[Congressional Record Volume 151, Number 132 (Tuesday, October 18, 2005)]
[Senate]
[Pages S11453-S11460]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
TRANSPORTATION, TREASURY, HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT, THE JUDICIARY,
THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, AND INDEPENDENT AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT,
2006
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will
resume consideration of H.R. 3058, which the clerk will now report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
A bill (H.R. 3058) making appropriations for the
Departments of Transportation, Treasury, and Housing and
Urban Development, the Judiciary, the District of Columbia
and independent agencies for the fiscal year ending September
30, 2006, and for other purposes.
Pending:
Kyl amendment No. 2062, to provide that Members of Congress
shall not receive a cost-of-living adjustment in pay during
fiscal year 2006.
Kennedy amendment No. 2063, to provide for an increase in
the Federal minimum wage.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri is recognized.
Mr. BOND. Mr. President, the Transportation, Treasury, HUD, and
related agencies bill is now back on the floor. At 11 o'clock it is my
understanding that by previous order we will go to consideration of the
DC appropriations bill, which will be included as a separate part of
this legislation because the House has the two functions of DC and
Treasury, Transportation, HUD as one bill. Those, it is my
understanding, will be conferenced separately but at the same time so
that the final conference report will bring back Treasury,
Transportation, Housing and Urban Development, and the District of
Columbia appropriations.
The important thing to note is my partner and colleague in this
effort, the ranking member, the Senator from Washington, Senator Murray
and I, have asked our colleagues to bring to the floor the amendments
they wish to offer for this T-T-H-U-D or TTHUD bill. We will be having
a vote on the pending amendment, the Kyl amendment, at 10 minutes after
12. The amendment relates to the cost-of-living increase for Members of
Congress.
It is important to note that both sides agree we want to move
quickly. We want to know what amendments there are. We are seeking a
time deadline for filing those amendments so our staff can go to work
on them.
We believe there will be time this evening for staff to consider
them. It is possible we will be able to take some of these amendments
and conclude this bill sometime this week. It is very important we get
this moving because we are now in the new fiscal year. We are operating
on a continuing resolution and we have many important items in this
bill and the DC bill that need to be put into law so we are operating
on fiscal year 2006 appropriations for the year.
As my colleague was kind enough to mention yesterday, there was an
athletic contest in Houston last night in which Albert Pujols managed
to keep the St. Louis Cardinals alive. I am currently in a good mood
and ready to accept as many amendments as possible. While I have great
hopes for continued success, this is the best time to catch me in a
good mood. And the Senator from Washington is in a good mood. This is
the time to bring the amendments forward. We will be happy to work with
our colleagues to try to find ways to accept as many amendments as
possible.
In any event, I know there will be some amendments that will require
votes. We would like to have them brought to our attention as soon as
possible in order for us to set a schedule enabling us to finish this
bill, we hope well before the end of this week. We have many other
important measures to work on and we will have to have a number of
votes. We look forward to having those amendments before us. This is an
urgent request to my colleagues who have amendments to the TTHUD bill
to bring them to the floor and to share them with the managers on both
sides of the aisle.
With that, I thank my colleagues and ask that they bring those
amendments down.
Seeing no other speakers wishing to take the floor, 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. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sununu). Without objection, it is so
ordered.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senator from
Kansas is recognized to offer an amendment.
Amendment No. 2071
Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
[[Page S11454]]
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Kansas [Mr. Brownback] proposes an
amendment numbered 2071.
Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of
the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
(The amendment is printed in today's Record under ``Text of
amendments.'')
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there will be 40
minutes for debate equally divided.
The Senator from Kansas is recognized.
Mr. BROWNBACK. Thank you, Mr. President.
Mr. President, my colleague, Senator Landrieu of Louisiana, the
ranking member of the Appropriations Subcommittee on the District of
Columbia, will be here shortly to use the other 20 minutes of this
presentation. This is the District of Columbia appropriations bill. It
has been passed and reported by the full Appropriations Committee
unanimously and contains some modifications within it. But we have
strong agreement within the Appropriations Committee. We have gone
through a number of hearings. I want to highlight several particular
issues within it, what we are trying to do to encourage family
formation, encourage marriage in the District of Columbia.
I want to talk about the school issues. We have had a voucher program
for a short period of time. I want to report on how that is going and
the problems and needs within that area.
I also want to talk a little bit about the problems we are having
with the schools overall in the District of Columbia, which remains an
ongoing, desperate problem. Kids that get into the District of Columbia
Public School System get into a system that moves them more,
unfortunately, in too many cases, toward failure rather than success. A
system that does that is a system that needs changing.
I also want to talk about some needs in the future.
We are putting this forward as a part of the Transportation and HUD
bill to mirror what is taking place in the House so that this will be
amended into the Transportation-HUD bill and then conferenced together
with the House of Representatives.
I thank the members of the Appropriations Committee, particularly my
colleague, Senator Landrieu, the ranking member, for her work on this
area. She has been the ranking member under both myself and Senator
DeWine. She does an outstanding job.
This bill provides $593 million in Federal funds for the District of
Columbia and includes the city's own local budget of $6.2 billion.
The funds in the bill focus on three key Federal priorities for the
District of Columbia.
First, improving educational opportunities for inner-city children;
second, reducing and preventing crime; and, third, promoting and
sustaining healthy marriages.
To address the first priority, the bill provides funds to improve
traditional public schools, increase capacity at public charter
schools, improve bilingual education for Latino students, and allow
low-income students in failing public schools to attend private
schools.
This is the second year of the District of Columbia Opportunity
Scholarship Program.
I want to recognize my colleague, Senator DeWine, for getting this
started last year when he chaired this committee, and also my
colleague, Senator Judd Gregg from New Hampshire, for his strong input
and push into this program. It was difficult to get started, but it has
been quite a success thus far.
This is the first ever Federal program to provide scholarships to
low-income, inner-city children so they can attend private schools.
