.
I understand that school is about 40 percent Hispanic and Latino,
perhaps 20 to 30 percent African American, and 20 to 30 percent
Caucasian children. It is a diverse, excellent school with a wonderful
bilingual curriculum. We could create one or two other models based on
that with this money.
Finally, she discusses elementary English and math instruction,
describing a well-received former initiative of a previous
administration of a grant program through the Department of Education
designed to provide reading specialists and math specialists to each
District elementary school to strengthen instruction in these key
areas. The grant was not continued.
I ask unanimous consent that letter be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
September 9, 2003.
Hon. Mary Landrieu,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC
Dear Senator Landrieu: I write concerning the District of
Columbia FY 2004 Appropriations Bill and, specifically, the
federal funding proposed for education reform in the District
of Columbia. I appreciate your leadership on this as well as
other District issues.
I appreciate the attention that the Congress has given to
the educational needs of District children, and understand
the amount of work undertaken to craft a package of financial
support for education reform in the District of Columbia,
including support for the District of Columbia Public
Schools. Federal support for a reform initiative here,
provided over several years and encompassing rigorous
evaluation, can benefit not only children in the District but
school children across the country, and I applaud such an
approach. At the same time, I cannot support the allocation
of taxpayer dollars for private school tuition, particularly
when there are so many competing needs.
[[Page S12120]]
There are several other education reforms proposed
previously in the District of Columbia Public Schools. I urge
you to consider one of these alternatives when the D.C.
appropriation comes before the full Senate. The $10-$13
million proposed for K-12 scholarships could very usefully be
transferred for one of these initiatives:
Pre-kindergarten education. Today District of Columbia
policymakers allocate sufficient locally-generated tax
revenues to provide pre-kindergarten education for roughly
half of the 4-year-olds in the city. Many of us view
expansion of pre-K education to ALL District 4-year-olds as a
top priority for funding, and we have allocated dollars
specifically for this purpose in previous budget cycles. The
Congress could earmark $10 million specifically for a pre-K
expansion, with the same kind of rigorous evaluation that has
been discussed with regard to other alternatives.
Additional bilingual schools. The Oyster Bilingual
Elementary School provides an excellent education to District
children, with English and Spanish-speaking teachers in each
classroom. While Oyster is located in my ward, Ward 3, it
serves a broad cross-section of children from throughout the
District. The D.C. Board of Education has sought to replicate
this successful program in other areas, an effort that
requires additional funding. The Congress could earmark $10
million in support of a second bilingual elementary school
within D.C. Public Schools.
Elementary English and math instruction. A well-received
initiative of Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton during her tenure
as First Lady was a grant program through the Department of
Education designed to provide a reading specialist and math
specialist to each District elementary school to strengthen
instruction in these key areas. The grant was not continued,
but represents another very high priority that could be
brought forward again, and subject to evaluation to measure
its validity as an education reform alternative.
These are just three examples of education reform
initiatives strongly supported by District of Columbia
policymakers, and, thus, a good menu for the consideration by
you in your role as ranking Democrat on the appropriations
subcommittee, and by other members of Congress who are also
committed to education reform. Each of these options could
provide very useful research information of value not only in
the District, but throughout the country.
I urge one of these initiatives as an alternative to
private school scholarships as a signal of the Congress's
strong commitment to improved education outcomes for District
children.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely yours,
Kathy Patterson.
Think about that, a Federal grant to make sure there was a reading
specialist and a math specialist at every elementary school. That grant
was not continued but, instead, we hear from this administration: No,
we cannot afford that grant but we can afford vouchers.
That is why many Democrats are concerned. That is why they are
puzzled. That is why they are perplexed. That is why they are
disappointed. That is why they are angry at why we pushed for vouchers
when there are so many other needs.
The voucher program, as proposed, is, again, not limited to students
in failing schools. It seems to be open-ended. There are no evaluation
components tight enough to let us all know--which would be extremely
refreshing to me, and a real relief if I could know definitively--
whether these private school scholarships or vouchers work. Because if
there were, then we could stop spending our time arguing about it and
just deal with the facts and move on.
So for that alone I have told people on both sides of the aisle--some
opposed and some for--that it might be worth spending the $200 million.
It is not $40 million. It is $200 million because for 5 years you are
going to have to have $40 million a year.
Now, if this Congress is willing to put up that kind of money in
these times, then I most certainly could support it. Again, if it were
done in a certain way, meeting the accountability standards of Leave No
Child Behind, it would be worth maybe the $200 million to know
definitively does the scholarship or the voucher make a difference.
We already know that poor children do better when they leave
dysfunctional schools and go to schools that are better organized, more
disciplined, and have better instruction. You do not need a study or
any money to tell you that.
What we do not know is if a poor child receives a voucher or a
scholarship to go to a higher performing private school, basically, or
that child receives an opportunity to go to a better public school, can
you track to see if the child would do better in the public environment
or the private environment? Or does the scholarship matter? Or is it
the quality of instruction, class size, et cetera? That is the verdict
that is still out. So it would be worth knowing that.
