[Congressional Record Volume 153, Number 138 (Tuesday, September 18, 2007)]
[Senate]
[Pages S11620-S11625]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




            DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COLLEGE ACCESS ACT OF 1999

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will 
proceed to the consideration of H.R. 1124, which the clerk will report.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       A bill (H.R. 1124) to extend the District of Columbia 
     College Access Act of 1999.

  Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I rise to speak in support of H.R. 1124 and 
the opportunity it provides for DC's college-bound students. The 
reauthorization of the District of Columbia College Access Act of 1999 
would continue a successful and effective scholarship program.
  The DC tuition assistance grant program, or DCTAG, provides 
scholarships to cover the difference between in-State and out-of-State 
tuition for eligible DC residents attending any public college or 
university in the country. DCTAG awards those recipients up to $10,000 
annually and $50,000 total in tuition assistance.
  The original purpose of the bill was to address concern that college-
bound students in the District were at a disadvantage because DC lacks 
a State university system. DCTAG expanded higher education 
opportunities by allowing students to attend public universities and 
colleges nationwide at in-State tuition rates.
  The original bill also allows students to attend a limited number of 
nonprofit private schools to receive scholarships of up to $2500 
annually and $12,500 total. Students who attend any historically black 
college or university or any private school in the District, Maryland, 
or Virginia qualify for private school grants. The 2002 reauthorization 
clarified that the grants were only for U.S. citizens residing in DC.
  The success of the program is clear. Since the launch of DCTAG in 
2000, participation among DC residents more than doubled from 1,900 
recipients to 4,700 recipients. DCTAG has awarded 26,000 grants 
totaling over $141 million to 9,769 District students. I am pleased to 
say that a few of those grants went to students attending the 
University of Hawaii at Manoa in my home State.
  Not only are more students receiving grants; more are going to 
college. The college enrollment rate for DC public school students has 
doubled to 60 percent and 38 percent of students in the program are the 
first ones in their family to attend college. DCTAG affords many 
District residents a chance to go to college when they otherwise would 
not be able to afford it.
  In July, my Subcommittee on the District of Columbia held a hearing 
with the Mayor and his education leadership team on their reform 
proposal for the public school system. They offered a realistic picture 
of DC public schools and a realistic vision for accountability and 
reform.
  The Chancellor of Education, Michelle Rhee, and the Mayor are working 
very hard to improve the unacceptably low performance of DC students by 
recruiting talented teachers, reforming the administrative offices, and 
repairing crumbling schools. They deserve all the support that the 
Congress can provide in their efforts.

[[Page S11621]]