I might note for my colleagues that several years ago, when I was the
authorizing chairman of the District of Columbia authorization
committee, we polled Members of Congress and then the President and the
Vice President to see how many Members of Congress send their kids to
DC public schools--either in the House or the Senate or the President
or Vice President. I was actually shocked to find out that there were
no Members--zero Members of Congress--who sent their children to the
District of Columbia public schools--not one in all of the House, all
of the Senate, the President and Vice President.
I thought that said a lot by the action that people were taking. They
were not sending their kids to DC public schools, even though if you
were a poor parent, you had no other choice. Now there is a bit of a
different choice.
The demand for scholarships in this program, as far as allowing low-
income, inner-city children to go to private school, has been
overwhelming, with nearly two applications from eligible public school
students for each scholarship available. The federally mandated
evaluation of the program is up and running, with a robust number of
scholarships and nonscholarship students participating. We are doing
evaluations. Most importantly, the program is succeeding and serving
the low-income children who truly need this educational opportunity the
most. Most of these scholarship students came from failing DC schools,
and now they are flourishing in the District's private schools that are
participating in the program.
We have heard the story of a first grader who couldn't read at all
when he received his scholarship. Yet within 2 months at his new
school, he was already reading close to his grade level.
One scholarship mother tells us that her child used to complain about
going to school every morning. Yet he is so excited about going to
school now that he grumbles about having to stay home from school on a
snow day.
Then there is the private school principal who marveled when she
called a new scholarship student by his name, and the child said he
didn't believe she was the principal because there is no way the
principal would actually know a student's name.
These kind of stories are commonplace and indicate that the program
is successful. However, I am concerned about the current and growing
mismatch between the number of private high school spaces available in
the District and the number of scholarship students seeking a space in
a District of Columbia private high school. Because of this mismatch,
many students who already have a scholarship will be forced to leave
the program. Specifically, for the current school year, there are about
50 high school students with scholarships who could not attend the
private school in the District because of a lack of capacity.
Unfortunately, the problem will only worsen in each subsequent year as
current middle school students graduate to high school. If the trend
continues--and even if no new scholarships are offered beyond the fifth
grade--nearly 75 percent of the students holding scholarships to attend
high school will be unable to use them because of a lack of slots in
private high schools in the District. This is a shame.
A number of Senators expressed objections to correcting this program
at this early stage, so we have left the program unchanged. But I want
to note for my colleagues the problems that we have.
The second priority funded by this bill is reducing and preventing
crime in the District. The Federal Government entirely funds the
District of Columbia courts and the DC Court Services and Supervision
Agency. The committee is providing a total of $420 million for these
agencies, which is $52 million more than the fiscal year enacted level.
Most of these additional resources are for renovation and repairs to
the city's fourth oldest building, the historic old courthouse. We need
to continue this effort.
The third priority in this bill is promoting and sustaining healthy
marriages. This is a new initiative, and I want to spend a little bit
of time talking about this. I am hopeful this can be a model,
particularly across the country in inner cities where we are having
particular difficulty in forming, in many cases, healthy family units.
Every year, almost 57 percent of the babies born to residents of the
District of Columbia--that is right, 57 percent--are born to single
mothers. This is 40 percent higher than the national average. It is not
to say you can't raise healthy children in a single-parent household. I
want to go through some of the numbers to indicate the difficulty of
raising a child in a single-parent household.
Statistics show that children born to single mothers are seven times
more likely to be poor than those born to
[[Page S11455]]
married parents and that over 80 percent of long-term child poverty
occurs in broken or never-married families. Marriage has an enormous
potential to reduce poverty amongst couples who are unmarried at the
time of their child's birth.
I want to point out this chart which shows that child poverty
dramatically increases outside of intact marriages: Marriage impact
within wedlock, 7 percent child poverty; never-married mother, 51
percent child poverty rate.
Children born and raised in households where their mother and father
married tend to be more financially stable and more emotionally stable.
Statistics tell a compelling story of the many positive benefits that
accrue to children if they are raised by their married parents.
For example, children raised in married families are 3 times less
likely to repeat a grade in school, 5 times less likely to have
behavioral problems, half as likely to be depressed, 3 times less
likely to use illicit drugs, half as likely to become sexually active
as teenagers, and 14 times less likely to suffer abuse from their
parents.
We had a hearing on this 2 weeks ago, where a couple talked about
their interest in getting married after living together for 20 years
and having four children. We have a proposal, which I will be putting
forward in a minute. I want to note, before we get to that, that this
couple said almost all of their friends came up to them and said: Are
you crazy, getting married? The couple said: No. We want to get
married. We want to provide a model for our children. Aren't you crazy
doing this with all of the payments that you are going to lose under
the public assistance system if you get married?
I said at that point in time that we need to look at the
disincentives we put in Federal programs for people getting married,
particularly low-income households because we shouldn't be sending this
kind of signal, given the benefit overall to children of having intact,
married families.
Currently, there are many single mothers who are heroically and
successfully raising children on their own. They deserve our respect
and support. But it is an indisputable fact that the best environment
in which to raise a child is in a healthy, two-parent family.
In addition, the growth of single-parent families has had an enormous
financial impact on our society at large. The welfare system for
children is overwhelmingly a subsidy system for single-parent families.
Some three-quarters of the aid to children--given through programs such
as food stamps, Medicaid, public housing, Temporary Assistance to Needy
Families, and the Earned Income Tax Credit--goes to single-parent
households.
The Federal Government annually spends over $150 billion in means-
tested welfare aid for single parents. I believe that improving a
couple's financial stability can help sustain a healthy marriage.
As a way to assist low-income, married couples to gain appreciable
assets, the subcommittee has introduced legislation which has broad
bipartisan support. It is supported by Eleanor Holmes Norton. It will
establish Marriage Development Accounts in the District of Columbia.