Again, it is not going to cost us $10 million. It is not going to
cost us $40 million. It is going to cost us $200 million because we
have to have the comparisons of the students in the new charter
schools, in the public schools that we are trying to follow as well--
the control groups--as well as the scholarship recipients or the
voucher recipients.
In addition, I was handed a note that the shadow Senator from the
District, Paul Strauss, also opposes vouchers. And he is with us today.
So again there are many, many respected leaders on both sides of this
argument in the District. Senator DeWine and I find ourselves in quite
a quandary because we work with all these leaders. We respect them all.
We have been working with a broad group of leaders to move the District
forward. But this situation deserves debate. It deserves to have the
arguments put forward. As I said, if we just come to the floor and, of
course, lay our amendments down and argue and debate, tone down the
heat and raise the light, then perhaps the District and the country
will be helped because we will understand some of the nuances relative
to this debate. I hope we are making progress in that regard.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. ENZI). The Senator from Ohio.
Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, let me respond to a few comments which
have been made by my colleague from Louisiana.
First, we seem to keep coming back to this issue about what the Mayor
is for and what he is not for. Unfortunately, my colleague keeps
inferring that the Mayor of the District of Columbia, Anthony Williams,
really, truly is not for this scholarship program. I think we need to
get beyond that issue.
I have a letter that I have already entered in the Record. It is
already part of this Record. It is dated September 11, 2003, to me from
the Mayor. The Mayor states in part:
This initiative--
He is talking about this three-pronged initiative that we are talking
about, which includes the scholarship program--
This initiative was designed by District leadership for
District [students] and is not being imposed on the District
from outside, as some would have you believe. As mayor, I am
trying to make the best choices for the residents of this
city, and without a state government to which, under normal
circumstances, I would make this request. In this regard, I
believe it is appropriate for the federal government to act
on behalf of the nation's capital when the local mayor and
school board president seek assistance.
Further, in a document that I, a few moments ago, asked to be made
part of the Record, which is entitled ``MYTHS and FACTS''--I will read
a portion of this--
Myth:
D.C. Mayor Anthony Williams is reacting to pressure by the
White House and Department of Education to start a voucher
program. . . .
Now, this document came from the Mayor's office.
Fact:
In February 2003, Mayor Williams and . . . [the] Chair of
the District Council's Education Committee brought their
ideas for a Three Sector Educational Initiative [which]
(includes funding for public and public charter schools, and
private school scholarships for low-income families) to the
White House and the Department of Education. The White House
and Department of Education agreed to work with city
leadership on its plans for improving education and expanding
options for District families.
Again, in both of those documents, Mr. President and Members of the
Senate, Mayor Williams has said they initiated these ideas. They are
the ones who came forward with the plan. They are wholeheartedly in
favor of it.
I wish we could put this behind us. The Mayor is in favor of this
plan. This is the Mayor's plan. He wants it. I think we should put this
behind us and quit talking about it. This is something the Mayor of
this city wants.
We talk about accountability. Senator Landrieu is talking about
accountability. I would ask any of my colleagues who are on the Senate
floor
[[Page S12121]]
or back in their offices to look at the bill as it now stands to see
whether or not they think there is enough accountability.
Senator Feinstein came to the floor last week and added some very
helpful language to this bill, which makes the accountability very
good. It certainly improved the accountability. We thought we had good
accountability in the bill before, thanks, again, to Senator Feinstein
and her work in the Appropriations Committee, but her amendment added
to the accountability and requires that these scholarship students take
the same--the same--test that the District of Columbia public school
students take.
Again, we are going to be able to measure how well this program
works. We are going to see it year after year after year. The report is
going to be there. The parents are going to see it. The taxpayers are
going to see it. The residents of the District of Columbia are going to
see it. We are going to be able to measure it. We are going to be able
to tell how well this program is working--the same tests, identical.
Second, the Feinstein amendment, which has been adopted by this body,
which is a part of the bill, requires the Secretary and Mayor to select
an independent entity to evaluate the performance of the students
participating in the scholarship program.
That is just the highlights. I will not read and take the time of the
Members of the Senate. But the accountability is built into this bill
now.
If my colleague has other things she wants to put into this bill, we
certainly would be more than happy to entertain them and to listen to
them, if she has other ideas to improve that accountability.
Again, she talks about vouchers on the cheap. I would say, again, our
studies show, and what the HELP Committee's staff has come up with,
along with what the District of Columbia officials have come up with,
is that clearly most of the availability slots are less than the
$7,500.
But for those that would be more, I have no problem with including
language in this bill, if my colleague wants to do so, that would
require any school which is going to take the voucher to say that is
it, they couldn't go back to the parent and say, we want additional
money. You are either going to take it as the entire payment or you are
not going to accept the student. I have no problem with language in
that area to do that. That would be perfectly fine with me.
