[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.

                          ____________________