The MDAs will be available to low-income, married couples who are
citizens or legal residents of the District and who have very low net
worth. Couples may save money to buy a home, pay for job training or
education or start their own businesses. Couples will have a high
incentive to save because their contributions will be matched at a
ratio of 3 to 1 by the Federal Government and partnering private
institutions. In other words, the Federal Government will put in $1,
there will be $2 of private money raised, and low-income couples who
receive marriage counseling, or as they get married, will be matched 3
to 1 for every dollar of savings they put in--$3 from the Federal
Government and private sector. It is to encourage marriage and also to
encourage savings for this couple. As a requirement of participation,
couples will receive training that helps them repair their credit, set
a budget, set savings schedules, and manage their money. Couples will
also receive bonuses in the MDA accounts for receiving marriage
counseling.
Recognizing the importance of grassroots support to ensure the
success of these efforts, this subcommittee is directing grantees to
expand their network of service providers by partnering with local
churches, faith-based organizations, and nonprofit organizations,
providing mentoring, couple's counseling, and community outreach.
It has been an interesting coming together of people from all parts
of the political spectrum, left and right, to support this creation--we
believe the first ever in the country--of marriage development accounts
to encourage savings and marriage of low-income couples.
A senior fellow with the Brookings Institute testified at a recent
hearing I held on MDAs that many researchers and practitioners who work
with poor couples believe that a major barrier to healthy marriages is
economic uncertainty. For example, Kathy Edin of the University of
Pennsylvania has concluded from her interviews with young, unmarried
mothers that there are plenty of issues such as empathy and trust that
interfere with continuing the couple's relationships, but Edin and
other researchers have come to regard poverty, unemployment, and income
as serious barriers to healthy marriage.
Young, low-income couples often tell interviewers they are thinking
about marriage, but they want to save enough money to make a
downpayment on a house before they actually get married. Thus, MDAs are
responsive to what the couples say they need before they become serious
about marriage.
Beyond what the researchers are saying, we hear from real couples in
the District who have been living together, who have children, now plan
to marry and open an MDA.
We must act quickly to stop the erosion of marriage in our Nation and
particularly in our Nation's Capital. We cannot just watch and wring
our hands. We must act aggressively in employing as many innovative
approaches as possible, test the results, and do a heavy monitoring.
That is what we have in the bill itself--a monitoring to see if this is
working. Our future and our children's future truly are at stake. I
believe MDAs can be an important tool in helping to stabilize,
strengthen, and foster healthy marriages.
I again thank my colleague, Senator Landrieu, as the ranking member.
She and I share the same concerns for the children and residents who
live in the District of Columbia. She is a strong supporter,
particularly of the school system needs in this district. We both have
concerns regarding the public and the charter school system that are
not reflected in this bill. If changes are not made in DC public and
charter schools, we will be back next year with a bill that has more
aggressive statements and a more aggressive position from this Senate
on the public and charter school system. It is not serving the
children's needs. We did not take that on this year. We met multiple
times with the superintendent of the DC Public Schools and others and
noted the problems, but they said: Give us a little more time. The
problem is, time dooms our children if no successful changes are made.
So next year, we could be back with substantial changes.
I thank the staff for working with us. I know her staff, including
Kate Eltrich, has worked hard. Mary Dietrich went so far as to break
her arm to get this bill to the Senate in a timely fashion--she
actually was bike riding--but that did not stop her. She is here to get
this done. I hope we can pass this bill.
I yield back the remainder of my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana.
Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I am pleased to join my colleague from
Kansas, Senator Brownback, to present to our colleagues of the Senate
this DC appropriations bill. It has been a joy and a privilege to work
with the Senator from Kansas. Prior to the Senator's service, as chair
I had the great opportunity to work with the Senator from Ohio, Mike
DeWine, who is, indeed, a pleasure to work with and a great partner.
This is a very important bill for our Nation. Not only does it
matter, of course, directly to the 500,000-plus residents of the
District, but the life and the quality of life in the District has a
tremendous impact on this whole region, which is made up of millions of
people, as the District was actually
[[Page S11456]]
carved out of Virginia and Maryland and serves as a hub of this region.
As the Presiding Officer knows, in his home State as well as my home
State of Louisiana, people all over the Nation feel very warmly
attached to their Nation's Capital, what happens in neighborhoods, in
schools, downtown, on the riverfronts, our monuments as a tourist
mecca. For people to seek inspiration, this is very important. This
bill, while it is one of the smallest in terms of dollar amounts, has a
great deal of interest from people all over the Nation.
I have been pleased to be the appropriator, and I am particularly
happy all of our colleagues have worked in such a cooperative manner
that we can bring this bill to the Senate and handle it with great
dispatch, with very little controversy, if any at all. From my
perspective, since I have had my time taken helping Louisiana and the
gulf coast recover from two major storms, Rita and Katrina, and then
the subsequent massive levee breaks that have left the gulf coast
region in a great challenging state, I thank our colleagues for letting
us take this bill up and move it forward so I personally can get back
to the issues in front of the State of Louisiana at this moment.
I will be relatively brief, but I follow up Senator Brownback's
statements with just a few comments. I thank Senator Cochran and
Senator Byrd, the chairman and ranking member of the Committee on
Appropriations, who made it possible in their decision as to how to
organize and to reorganize the Committee on Appropriations, saw fit to
keep some independence for the District of Columbia. That is extremely
important. The outcome is something I supported, as well as others, but
without Senator Cochran and Senator Byrd's support, it would not have
been possible.
Our House colleagues have merged DC into a bigger committee. I think
some of the focus gets lost. The Nation's Capital deserves appropriate
focus and support from all, and our focus has not been lost. We in the
Senate continue to help strengthen and develop our Nation's Capital
appropriately as reliable partners for their progress.
I thank Senator Cochran and Senator Byrd.