It is important for us to remember how we got here and why the Mayor
wants to do this and why those of us who are strong advocates for this
proposal came to the floor to do it. When you look at the statistics of
what is going on in the District of Columbia, they are actually
shocking figures. How bad are the schools in the District of Columbia?
They are bad. Everybody knows that.
If you look at the figures, if you look at the SAT scores, if you
look at ACT scores, if you look at graduation rates, all of the
statistics--and they have been cited, and I will not take the Members'
time to do that--if you look at the dropout rates, if you look at
reading scores, the proficiency scores, the math scores, they are
shocking. To think that within blocks of this Nation's Capitol, we are
tolerating a school system that is not doing any better for the kids,
these poor kids who live in our Nation's capital. It is wrong. It is
not right. We have an obligation to do something differently.
What we have before us today is something different. In a sense, I
could argue it is a radical proposal. But it is really not. It is a
conservative proposal. It is a cautious proposal in a sense, because
what we do is we say we are going to put more money in the public
schools. We are going to take the Mayor's lead, and we are going to put
that $13 million more into the public schools, and we will entrust it
to the Mayor because that is what he wants.
My colleague from Louisiana has been very interested in charter
schools and played a major role in the development of them. The Mayor
wants to try to expand charter schools so we will put more money for
them. We are not going to put all our eggs in one basket. We are going
to try that, too.
But then we are going to try something else, something we have not
done before in the District of Columbia; that is, we are going to put
some public money, some Federal tax dollars into scholarships for 2,000
kids. That doesn't seem to me to be such a radical proposal. At the
same time we are giving more money to the public schools, at the same
time we are giving more money to charter schools, let's put $13
million, the same amount as for the other two, let's put in $13 million
to create these 2,000 new scholarships for poor kids. Yes, you have to
be poor to qualify. Yes, let's keep in mind under this bill the way it
is written as to priority, the priority goes to kids from failing
schools. Let's create that as well. So we are not putting all our eggs
in one basket.
We are not saying we are going one way. We are saying we are going to
try something else. We are going to try a balanced approach. We are
going to try an approach the Mayor approves of. Let's do something
different. We are going to do something a little different, because we
are not satisfied with the status quo, because we don't think what is
currently going on in our Nation's capital is good enough for the kids
who live there.
I say to my colleagues, if you are satisfied with the way things are
in the District of Columbia, then take this out of the bill. Go ahead.
And when the time comes, vote for the Durbin amendment. Take this out
and say: We are going to continue to do things the way we have done
them in the past. That is OK.
But if you want to try something different, if you want to try this
balanced approach, this rational approach, an approach the Mayor wants
to try, then vote down the Durbin amendment, keep the bill the way it
is, and let's move forward. Members will have the opportunity tomorrow
to do that.
I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Concerns Over U.S. Policy In Iraq
Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, over the past year, I have come to the
floor several times to express my concerns about the U.S. policy in
Iraq. I have raised questions about what I have called the
administration's ``shifting justifications'' for this war. I have
raised questions, both before and after the conflict began, about the
administration's plans for finding and securing weapons of mass
destruction, for ensuring that the international community is willing
to share the burden of reconstruction, and--perhaps most critically--
for making certain our action in Iraq does not detract from or
undermine the fight against terrorism. I still have many of the same
concerns today. I still am not confident that the American people have
gotten all the answers and all the information they deserve.
Now many in the administration clearly do not want to talk about
weapons of mass destruction in too much detail. They don't really want
to talk very much about distorted intelligence. These things are
apparently old news in their view.
We fought a war of choice. We remain deeply involved. American troops
continue to die. Some don't want to talk anymore about those initial
choices that were made. The President told the American people that the
main reason he went to war was to prevent Iraq from using weapons of
mass destruction against us. Now, however, we are told that the real
reason for choosing to go to war in Iraq was to tip off a set of, in
effect, democratizing dominos that will change the face of the modern
Middle East, perhaps even the entire Muslim world, and then, in so
doing, defeat the forces of terrorism. I guess that seems to be the
general thrust of the argument.
I don't believe it is a good thing for our democracy or for our
standing in the world to switch arguments for a war in midstream. But I
do think this idea that the administration is putting forth now, after
having moved from many other justifications, also deserves to be
seriously and critically considered by this Congress, especially given
how often the administration is now invoking this idea that we are
going to create a domino effect of democracy throughout the Middle East
[[Page S12122]]
by invading Iraq and setting up a government there.
Let us consider three propositions that have been repeated by the
administration in recent weeks. First, the assertion that Iraq is now
the central front in the fight against terrorism--not Afghanistan, not
Saudi Arabia, not Southeast Asia, or east Africa or the central Asian
states of the former Soviet Republic, Mr. President, but Iraq as the
central focus of the war against terrorism.