  As the cost of college tuition continues to rise at both public and 
private institutions, this scholarship program offers the District's 
students hope that if they perform well in high school they can have 
the same opportunity to access affordable, public, higher education as 
students in Virginia, in Maryland, and across the country.
  Students who know they have the opportunity to go to college are more 
likely to perform well in high school. The DCTAG program supports the 
Mayor's efforts to improve DC public schools by offering students the 
chance to go to college at a minimal cost to the Federal Government.
  The DCTAG bill was reported out of committee in February, and now is 
the time to finally get it passed. I understand my colleague and fellow 
committee member, Senator Coburn, has asked that two amendments to the 
legislation be considered.
  The first amendment would modify the eligibility standard for the 
scholarship recipients to exclude any student whose family earns an 
income of $1 million or more. Despite the high income threshold, I am 
concerned about starting down the road of making this a needs-based 
scholarship program. The program is designed to provide all DC 
residents access to a range of higher education institutions. I have 
agreed to accept this amendment despite my misgivings for the sake of 
the entire program's reauthorization.
  The second amendment, however, I am not prepared to accept. It would 
threaten the integrity and success of the program by increasing the 
grant amounts for private schools. Nearly 10 times the number of 
students in the program attend public schools versus private schools, 
and an increase in the grant amounts for private schools would reduce 
the overall available funding. Fewer students would be able to 
participate in the program, and lower income students trying to attend 
more affordable public schools, in particular, would be significantly 
burdened, in some cases, potentially, being forced to forego college 
altogether.
  For many students, the importance of this program in defraying out-
of-State tuition costs means the difference between attending college 
or not. I cannot support this amendment, and I urge my colleagues to 
vote against this amendment as well.
  DCTAG has helped thousands of DC students who receive postsecondary 
education. Its credibility and its effectiveness is evident.
  I urge my colleagues to support the bill and oppose Senator Coburn's 
second amendment.
  I yield the floor and reserve the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio.
  Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, today the Senate considers, as my good 
friend, Senator Akaka, has mentioned, H.R. 1124 that will reauthorize 
the District of Columbia Tuition Assistance Grant Program. Senator 
Akaka and I have been working on this legislation for quite some time 
and both believe it is one of the most significant efforts the Congress 
has made to help students of the District of Columbia.
  I thank both the majority leader and the minority leader for allowing 
us to move this bill forward today. This bill passed the House in May 
by a vote of 268 to 100. Earlier this year, we introduced the Senate 
companion bill sponsored by Senator Akaka, Senator Brownback, Senator 
Landrieu, Senator Lieberman, and Senator Warner offering this needed 
reauthorization. I thank the Senator from Hawaii for his cosponsorship 
of this legislation.
  I understand the special relationship between the Federal Government 
and the District. Congress shares the responsibility of making certain 
that the Nation's Capital remains a socially, economically, and 
culturally vibrant city. As a former mayor and Governor, I also believe 
that education is one of the most important factors in ensuring this 
Nation's future. Thus, one can imagine my dismay when I came to 
Washington, the shining city on the Hill, and learned that only 43 
percent of students entering the ninth grade graduated from high school 
and even fewer go on to college. One would have thought that our 
Nation's Capital, the most powerful city in the world, would be the 
home for a first-class education system.
  I am very concerned about the dropout rate in our Nation. America 
cannot afford to have urban schoolchildren drop out of school and 
become wards of society. Unless this situation changes, we are planting 
the seeds for social unrest. As the United Negro College Fund says, a 
mind is a terrible thing to waste.
  Concerned with the future of the District's children, Representative 
Tom Davis and I crafted the District of Columbia College Access Act 
which created the DCTAG Program, tuition assistance program. I consider 
the creation of the DCTAG Program to be one of the most worthwhile 
efforts I have done since my time in the Senate.
  The aim of the DCTAG Program is to level the playing field for high 
school graduates in the District of Columbia who do not have access to 
a comprehensive, State-supported education system by assisting them in 
attending college. Before the DCTAG Program, DC students were the only 
students in the United States--the only ones in the United States--with 
a limited State higher education system. As a result, few District 
graduates went on to attend college.
  Beginning in 2000, DCTAG scholarships have been used by District 
students to cover the difference between instate and out-of-State 
tuition at State universities. Senator Akaka has already explained the 
limitations on the program, but it provides up to $10,000 per year for 
out-of-State tuition, with a cap of $50,000, and $2,500 for private 
schools, with a cap of $12,500.
  Again, the way this has worked out is the District has seen an 
unprecedented increase, a 60-percent increase in college attendance. No 
other State in the Union can make this claim. Think about that: a 60-
percent increase in college attendance. More than 1,500 DCTAG 
recipients have graduated from college. In my State of Ohio, there are 
currently 74 District students attending 11 universities, including 
Ohio State, Kent State, and Bowling Green State University. I truly 
believe the majority of the students would not be attending colleges 
and universities in Ohio without the DCTAG Program.
  I am particularly proud of the fact that many DCTAG recipients are 
the first in their family to attend college. In a survey of students 
attending the District's H.D. Woodson High School, 75 percent of the 
respondents felt DCTAG made a difference in their decision and ability 
to continue their education beyond high school.
  I know how important this is because in my own situation, my father 
was raised by foster parents. It didn't look as if he would have a 
chance to go on to college. His principal and social studies teacher 
came out to see the man who was the foster parent, who wanted my dad to 
quit school at 16 and be a laborer. The principal and social studies 
teacher said: No, keep your George in school. They found him a job at 
night. Then they also helped him obtain a scholarship from Kroger. He 
went on to Carnegie Tech to become an architect. I don't know what 
would have happened if it had not been for those teachers intervening 
and for that Kroger scholarship. His life would have been quite 
different.
  Sixty-five percent of the kids indicated that the existence of the 
program enabled them to choose a college that would best suit their 
needs.
  Erica, who attends Virginia State University and is supported by her 
grandparents living on a fixed income, said:

       Without the help of DCTAG, I would not be able to attend 
     college.

  And Randa, a full-time single working mother, said:

       The support I received is unmatched. DC-TAG made my future 
     come true. Before hearing of the grants that existed, I had 
     no intention of pursuing higher education, let alone 
     attending a private school that ranks in the top 10 across 
     the Nation. This contribution to my life has inspired me to 
     help others as I have been so richly blessed.