In addition, I note that the large majority of the money in this bill
is not national taxpayer money. It is local money, levied, raised, and
appropriated to the tune of $7.3 billion of local money. The Federal
money in this bill for which we have responsibility to be accountable
is $593 million. It is a lot of money but a small percentage of the $7
billion total levied and raised by the residents and citizens of the
District of Columbia. Our focus is on that $600 million portion we
allocate in trying to be partners with city officials.
Because of Mayor Williams' outstanding leadership, in my view--and I
think it is shared by Senator Brownback and many Senators--his
outstanding leadership as a good steward of taxpayer money, as a good
manager for reform, as a great salesperson, an advocate for this great
city, nationally and internationally, our confidence in his leadership,
and the confidence in the management of the city, has increased
substantially. So we are pleased to invest in its continued growth.
One major investment this Congress has made is in the establishment
of a family court structure. I wish we could have family courts all
over the United States. It is not an inexpensive operation. In many
States, the last courts to be funded are those that need the most help.
The courts that regulate or try to work out situations of marriage and
personal lives so important to people, that settle disputes about
marriages, wills, and estates, and most importantly, settle the issues
of divorces or reconciliations, child custody, child abuse, and spousal
abuse, unfortunately those courts throughout our land are the last
funded, the least resourced, and the most overly taxed in terms of
responsibility.
Over the course of the last few years, we have stood up, Democrats
and Republicans, and said it is time to help our Nation's Capital
create a model in the Nation, a family court that puts families first,
that understands that these decisions of child custody, of separation,
of protecting women from abuse and children from abuse, are truly life-
and-death matters and are truly important decisions to keep the fabric
of society together. So we have invested in this family court, one
family, one judge, so children are no longer lost in the bureaucracy,
lost in the file rooms, their lives are meaningful, and they are
treated with dignity and respect. It has been an expensive project but
one well worth investing in the families of the District of Columbia
and particularly the children.
We march on to improve child welfare in the District, to work with
the city to strengthen and improve the quality of our foster families
and, most importantly from my perspective, promote adoption, believing
that every child in the District, in America, and, in fact, in the
world, deserves a family to call their own.
Governments, as I have said, do a lot of things well. Raising
children is not one of them. Parents--a parent, a responsible adult--
raise children. And we as a Nation need to do a much better job of
connecting these needy children of all ages--infants, toddlers, young
children, teenagers, young adults--with parents wanting to give them
the benefit of a stable home and family. I am very proud of the
District's performance and improvement in that area.
Finally, one more point before I speak about education which is going
to be the focus today. I encourage the continuing development of good
land use in the District of Columbia. We have planned the
revitalization and cleaning up of the Anacostia River to be a balance
with the beautiful Potomac on one side, to bring the Anacostia back to
be a place where people can recreate--citizens and tourists alike--
where there could potentially be exciting new developments of multiuse
housing, wonderful commercial waterfront developments that contribute
to recreational opportunities and sporting opportunities for children.
The city has a tremendous vision. The Nation should be excited.
Although we are able to offer a just small amount, our committee wants
to be supportive of that effort in any way we can. That is reflected in
this bill.
Let me speak for a moment on the main subject of this, which is
education reform. Every city in the country and every county in the
country is struggling with the challenge of providing quality education
for our Nation's children. We decided as a Nation many years ago to do
that through a public system. It has worked in large measure
extraordinarily well over the long term.
There are clearly signs in America--whether urban areas, rural areas,
or poor areas; sometimes we even find crises in wealthy areas that are
growing too fast or there is too much strain in an area--that school
systems are really struggling. Either they do not have enough space and
too many students, too many students and not enough teachers, not
enough quality classroom space, or there is no tax base to pay for
quality teachers, so students are failing. There are all sorts of
challenges to our public school system. This Congress has been spending
a lot of time--from No Child Left Behind to accountability to strategic
investments--to try to fix this. Although there have been some setbacks
and it is not perfect, from my perspective, we are moving in generally
the right direction with the exception that our investments have not
matched the rhetoric from the Federal level. But should we ever be able
to fix that, I believe we will see increased student performance,
increased parental satisfaction, more choice in the public school
system, and excellence across the board.
Why do I say this is so important? Because in this Senator's view,
the only way to have great cities is to have great schools. The only
way to have great communities is to have great schools. If you do not
have great cities and great communities, you cannot long have a great
nation.
Our forefathers said to us when we created this democracy that one of
the fastest ways to end it is to stop educating ourselves to the
responsibilities of being citizens of the Nation and the world. That
education, yes, begins at home, where children are educated primarily
by their parents, their guardians, people who brought them into the
world. But we supplement that education of parents by offering, in
America, an education to any child wanting
[[Page S11457]]
to take the chance to walk through that kindergarten door. We do not
limit it only to the wealthy. We do not limit it only to those who can
afford it. We provide universal public education. It has been the
cornerstone of this democracy, and it should remain that way.
But we have some problems because some of our schools are failing our
children. Some of our systems are failing our children and the
employees who work in the system. So we have to change. I am very proud
that in this DC bill, the Members of the Senate and the House--
Republicans and Democrats--have come together to negotiate, to reason
together, to try to see what could we do in this city to show a model
for some things that can work.
We had a very fierce negotiation and debate 2 years ago about this
and have settled, if you will, on three approaches. One is what Senator
Brownback spoke about, a scholarship-voucher approach that some people
believe will work. A large number of us settled on negotiating for
investments in charter schools, keeping the money in the public system,
not taking it out but providing more independence, more choice, more
exciting options to create new models of ``coopertition,'' if you will,
in the public system. I happen to be a very strong advocate of that
approach to changing and reforming public education in America.
Then there was another group of us who negotiated for more help to
traditional public schools, more investments, more help, and reforming
in a more traditional way.
This great experiment is underway. It is going to be a 5-year
experiment. We are committing $40 million a year, which is a lot of
money. There will be $200 million going to this effort. That $200
million, while it sounds like a lot, is a small percentage of what the
District residents pay to support their system. But it is an important
investment.