In support of this assertion, the administration can, of course,
point to the influx of terrorists into Iraq since the United States
military campaign began. The country was not, however, a hotbed of
terrorist activity directed at American interests before that campaign.
But the administration appears to be making a much broader point based
on a sort of new domino theory for our new century. This time, instead
of propping up dominoes threatened by the forces of communism, we are
tipping them over in the name of democracy. By tipping the Iraqi
domino, we will change the entire Arab world--or perhaps even the
entire Muslim world--or so the argument goes--and this in turn will
lead to the demise of the terrorist forces that have attacked America.
In other words, what the administration is really saying is that Iraq
is now the central battle in the fight against terrorism because this
is where we choose to tip the domino.
How likely is it that the battle for the future of the Middle East or
the future of modern Islam is going to be fought at a place and time of
American choosing? Are we really that all-knowing or that all-powerful?
I agree that a battle of ideas and wills is underway in the region. I
am not at all sure that this kind of battle can be influenced by U.S.
military action or a U.S. occupation--at least not in the way we would
hope.
I am even less sure that invading and occupying Iraq in an attempt to
establish a beachhead for democracy will help us in the campaign
against terror. It is that campaign against terror that we should be
focused upon. How likely is it that the plans and capacities of
terrorists operating, let's say, in the Philippines or Indonesia will
be greatly affected by the outcome in Iraq? How about the forces still
present along the border between Afghanistan and Pakistan? Will a blow
for democracy in Iraq wipe them out?
Most importantly, are we more secure? Are we on a firmer footing in
the fight against terrorism if we somehow convince ourselves that this
is so? Are we on the right track when the Vice President refuses to
acknowledge that we know of no real link between Iraq and the attacks
of September 11, and then goes on to insist that the Saudis are good
partners in the fight against terrorism, as he did on ``Meet The
Press'' earlier this month?
There is something else happening here. I fear that there is. Are we
getting distracted, muddled in our thinking, when it comes to our first
national security priority? I fear that we actually endanger our
security and detract from the fight against terrorism if we all accept
this new domino theory as fact.
I can remember hearing a domino theory before, when American troops
were fighting a different war. It was an overly simplistic idea that
just did not capture all of the different agendas at play in the
world--the nationalistic, the self-serving, and the corrupt, to name a
few. I am highly skeptical that this theory is any more useful or
accurate today.
That earlier conflict also taught me that the right thing to do is to
ask hard questions. That is the right thing for the country and the
right thing for our brave men and women in uniform. GEN Anthony Zinni
made a good point when he spoke earlier this month at the Marine Corps
Association and the U.S. Naval Institute Forum. He said the following:
This is the greatest treasure that the United States has,
our enlisted men and women. And when we put them in harm's
way, it had better count for something. . . . They should
never be put on a battlefield without a strategic plan, not
only for the fighting . . . but for the aftermath and winning
that war. . . . Our feelings and our sensitivities were
forged on the battlefields of Vietnam, where we heard the
garbage and the lies, and we saw the sacrifice. We swore
never again would we do that. We swore never again would we
allow it to happen. And I ask you, is it happening again?
This is what was said by General Zinni in front of the Marine Corps
Association of the U.S. Naval Institute. These are powerful words from
one of our generals. They remind us of the stakes, and they remind us
that the questions about our planning, about the wisdom and
intellectual honesty of the ideas that guide it, are very much in order
today.
I support our troops and I support their families who are very
anxiously waiting for their return. That is why it is so important to
get some clarity on the nature of our involvement in Iraq and where we
stand in the fight against terror.
The President is, of course, right to reject the notion that one can
be ambivalent about terrorism. If we don't have moral clarity when it
comes to the fundamentally evil nature of acts that target innocent
civilians, that murder noncombatants on a grand and gruesome scale as
some sort of perverse act of political theater, then, of course, we are
really lost. There is no halfway point on this. There is no middle
ground. The battle against terrorism is worth fighting. It is a battle
we did not begin, and it is a battle I have supported and will always
support wholeheartedly.
I agree with those who say that states that knowingly harbor and
support our terrorist enemies are enemies themselves. That is why I
voted to support using our military might in Afghanistan to defeat the
forces that attacked us on September 11. I believe we have to stay
focused on that goal. No evidence that has been presented to me
suggests a meaningful link between Iraq and the forces that attacked on
September 11--at least not prior to our invasion. Iraq was not the
inevitable next battleground in our fight against terrorism. It was a
battlefield that the administration chose for its own reasons and now
sees as the lead domino that will start the region on the path to peace
and democracy.
Second, let us consider the assertion that the forces attacking
Americans in Iraq do so precisely because they know we are onto
something--they know that we are bringing freedom and democracy to Iraq
and therefore are striking a blow against terrorism.
What if they are attacking us simply because we are there, because we
are present and vulnerable and easier to target in a climate of
disorder and in the context of a population that regards foreign
occupation, understandably, with some suspicion, even fearing that we
want to install a client regime that will provide us ready access to
the country's oil?
