[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.

                          ____________________