I want to say how proud I am of the efforts being made to expand
opportunities for public charters, for two reasons. One, it provides
choice to parents. There is not one cookie-cutter approach. Some
parents want their children in schools that have strong academics and
athletics. Other parents like choices that stress the arts. Some
parents like to see that their children may be in a school that may
give them a pre-med education and direct them more to medicine or
science or research.
I believe all parents should have more choices, that one size does
not fit all, that we need to get away from this industrial model. We
moved away from it in our economy. Why can't we move away from it in
our school system and move to a more decentralized, more independent,
more entrepreneurial, more choice-driven, more consumer-directed
approach to schools? Just because we have not done that for 200 years
in this country does not mean we can't.
So that is what we are undertaking: creating opportunities for
quality, independent public charters so the money stays in the public
system. But it basically acts almost as if it were private in the sense
that it is independent but meeting all high standards.
Twenty-five percent of the public school population in the District
is in public charter schools. That is one of the highest percentages of
school populations in the Nation. So this is really a laboratory to see
what is working, what is not. I am proud to say we are making progress
not only in the increased number of charter schools but, most
importantly, in the quality of charter schools. It is not just quantity
but quality.
There are actions being taken now by the certification boards that if
a charter school is failing, those schools can be closed and
reorganized and supported so that quality education is being provided.
That is one of the focuses of this bill. We want to not stress just the
increase in quantity but quality. We want to ensure accountability, and
we want to make sure, just as in traditional public schools, that any
child who walks through the door of a public charter--whether it be a
bilingual opportunity, which has been so successful; whether it is a
residential Monday-through-Friday school, which has been tremendously
successful in giving people hope and raising grade levels--whatever the
model, when they walk through that door, they can get a quality
education. That is one of our goals.
So we have continued to press for that $13 million piece. The charter
school community has come together in unison to lay out how that $13
million should be directed to this movement, a great movement for
quality, for opportunity.
I will submit a summary of that for the Record.
One of the exciting components, from my perspective--and I will close
with a comment about this--is part of our charter school movement has
been a new initiative called the Citybuild initiative. It is part of
the charter school idea that says that in many cities, including the
District of Columbia, there are certain neighborhoods that are
revitalizing, I would say on their own, but nothing happens on your
own.
It is a combination of some public investments that are occurring, a
change in housing patterns, young couples, Black and White and
Hispanic, moving into a neighborhood with young children. They like the
housing. They like the location to their work. The only problem is,
they move into a neighborhood that has affordable housing, restaurants,
theaters, but there are no ``good'' schools or ``quality'' schools.
So what happens is, in 3 years or 4 years these children move, the
families put their houses up for sale and move to either another part
of the city where they can find the quality education they are looking
for, or, worse, they move out of the city. That is what has happened in
the District of Columbia. It is what happened in New Orleans. It is
what happens in Cleveland. It is what happens in Detroit. It is what
happens in Atlanta. It is what happens even in Houston.
So we have to think about a new way to encourage the development of
quality, independent, entrepreneurial public schools, placing them in
neighborhoods that can easily be identified as up and coming, with
near-term improvements, where parents, if they had a good public school
choice, would not leave.
That is what the Citybuild charter program is. So I am excited that
this is part of our charter school effort. We are now in the second
year. There have been five Citybuild charters designated by the city
through a process that is open and competitive. There will be,
hopefully, two or three more new schools placed in these neighborhoods
that will anchor families with small children so we can grow the
population of this city and cities all over America.
Mayor Williams, when he came in as mayor, stated his goal that he
wants 100,000 new residents. So we have joined him in that challenge to
provide more safety in the city, better transportation, better economic
opportunity. But what most families need to stay are good schools for
their children to attend. That is why we spend so much time working on
education reform and promoting, from my perspective, this exciting new
opportunity for charter schools, public charters, and particularly
Citybuild charters.
I thank, in closing, Deputy Mayor Robert Bobb, Council Chairperson
Linda Cropp, DC Delegate to Congress Eleanor Holmes Norton, and Shadow
Senator Paul Strauss, who is in the Gallery today. Specifically, I also
thank Council Member Kathy Patterson, Superintendent of Schools
Clifford Janey, and School Board President Peggy Cooper Cafritz, and
our staffs who are here, both Kate Eltrich and Mary Dietrich, who were
mentioned. Without their support we could not do this bill and present
it in a way with such limited controversy and such maximum benefit to
the people of the District and the people of our Nation.
So, again, I thank the mayor for his leadership. He makes it easy to
work with him. I wish him the best of luck in his future, as he, Mr.
President, as you know, said he will not be running for reelection. I
suggested he come down South and help us. We need some help in New
Orleans, and in Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama, and a good manager
like that could be a great help to us. We appreciate his support, and
we wish him the best in the future.
Mr. President, I would like to submit for the Record a summary of the
$13 million investment in public charter schools in the District of
Columbia appropriations bill.
The bill directs funding to specific initiatives which will
strengthen
[[Page S11458]]
schools, enhance capacity, improve academic quality, and create a
network of integrated services. The committee recommended the following
initiatives within the amount provided for charter schools: $4 million
for the Direct Loan Fund for Charter Schools; $2,000,000 for Credit
Enhancement; $2 million for continuation of the Citybuild Charter
School Program; $1,500,000 for flexible grants; $2 million for grants
for public charter schools for improvement of public school facilities
which are leased or owned by public charter schools; $400,000 for
college access programming; $300,000 to create a truancy center;
$250,000 for administration of Federal entitlement funding; $300,000
for data collection and analysis; and $250,000 for administration
within the State Education Office.
The committee report also included language to pursue access to
facilities for charter schools and support ongoing efforts to make
space available. A significant initiative of this committee, continuing
on the work started by the Congressional Control Board, was to make
surplus school property accessible to other educational opportunities.