Disorder creates opportunity. Consider the lead of a recent Chicago
Tribune article:
Smugglers on motorcycles ferry Arab insurgents across the
rugged desert from neighboring Iran, while former Iraqi army
officers guide anti-American Afghan veterans through
minefields left over from the Iran and Iraq war. Meanwhile,
militants disguised as Iranian merchants, religious pilgrims
and charity truck drivers bring in illicit drugs, weapons,
and explosives into Iraq to fuel the guerrilla campaign.
Of course, terrorist forces do not want us to succeed in Iraq. They
do not particularly want us to succeed anywhere. And America should not
and cannot hesitate to take the steps we need to protect our security
against terrorist threats. But what I find so disturbing about this
assertion is it seems to suggest that bad news somehow vindicates
current policy--that if they attack our troops, we are getting it
right, that the Middle East peace process breaks down because spoilers
are threatened by the winds of democratic change blowing from Iraq.
Recently, Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz explained away
the bombing of the U.N. headquarters in Baghdad and a holy shrine in
Najaf by asserting that ``Terrorists recognize that Iraq is on a course
towards self-government that is irreversible and, once achieved, will
be an example to all in the Muslim world . . . pointing a way out of
the hopelessness that extremists feed on.''
In other words, what he is saying is, these attacks happen because we
are on the right track.
This is a somewhat disturbing formula. Are we to interpret every new
horror as an encouraging sign that we have it right, that we are really
getting to the bad guys? If an increased terrorist presence and
activity in Iraq
[[Page S12123]]
tells us we are on track, what will tell us we are off track?
Associated with this is a third idea--the assertion that fighting
terrorists in Iraq means we will not have to fight them closer to home.
I heard the President say a number of statements like this.
If only this were true. Do we really believe that somehow we can
attract all the terrorists to Iraq, bring them all in there and then
defeat them? Do we really believe there is a finite number of
terrorists whom we can finish off by goading them into attacking us in
Iraq? Do any of us believe that right now terror cells are not plotting
and planning and operating elsewhere in the Middle East, in East
Africa, in Southeast Asia, in central Asia? Global terrorist networks
would be a great deal easier to deal with if they could be contained
within some national boundaries, such as Iraq, clearly identified and
engaged. But this is simply not the reality we confront today.
We have to be honest with ourselves about what is really accomplished
in these skirmishes in Iraq in terms of the long-term security of the
United States. Unquestionably, there is value in helping the people of
Iraq take control of their own destiny. I am enthusiastic about helping
the forces fighting for democracy and accountability and human rights
around the world to triumph because I believe their success will create
a more stable and just world for my children and my children's children
to live in. And there are very real threats associated with allowing
Iraq to become a failed state--the same kind of threats I have warned
are associated with weak states elsewhere, including weak and failed
states in sub-Saharan Africa.
To tell ourselves this is the central front of the fight against
terrorism strikes me as more dangerous self-delusion, and we cannot
afford to be anything less than clear and focused and relentless in
fighting the forces that attacked this country on September 11.
That task is complex. It requires military strength, but military
strength alone is not sufficient. It also requires international
cooperation in sharing intelligence, disrupting terrorist
communications, and planning and cutting off their access to financial
resources. It requires international good will to sustain that kind of
cooperation, and it requires a robust public diplomacy effort founded
on respect and honesty so we can win the trust of those who fear we are
hostile toward Islam and the Arab world.
We have a lot of work to do, both in Iraq and in the fight against
terrorism. This is as serious business as we will ever confront. Lives
are on the line--the lives of Americans both in and out of uniform.
Rather than relying on simplistic theories and constantly shifting
justifications, we need to be honest about the threats we face and the
means to overcome them.
I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Burns). The Senator from Nevada.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, before the Senator from Wisconsin leaves the
floor, I wish to express my respect for him. He represents the State of
Wisconsin so ably. The one aspect I like about this Senator is you
never have to worry how he stands on an issue. He is always very
forthright and public in his statements.
As the Chair knows, I spend a good deal of my personal time finding
out where the votes are on our side of the aisle. With the Senator from
Wisconsin, there is never a problem. He doesn't say: Let me get back to
you. Or if he does say that, he does get back to me.
I have the greatest respect and admiration for the Senator. I have
also watched how he has been engaged in the international relations of
this country. I know how he has been engaged in issues that are
important to sometimes only him, but sometimes that is all it takes to
focus the attention of the Congress on an issue in which he has been
involved.
I had the good fortune when I served in the House to serve on the
Foreign Affairs Committee. I do not serve and have not served on the
Foreign Relations Committee in the Senate, but I do understand what an
important committee it is. I say to my friend from Wisconsin, I feel
very good in that he is serving on this committee and, in effect, in
doing so is also representing me in his efforts to make sure the
American public is advised to what is going on in the rest of the world
and our Government is involved, as it should be, around the world.