  These stories and many other successes of the TAG Program have 
resulted--and this is really important, Mr. President--in the private 
sector taking a vested interest in improving opportunities for the kids 
in the District.
  A public-private partnership modeled after the Cleveland Scholarship 
Program, called the District of Columbia Access Program, or DC-CAP, was 
established in 1999 by Don Graham of the

[[Page S11622]]

Washington Post and other Washington area corporations and foundations 
to assist the District high school students with their enrollment in 
and graduation from college.
  DC-CAP is privately funded, a nonprofit organization. It provides 
full-time counseling and financial assistance, available throughout 
their college career, to students who otherwise might never have the 
opportunity to go on to college.
  To date, DC-CAP has disbursed more than $10 million, funded 5,300 
students, and provided counseling services to 71,000 people. Similar to 
the population served by the DCTAG Program, the majority of students 
served are from low-income, minority, single-parent households, with 
many the first in their family to attend college.
  It is important to understand that without the DCTAG Program, we 
would not have the DC-CAP program. They were so impressed with the fact 
that we were willing to step up and do something and give these kids an 
opportunity for higher education that they said the private sector 
ought to step in, and they created the public-private partnership.
  Building on the success of the DCTAG and the public-private CAP 
program, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation announced this year a 
$122 million grant program aimed at improving urban education in the 
District. The program, known as the DC Achievers Program, represents 
one of the foundation's largest investments to date in education, with 
the intention of becoming a model for other communities throughout the 
United States. They chose the District because of the fact that we had 
DCTAG and the CAP program.
  The scholarships are designed to jump-start the low high school and 
college graduation rates among students living in certain DC 
neighborhoods. They are going to concentrate their attention in two 
regions of the District where there is a 66-percent dropout rate. Think 
of that. I am hopeful that with these programs continuing, we are going 
to really make a big difference in the District.
  In addition to the programs I have just mentioned, we have America's 
first federally funded scholarship program that was created as part of 
the DC Choice Incentive Act of 2003. Under this program, each District 
scholarship student receives up to $7,500 per year for tuition, 
transportation, and fees so they may attend a nonpublic school. Last 
year, more than 1,800 kids participated in this program at 66 nonpublic 
schools in the District, and a number of these students have used the 
DCTAG tuition grants to help their dream of a higher education become a 
reality. And it was available to them.
  In 1996, we created the charter schools in the District. Today, over 
13,000 students are attending 34 charter schools in the District. In 
other words, we are really starting to make some progress. Supporting 
the Charter Schools Program is the Federal City Council, a nonprofit 
organization composed of and funded by approximately 200 local 
businesses and educational leaders. It is chaired by former Oklahoma 
Gov. Frank Keating. Members of the President's Cabinet and a number of 
key Federal officials serve as trustees. That council has spearheaded 
the business community's support for reforming the District's public 
school system. In other words, we are bringing together tremendous 
resources today where we are going to try to make a difference in an 
urban district in this country--there are about 65,000 kids today in 
the District--make a difference in their lives so that maybe in the 
next several years, we can start talking about an urban education 
system that actually works.
  That is why this reauthorization is so very important not only to the 
District, but it could be the model for the rest of the United States 
of America. We have to break this dropout rate we are having in urban 
school districts or this country is in deep trouble.
  So I say that it is successful because we have brought together the 
public and private sectors to make a difference. That is what it is. In 
other words, we realized that the District's school system is just one 
thread in this community, and if it is going to be successful, it is 
going to take their Federal partner and it is going to take their 
private partner working together to make a real difference for the kids 
in this community.
  The Senator from Hawaii, Mr. Akaka, mentioned the fact that we 
brought on Michelle Rhee, who, by the way--I tell you, if it wasn't for 
DCTAG, if it wasn't for CAP, if it wasn't for the Gates Foundation, if 
it wasn't for some of the other efforts, I do not think we would have 
been able to land her. She is terrific. She sees this potential--this 
young woman, dynamic as all get out--she sees the potential.
  I yield the floor, Mr. President. The Senator from Oklahoma has an 
amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, my reason for offering amendments is not 
in opposition to this bill's goal. I think the Senator from Ohio and 
the Senator from Hawaii know that. But there are two really blatant 
things wrong with this bill.
  There is a limited amount of money. Everybody will agree we have 
allocated--it is going to be about $38 million this year that is going 
to go for this program. That is what the spend-out is going to be. 
Right now, 20 families who make over $1 million a year are taking an 
opportunity from 20 families who are below the poverty level. Twenty 
families right now with household income greater than $1 million a year 
are taking this program. Why would we have a program that says to the 
richest in this country that we are going to pay for their college 
education and we are going to do it on the backs of the poorest in this 
country? These 20 people who are in college today whose families make 
more than $1 million a year are stealing an opportunity from 20 kids. 
Nineteen percent of the District lives under the poverty level. So we 
are taking from them because we do not have an earnings test on this 
program.
  I put in an amendment, which I am going to call up in a minute, 
because it is ridiculous to think that somebody earning $1 million a 
year cannot afford to pay for their kid's college. But the amendment 
should have been at $300,000 or $400,000 a year, because when you 
extrapolate that number, you get 400 or 500 kids who are now taking the 
opportunity from kids who have no income or are living below the 
poverty level.