We have required an accounting of surplus school property, encouraging
schools to be leased or sold to charter schools, and recommend a
dedicated account for any proceeds. I look forward to working with the
Mayor and Council to finally open these sometimes vacant, but assuredly
underutilized in their capacity as a schoolhouse, these surplus public
school buildings.
In addition, I would like to submit for the Record several highlights
from a recent report on the impact of public charter schools on
providing quality public education for children across the country, as
well as providing healthy competition to the entire public education
system.
The following are excerpts from the ``State of the Charter Movement
2005, Trends, Issues, and Indicators,'' by the Charter School
Leadership Council.
The Charter School Leadership Council found that:
demand for charter schools is clearly outstripping the
supply. The charter sector would be much bigger in the
absence of charter caps and if it could accommodate the
throngs of students on waiting lists. Charter schools are
concentrated in certain States and cities, though less so
than five years ago. Public charter schools are serving a
disproportionate share of minority and low-income school
children, and this has been the case since the beginning of
the charter movement. Charter schools are significantly
smaller than district public schools. The charter movement is
producing a wide array of instructional and organizational
models, providing lots of choices for families.
In relation to public opinion on charter schools, the Council found
that:
charter schools remain a mystery to much of the general
public. Misinformation abounds, but attitudes become more
favorable as knowledge grows. Twice as many registered voters
favor charter schools as oppose them.
By the numbers, there are 3,400 public charter schools operating
nationwide educating one million students. That represents 2 percent of
all students nationwide. Forty States have public charter school laws
on the books and 42 percent of charter schools are concentrated in
three of those States, Arizona, California, and Florida. The Council
report states:
The average number of charter schools per State has been
increasing steadily each year, from 25 in 1995, to 59 in
2000, to nearly 90 today. On average, over 250 charter
schools have been added each year for the past 12 years.
Of all the public charter schools in the country, 16 percent
converted from a traditional public school, 7 percent were created by a
private entity, and 77 percent are newly created.
Dr. Brian Hassel conducted a meta-analysis of major studies and
concluded the following:
The existence of high quality charter schools and high
growth rates for charter schools, at least in many States and
studies, suggests that chartering holds promise as an
approach to getting better schools. What we have is an
experiment worth continuing and refining.
One missing element in nearly all charter studies is the
question of productivity: how much learning gain is produced
per dollar spent? A Rand study in California found that
``Charter schools, particularly start-up schools, reported
using fewer resources per student than do conventional
schools . . . Most noteworthy, charter schools are achieving
comparable test scores despite a lower reported level of
revenue.'' (Ron Zimmer et al., Charter School Operations and
Performance: Evidence from California, Rand, 2003). According
to a 2004 study of ten Dayton charter schools, average per-
pupil funding was $7,510 vs. $10,802 for district public
schools, yet on average Dayton charter students outperformed
Dayton public school students on all portions of the 2004
fourth and sixth grade State proficiency tests--in some
subjects by a significant margin--indicating higher
productivity from charters. (Alexander Russo, A Tough Nut to
Crack in Ohio: Charter Schooling in the Buckeye State,
Progressive Policy Institute, February 2005, 24).
The Council report suggests that we should be asking the right
questions:
Is it working? How do we know? At the moment the country is
not thinking clearly about these questions . . . Chartering
is an institutional innovation . . . With chartering we want
to know which pedagogical, governance, and management
practices succeed--and what provisions of law are
responsible--so policy can do more of what works better.
(Bryan Hassel, Studying Achievement in Charter Schools,
Charter School Leadership Council, January 31, 2005, 8.)
Caroline Hoxby, a professor of economics at Harvard University stated
in her studies that:
The goal of charter reforms is not creating good charter
schools in the midst of mediocre public schools. The goal is
boosting the performance of all schools by fostering
competition and innovation.
In conclusion, I found this observation to be fitting to the current
status of charter schools in the country. The Council report examined
the potential for impact and noted that Nelson Smith stated in a 2003
Progressive Policy Institute report, ``Catching the Wave: Lessons from
California,'' ``Charter leaders are often asked to document the ripple
effects of their work. But it is hard to have ripples when the lake is
frozen.''
I yield back my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Time for debate having expired, under the
previous order, the Brownback amendment is agreed to.
The amendment (No. 2071) was agreed to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the time until 12:10
p.m. shall be equally divided between the majority leader or his
designee and the Democratic leader or his designee.
Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. INHOFE. 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. INHOFE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that all time
under the quorum calls be counted equally on both sides.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. INHOFE. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The 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.
Amendment No. 2062
Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I am pleased to cosponsor the amendment
the Senator from Arizona, Mr. Kyl, has offered. It is straightforward.
It would eliminate the roughly $3,100 pay raise for Members of Congress
that is currently scheduled to go into effect next January. That
increase would follow on a $4,000 pay raise this year, a $3,400 pay
raise in 2004, a $4,700 pay raise in 2003, a $4,900 pay raise in 2002,
a $3,800 pay raise in 2001, and a $4,600 pay raise in 2000.
There are a number of arguments against this scheduled pay raise. The
war in Iraq continues to drain our Treasury at a rate of over $1
billion every week. In the wake of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, we face
a massively expensive relief effort. And on top of those enormous
fiscal challenges, we are up to our necks in deficit spending. We are
piling up billions more in debt that our children and grandchildren
will have to pay. At such a time, it would seem hard to justify a
scheduled pay raise for Members of Congress. Nonetheless, I recognize
that some do justify it. In the end, though, the most important reason
I joined Senator Kyl in offering this amendment is that doing so is the
only way to put this
[[Page S11459]]
body on record with respect to our pay raise. And we should go on
record on this issue.
Under current law, many Americans do not realize that under current
law Members of Congress can get an automatic pay raise every year
without lifting a finger, unless we act to stop it. It is automatic.