I publicly applaud and congratulate the Senator from Wisconsin for
his speech. I think he has, as usual, studied the issue and has made
some tremendous and significant points.
Mr. President, I have a statement I wish to give. It is my
understanding the majority wants to propound a unanimous consent
request for a vote later today; is that right?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair advises the Senator from Nevada, no
request has been propounded thus far.
Mr. REID. I knew that, but I was trying to be as polite as possible
to not get in the way of one being offered. So I will just go ahead
with my speech and at some later time I can give everyone a hint that
there is going to be a vote at 5:30. That is my understanding.
(The remarks of Mr. Reid are printed in today's Record under
``Morning Business.'')
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio.
Unanimous Consent Agreement--Executive Calendar
Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, as in executive session, I ask unanimous
consent that at 5:30 today the Senate proceed to executive session to
consider the following nomination on today's Executive Calendar:
Calendar No. 380, the nomination of Carlos Bea to be United States
Circuit Judge for the Ninth Circuit. I further ask unanimous consent
that following 2 minutes equally divided for debate the Senate proceed
to a vote on the confirmation of the nomination with no intervening
action or debate; further, following the vote, that the President be
immediately notified of the Senate's action and the Senate then return
to legislation session.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. REID. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I recently
received a call at home and the person was enraged that we were holding
up judges. I explained to the person that that was not factual. I want
the record to reflect that tomorrow morning we will approve the 160th
judge for President Bush. We have turned down three. So that is 160 to
3 is what I told my friend from Nevada.
I have no objection. I further agree that there be 2 minutes equally
divided for the debate prior to the vote tomorrow morning.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. DeWINE. I further ask consent that at 9:15 a.m., on Tuesday,
September 30, the Senate proceed to executive session and an immediate
vote on the confirmation of Calendar No. 381, Marcia Crone, to be
United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Texas, to be
followed immediately by a vote on the confirmation of Calendar No. 384,
the nomination of Ronald White to be United States District Judge for
the Eastern District of Oklahoma; provided further that following those
votes the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action and
the Senate then resume legislative session.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I apologize to my friend from Ohio. I was
not paying close enough attention. I thought he had finished the entire
request. So I am not going to restate my remarks where I was talking
about the number of judges. I wanted to do that now rather than
earlier, but my friend gets the point.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is
so ordered.
Mr. DeWINE. Finally, I ask unanimous consent that there be 2 minutes
equally divided for debate prior to each of the votes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware.
Mr. CARPER. Mr. President, during the course of our debate last
Thursday, we had the opportunity to share a number of thoughts about
the President's proposed voucher demonstration for the District of
Columbia. I have appreciated the opportunity this last week to engage
in discussions and negotiations, if you will, with my friend, Senator
DeWine from Ohio, Senator Landrieu, and others.
[[Page S12124]]
I know there has been some discussion today. I just arrived moments
ago. I want to revisit it a little bit. I think we have a vote in about
20 minutes, but I want to take the next few minutes to review some of
that conversation.
I said on Thursday and say it again today, I think the measure as it
is being amended on the Senate floor is a significant improvement over
what was offered in the House and approved by the House. It was a very
close partisan vote. I think it passed by one vote. I appreciate the
willingness of the other side to at least engage in what I think were
good-faith discussions and negotiations.
Among the problems we found with the legislation that came out of
committee to the floor was that eligible participating students need
not take the same tests that other District of Columbia students take.
Most States around the country have adopted academic standards. Once
academic standards are adopted, most States are developing tests to
understand the students' progress in math or science or English or
social studies or other subjects. I understand the District of Columbia
has been involved in the process of developing their own academic
standards for their own students. I believe they are in the process of
developing tests which would reveal student progress.
In the meantime, I think they use a proxy test. If one of my
colleagues wants to correct me, feel free, but I think the District of
Columbia uses as a proxy test the Standard of Achievement Test to
measure how students are doing with respect to reading, writing, and
math.
In the State of Delaware, we adopted our standard in 1995 and began
giving Delaware State tests in 1998. We actually use the Stanford 9. We
actually embed the Stanford 9 achievement test within the Delaware
State test so we have some idea how Delaware students are doing with
respect to progress against Delaware standards on math, science, and
social studies, and also because of the Stanford Achievement Test we
have an idea how we are doing with regard to the rest of the country,
at least as it relates to reading and mathematics. But I believe the
District of Columbia uses only the Standard of Achievement Test at this
time. They are developing a standard of achievement test that will find
out how local students are doing against the standards that have been
adopted. They will now begin using it.
The reason it is important to make sure all our students are taking
the same test, whether they happen to be in a traditional public school
or a public charter school or in a private or parochial school, that at
least once a year they take the same test, is we want to have some way
of objectively measuring whether students are making progress and know
we are measuring apples and apples and oranges and oranges, and not
apples and oranges.