There is no requirement for a vote. All that is required is that we
show up to cash the check. As I have noted before in discussing this
matter, it is a pretty unusual thing to have the power to raise
your own pay. Few people have that ability. Most of our constituents do
not have that power. That this power is so unusual is a good reason for
the Congress to exercise that power openly and to exercise it subject
to regular procedures that include a vote on the record. That is why
this process of automatic, stealth pay raises without accountability is
so questionable. It is offensive. It is wrong. I believe it also may be
unconstitutional.
The 27th amendment to the Constitution states:
No law, varying the compensation for the services of the
senators and representatives, shall take effect, until an
election of representatives shall have intervened.
That is what it says in the 27th amendment to the Constitution. I
have actually introduced legislation to end this automatic pay raise
system, and I hope this body will pass it at some point.
But as the Senator from Arizona has made very clear, this amendment
does not go that far. It simply stops the $3,100 pay raise that is
scheduled for next January. I fully accept that many--even a majority--
of my colleagues may want a pay raise. But those who want a pay raise
should support an open and public vote on the increase. Certainly
having a vote on the record for a pay hike is better than a stealth pay
raise that takes place with no action. Standing up and making the case
before the voters is far better than quietly letting the pay raise take
effect.
I urge my colleagues to stop this backdoor pay raise and then take
the next step by enacting legislation to end this practice once and for
all.
I thank my colleague from Arizona for joining us in this cause that I
have sought to proceed with almost every year in the hopes that
Congress and the Senate in particular will vote on the automatic pay
raise.
I yield back the remainder of my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I appreciate the comments of the Senator from
Wisconsin. Senator Inhofe from Oklahoma wishes to speak in a moment.
When he arrives, I will call upon him to speak.
Let me make a couple of comments about the reasons for this amendment
at this time. There have been times in the past when Members have
allowed the cost-of-living adjustment to proceed. It is not technically
a pay raise but rather a cost-of-living adjustment. That cost-of-living
adjustment is provided for all Federal employees, including Members of
Congress, although it is lower for Members of Congress than it is for
other Federal employees by about half a percent. In the past, when we
have been in good economic times and we have had either lowered
deficits or even surplus conditions, Congress has allowed, most of the
time, though not every year, that cost-of-living adjustment to go into
effect.
This year is a special circumstance. Especially since we are going to
be asking our colleagues and people who are recipients of Federal
program benefits potentially to make a sacrifice in order to help
offset the spending that the Federal Government is going to commit to
the rebuilding of the gulf coast area following Hurricane Katrina, it
seemed to me and those of us who have cosponsored the amendment that if
we are going to ask others to make a sacrifice so that not all of the
spending for Katrina recovery is added to the Federal deficit and
therefore the Federal debt but, rather, some of it is offset from
programs that we have already decided to fund, that we could start by
demonstrating a willingness to sacrifice a small measure ourselves.
It is true the $2 million that this saves is hardly noticeable in the
overall tens of billions of dollars that are going to be spent on the
Katrina recovery. It is symbolic. I recognize that. But sometimes
symbolism is important. For Members of Congress to be able to justify
reductions in spending in other programs, where some of our
constituents will push back and say, Wait a minute, why should I make a
sacrifice to rebuild after Katrina, at least we have the ability to
say: We all have to make a little sacrifice. Members of Congress are
willing to make a sacrifice as well. While it is not much money to the
overall Federal budget, some of our families certainly recognize it as
being substantially helpful to offset the cost of inflation for
families.
It is important for us to do this. It won't always be appropriate,
but it is clearly appropriate this year to make the point that we are
ready to sacrifice, and clearly it is not something that we cannot
afford. In areas that we are going to ask for reductions in spending,
we will make the point that these are not areas that simply can't stand
any kind of reduction. We are going to try to put forth maybe $50
billion in spending reductions from programs that can afford to be cut
or spending deferred for a short period of time. That is a way to at
least offset some of the spending that we are going to be doing for
Katrina and yet not add further to the deficit or ultimately to our
Federal debt. That is the reason for the amendment. I hope my
colleagues will support it.
If the Senator from Oklahoma is prepared, I certainly yield to him at
this time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I thank my dear friend from Arizona.
Because of the unique circumstances that exist today, I am going to
be doing something that is totally different than I normally do on this
the annual hypocrisy day in the Senate. I am actually going to vote for
this. Normally, I vote the other way. The reason I am is because--the
Senator from Arizona and I both came here in the same year; we have
been here 19 years--I have never seen a situation like there is today.
We have a President who inherited a military that needed to be built up
again. At the same time, we go into a war, and then Katrina happens. I
think everywhere we can we need to tighten belts. For that reason, I
will go ahead and support it this time, which normally I don't.
I say this in almost a humorous way. It is the annual hypocrisy day.
Everyone is always down here so they can go home and say: Look what I
have done. I have stopped us from having a pay raise. Aren't I
wonderful? I need to be reelected.
There are several dynasties in the Senate. They have been here for
many years. We have the Rockefeller dynasty, the Kennedy dynasty. I
love the people. I disagree politically with them most of the time, but
we have these. It is a fact. But the question I would ask is, Should
you have to be a Kennedy or a Rockefeller to join the Senate? I don't
have this problem. I have other sources of income. I am very thankful
for that. I have other things I put this money into, other than salary.
But I would say this: We have had a lot of colleagues, top-notch
people. I remember Dan Coats. He was a Senator from Indiana. Democrats
and Republicans alike would say that he made some of the greatest
contributions to this body that anyone has ever made. Senator Dan Coats
was limited in his income. He found that each year that went by, they
would stop a cost-of-living increase. With his kids going to college,
he resigned. He had to retire from the Senate because of that. Do we
want the Dan Coatses here, or do we want just people who are wealthy in
their own right?