I believe that with the adoption by voice vote of the Feinstein
amendment last week, this measure has been amended so now students in
parochial, private, traditional public schools and in charter schools
here in the District will all be at least taking the same test. That is
an important step.
The next step, though, is for us to figure out what we do with the
results from that test. That is critically important.
What do we do with the results of those tests? We measure the
students' progress toward the District of Columbia's academic
standards. It is all well and good if they take the same test, but what
if we don't act on those tests or use those tests as most States,
including mine, are using the test to help make sure we hold everybody
accountable, hold schools accountable, school districts accountable,
students accountable, educators accountable?
I used the example last week. I will use something similar to it
today to try to make clear we are not interested in creating an
administrative nightmare for the parochial schools or the private
schools. I don't know how difficult it would be for them 1 or 2 days a
year, a couple of days a year, for those schools to ensure the students
attending those schools with vouchers take the District's test. On top
of that, we are not interested in imposing on a private school or
parochial school the accountability system that we find in No Child
Left Behind.
There is going to be an independent entity created here in the
District of Columbia if this voucher demonstration program is actually
adopted and implemented. There would be an entity created called an
Eligible Entity. That is what it is actually called. As I understand
it, that Eligible Entity would be responsible for, among other things,
negotiating with the private and parochial schools, making sure the
students who receive these vouchers--actually, I understand the voucher
funding would come from the Federal Government through the Eligible
Entity to the parents of the students. Then they would choose from
among a variety of schools. The schools, if they were oversubscribed,
would have a lottery system.
We are not interested in seeing that the parochial and private
schools that participate have to go through the No Child Left Behind
rules. That is not what we are interested in doing. We do want to know,
however, if there are 2,000 kids in this voucher demonstration program,
how they are doing relative to the District of Columbia's academic
standards. We want to know if we are making good progress with respect
to those standards. We want to know if the various subgroups that we
are responsible for tracking are doing well, just as we would similar
subgroups that are still in traditional public schools in DC or in
charter schools here in the District of Columbia.
The data for those students enrolled in private or parochial schools,
how well they do on their test scores, can fairly easily be aggregated
and pulled out either by the Eligible Entity, collected by the Eligible
Entity, or by some appropriate entity in the District of Columbia, and
they will know how kids are doing in the sixth grade and the seventh
grade to the eighth grade. They will know how they are doing with
respect to reading and how they are doing with respect to mathematics,
if those kids were receiving their education on a voucher.
Again, we are not trying to make things unduly complicated or
difficult for the parochial or private schools. But if this is going to
happen, if we are going to try this experiment, I think it is in the
interest of everybody, including the kids, including us as
decisionmakers, to not impede the ability of students to enroll in a
private or parochial school that is interested in participating. The
key, though, for us is to make sure that at the end of the day we have
data that we can look at as decisionmakers, and the folks in the
District of Columbia can look at, and they will actually know with some
certainty whether or not the students using those vouchers are making
academic progress using the same standards, the same kind of
accountability that we are imposing on all the public schools,
including the charter schools.
I don't think that is too much to ask. I cited last Thursday a quote
from the President. I don't have it with me here, but this is what he
announced when he rolled out this proposal last July here in the
District of Columbia and talked about these kids. I will paraphrase
him: These kids have to operate under the same system of accountability
that other kids here in the District would be expected to operate
under, to which I would say terrific; I couldn't agree more.
In talking with one of the President's top senior people over in the
White House last week, I was concerned to hear that one of the reasons
we couldn't have expectations for accountability for progress for kids
using these vouchers to go to private or parochial schools is because
there is kind of an expectation that given their backgrounds and the
problems and academic difficulties they bring to the school, we
probably couldn't reasonably expect them to make the kind of progress
kids in traditional public schools or public charter schools would be
making.
It reminded me that the President is fond of talking about the soft
bigotry of low expectations. Boy, as soon as I heard those words, I
couldn't help but think that strikes of something akin to soft bigotry
of low expectations.
We say we expect kids who are in some of these deplorable schools in
the District--we are going to take kids out of those miserably failing
public schools and put them in a parochial school or a private school
and not expect them to perform in those schools or at least match or
exceed the scores
[[Page S12125]]
in the schools from which they came. Something is wrong here. Maybe I
misinterpreted or misunderstood what was being said on the phone. I
hope I was.
But the scores of those kids who get out of the environment they are
studying in should soar.
The last point I want to make is, if you have 2,000 vouchers to hand
out to a pool of kids, where do you find the students to give them to?
How do you make that determination? As far as I know, we still haven't
bridged our differences here.
Senator Landrieu and I, along with others on both sides--but more
Democrats and some Republicans--have contended that we ought to make
every effort to ensure that those vouchers, whether it is 2,000 or
however many we have, go to kids in schools that are failing. There is
a question about whether we have enough failing schools in the District
of Columbia in order to make sure that those vouchers are fully
implemented and exercised and used.