I say this in a friendly way. I love everybody who is going to vote
for or against this thing. But in the future, we are going to change
it. I came down last night. I was looking at my monitor in my office. I
saw that this amendment was coming up. I ran down to put in a second-
degree amendment. That second-degree amendment would have read, because
this is the last free ride a lot of these people are going to get
around here, we are going to make it out in the open so everybody knows
what is really going on. This idea of saying ``no but take the dough''
is going to be a thing of the past.
My amendment read:
To provide that any Member of Congress who votes for any
amendment (or against
[[Page S11460]]
the tabling of any amendment) that prevents a cost of living
adjustment for Members of Congress shall not receive the
amount of that adjustment.
That is a very logical and responsible thing to do. I am looking for
something else to put this on so that next year, when the annual
hypocrisy day comes, we will be able to be a little bit more
responsible.
I yield the floor.
Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I want to voice my support for
amendment No. 2062 offered by my good friend Jon Kyl, to revoke the
scheduled 1.9 percent salary increase for Members of Congress. As a
cosponsor of this amendment, I believe that at this point in time it is
not fiscally responsible or appropriate for Members of Congress to
increase our pay. The Federal Government is currently running a $7.9
trillion budget deficit. I do not believe that it is in the best
interest of the United States or the American taxpayers for Members of
Congress to vote in favor of a congressional pay raise.
The annual cost of living adjustment for Members of Congress is
determined by a formula which automatically takes effect unless
Congress prohibits or revises it, which is what I hope my colleagues
and I will accomplish today. Under the annual Member pay adjustment
procedure, Members are scheduled to receive a 1.9-percent increase in
January 2006. With the growing national debt, skyrocketing budget
deficit, and increased Federal expenditures expected as a result of the
hurricanes this year, it is essential that we exercise fiscal restraint
and avoid unnecessary and wasteful spending. We should first start with
ourselves and set an example for others to follow. I have been and
remain a strong a proponent of smaller government, a balanced Federal
budget, and lower taxes.
Today, I am in my home State of Georgia with the Secretary of
Agriculture, Mike Johanns, working to develop and promote new
technologies which will increase agricultural production and expand job
growth. For this reason, I am unable to be present for the vote. I
encourage my colleagues to seize this opportunity and demonstrate
personal leadership in bringing the Federal budget deficit and spending
back under control by supporting this amendment. I have consistently
opposed a pay raise for Members of Congress throughout my tenure in
Congress and urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this
amendment.
Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I am pleased to join my colleague
Senator Kyl in sponsoring the pending amendment. This week the Senate
begins the difficult but necessary process of budget reconciliation.
When we passed the budget resolution on April 28, 2005, we all knew
that tough votes were ahead as we set the Federal priorities for
spending. However, none of us anticipated the devastation that would be
caused by Hurricanes Katrina and Rita hitting the gulf coast. The
tremendous toll caused by those natural disasters has forced us again
to reevaluate our priorities.
This amendment is something we all should support. At a time when we
are asking the American people to tighten their belts, it is not the
time for members of Congress to increase our salary. We should be
mindful of our actions and take this opportunity to do our part by
removing this pay increase. The Congressional Budget Office estimates
that this amendment will achieve a savings of $2 million in both budget
authority and outlays for fiscal year 2006.
I intend to do my part and vote for the Kyl amendment and urge my
colleagues to do the same.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to add Senator
Chambliss as an original cosponsor of the amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. KYL. Mr. President, if there is no one else who desires to speak
at this time, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. GRASSLEY. 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. GRASSLEY. I would ask to be recognized for 12 minutes as if in
morning business.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
The Senator will note that under the previous order, a vote is
scheduled to occur at 12:10 p.m.
Mr. GRASSLEY. OK. I will quit then. Is that OK?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the modification?
Mr. LEAHY. Reserving the right to object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
Mr. LEAHY. What was the request?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa wishes to be recognized
as if in morning business until 12:10 p.m.
Mr. LEAHY. I have no objection. Some of us have a luncheon to go to.
I don't want to go beyond 12:30. Of course, I will not object to the
request of my friend from Iowa.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the Senator from Iowa is
recognized until 12:10.
(The remarks of Mr. Grassley are printed in today's Record under
``Morning Business.'')
Mr. GRASSLEY. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Burr). Will the Senator withhold his
request?
Mr. GRASSLEY. I will.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the hour of 12:10
p.m. having arrived, the Senate will proceed to a vote in relation to
amendment No. 2062 offered by Senator Kyl.
Mr. GRASSLEY. I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? There appears to
be a sufficient second. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. McCONNELL. The following Senator was necessarily absent: the
Senator from Georgia (Mr. Chambliss).
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. Corzine)
is necessarily absent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 92, nays 6, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 256 Leg.]
YEAS--92
Akaka
Alexander
Allard
Allen
Baucus
Bayh
Bennett
Biden
Boxer
Brownback
Bunning
Burns
Burr
Byrd
Cantwell
Carper
Chafee
Clinton
Coburn
Cochran
Coleman
Collins
Conrad
Cornyn
Craig
Crapo
Dayton
DeMint
DeWine
Dodd
Dole
Domenici
Dorgan
Durbin
Ensign
Enzi
Feingold
Feinstein
Frist
Graham
Grassley
Gregg
Hagel
Harkin
Hatch
Hutchison
Inhofe
Isakson
Johnson
Kennedy
Kerry
Kohl
Kyl
Landrieu
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Lincoln
Lott
Martinez
McCain
McConnell
Mikulski
Murkowski
Murray
Nelson (FL)
Nelson (NE)
Obama
Pryor
Reed
Reid
Roberts
Rockefeller
Salazar
Santorum
Schumer
Sessions
Shelby
Smith
Snowe
Specter
Stabenow
Stevens
Sununu
Talent
Thomas
Thune
Vitter
Voinovich
Warner
Wyden
NAYS--6
Bingaman
Bond
Inouye
Jeffords
Lugar
Sarbanes
NOT VOTING--2
Chambliss
Corzine
The amendment (No. 2062) was agreed to.
Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
Mrs. MURRAY. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
____________________