I am at a loss as to what to say on that. If the schools in this
District are half as bad as we have all heard, there are more than
enough kids in schools that any of us would deem failing to use those
2,000 vouchers for, and argue for more. There are 15 public schools in
the District of Columbia that are deemed to be failing by the standards
that are currently being used. I think that is going to change as this
District of Columbia test is developed and implemented in the next
couple of years.
In my State, we have been making great progress academically for the
last year or so. We have several times the number of failing schools as
the District of Columbia has.
I know in talking with Senator Landrieu in the last week or so that
the State of Louisiana has a whole lot more--just in New Orleans alone
many times more than 15--failing schools. There are going to be plenty
of kids in failing schools here a year or so from now when it is up and
running, if it is ever up and running--more than enough kids in these
failing schools.
I would suggest to our friends on the other side of the aisle and to
the administration that we shouldn't get bogged down on this point. Let
us just give the vouchers to kids in failing schools, be done with it,
and move on.
The last piece that is troubling--and it was troubling to us before
but even more so now--is when legislation comes to the Senate, whoever
the President is, whether it is a former President, President Bush,
President Clinton, the former President Bush, President Reagan, there
is a statement of administration policy that comes with regard to the
legislation. Senator Landrieu and I were trying to obtain from our
Republican colleagues and from the administration an agreement that
what emerges from conference would actually be the language and the
principles that were laid out that we and our friends talked about a
whole lot last week. We are asking for assurances from the
administration and our Republican colleagues that regardless of what we
vote on or agree to on the Senate floor--and the whole package could be
agreed to on the Senate floor, but when we go to conference with the
House of Representatives, you just never know what is going to come out
of the conference. We didn't want to be hoodwinked. We didn't want to
enjoy a period of victory on the Senate floor only to find that what
emerges from the conference of the House of Representatives is
something that looks quite different.
Our concerns were underlined, maybe with an exclamation point at the
end, when we saw the statement of administration policy.
I don't have it before me. Does Senator Landrieu happen to have a
statement of administration policy?
Ms. LANDRIEU. Yes.
Mr. President, I do have a statement of administration policy. I
appreciate my colleague raising that issue. I know we are scheduled for
a vote at 5:30. We only have a few more minutes for this discussion.
But as my colleague from Delaware has stated, there is a statement of
administration policy that basically focuses on the $13 million voucher
proposal. It does not mention charter schools. It does not mention
additional funding for traditional public schools.
We subsequently received a letter from Secretary Paige after this
document was presented indicating that his Department is in support of
the three-sector approach. But the Senator from Delaware is correct.
Until we have a more definitive statement from the administration and
our Republican colleagues, even if we accept that language in this
bill, there would be really no confirmation.
Mr. CARPER. Mr. President, I believe the Senator from Nevada wishes
to say something before we vote at 5:30. I don't want to impede him.
Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I wonder if my colleague will yield for a
question?
Mr. CARPER. Yes.
Mr. DeWINE. I was really asking my colleague if Secretary Paige's
letter--and, of course, my colleague from Louisiana just referenced
that letter--I wonder if my colleague would agree that the letter from
the Secretary is a pretty definitive letter. The Secretary is the
Secretary and does represent the administration. So it seems to me that
it is, in fact, the administration's policy to support the three-
pronged approach that we have been talking about here on the Senate
floor.
Mr. CARPER. I am encouraged that the Secretary has promulgated a
letter. I don't know to what extent it also bears an imprimatur of OMB
and the senior folks in the White House. I am encouraged by the letter.
The point I am trying to make is that we are uneasy in the first
place about entering into some kind of agreement on the Senate floor,
and then just seeing that dissipate in conference. In the
administration's statement they don't even mention the $13 million for
public and charter schools, which just further exacerbates our
uneasiness.
Let me yield, if I may, to the Senator from Nevada.
Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, how much time remains before the vote?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. One minute.
Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be able to
speak for 4 or 5 minutes.
Ms. LANDRIEU. I have to object. I am going to have to object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
Ms. LANDRIEU. Right after the vote, we can agree to time, if the
Senator wishes.
Mr. ENSIGN. I ask my colleague, Mr. President, is there a reason 4
minutes is a big deal?
Ms. LANDRIEU. There is actually a reason. I am sorry. After the vote,
we would be pleased to have the Senator speak.
Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, I will take the remaining time.
I make a couple of comments. We call this a voucher bill, a
scholarship bill, Pell grants for kids, GI bill for some of the most
disadvantaged students in the District of Columbia. What we are talking
about is the children. Are we going to leave children behind in
arguably one of the worst school districts in America or are we going
to allow them to at least have a chance, a couple of thousand of them,
to have a chance they otherwise would not have? Not only that, can we
show something that works? The current system in Washington, DC is not
working. At least give the kids and their parents a chance. Instead of
putting the bureaucracy first, put the children first.
____________________