  So the idea of helping people in the District and enticing people to 
come to the District to get an education is a great idea. There is not 
a thing wrong with this program. But it is very shortsighted to say we 
don't want to put an earnings test on something because it might change 
the program. The fact is the program is being changed by the wealthy 
taking advantage of it to the disadvantage of the kids who can't get 
this grant.
  I read in the paper this morning that the House is going to object to 
a million-dollar-per-year earnings test on this program. Just do a 
little finger commonsense poll and talk to the American people. Do they 
think their taxpayer dollars ought to be spent on sending somebody to 
college whose parents make $1 million a year? The answer to that is a 
resounding ``no.'' So why would we have any resistance at all in the 
House or this body to putting an earnings limit at $1 million? It makes 
no sense.
  The second problem with this bill is we have discriminated against 
historically Black, private, nonprofit universities because they are 
private: Morehouse State, Spelman College, Stillman College, Tuskegee. 
Yes, we will let you go if you are from Washington, DC, if you want to 
go to those, but we are only going to give you $2,500. We are not going 
to give you $10,000 because it is a private nonprofit. We are going to 
limit your ability to embrace your culture at one of the historically 
Black colleges because it happens to be a private, nonprofit 
university. We are going to say you can only have $2,500. And by the 
way, if you have a good reason that you might want to pursue a field of 
study that is not offered at one of the universities, the State 
publicly supported universities, but is offered at a private college, 
we are going to discriminate against you again. We are going to say we 
will give you $2,500.
  What we are doing is we are putting a carrot out there and saying, 
you can't quite get to the carrot. You can't quite get to that carrot. 
Why would we

[[Page S11623]]

discriminate against private and nonprivate, if a child wants to seek a 
certain level of education that is not available anywhere except that? 
If we want opportunity for these kids, we ought to give them 
opportunity and we ought to let the choice be theirs. Let them choose 
where to go.
  If they want to go into bioneurologic sciences, where can they get 
that? A private university. They can't get it at a public university. 
If they want to go into some other area that is not available to them 
in a public fashion, through a public university, we are going to say, 
yes, you can, but you get 75 percent less benefit than everybody else 
gets because you choose to go into a field of endeavor that may be 
highly sought after but it is not offered at a public university.
  So the idea behind the bill is good. The goal of increasing what the 
chairman and ranking member wanted to do in terms of DC is right, it is 
right-headed, but if we were thinking about how do we help the most 
kids, we wouldn't let the first dollar go to parents making $500,000 a 
year or $300,000 a year. We would let it go to the kids, this 20 
percent of the population who lives under the poverty level. That is 
where we would send the money.
  What we are saying here is, in the namesake of not wanting to change 
and not allow the flexibility for more impoverished children to get 
that college education, we don't want to change. We don't want to allow 
a young African-American male to go to Morehouse College, because we 
are going to give him $7,500 less a year to go there than if he chose 
some other university. Why would we not want to enhance that culture 
for him?


                           Amendment No. 2888

  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that any pending amendment be 
set aside, and I call up amendment No. 2888 and ask for its immediate 
consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Casey). The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Oklahoma [Mr. Coburn] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 2888.

  Mr. COBURN. I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment 
be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

   (Purpose: To prohibit the Federal Government from favoring public 
colleges and universities over private colleges and universities under 
          the District of Columbia College Access Act of 1999)

       At the end of the bill, add the following:

     SEC. 2. NON-DISCRIMINATION FOR PRIVATE SCHOOL STUDENTS.

       Section 6 of the District of Columbia College Access Act of 
     1999 (113 Stat. 1327; Public Law 106-98) is amended by adding 
     at the end the following:
       ``(i) Non-Discrimination for Private School Students.--In 
     awarding grants under this Act to eligible institutions, the 
     Mayor shall pay amounts, on behalf of eligible students, that 
     are equivalent regardless of whether the students attend a 
     public or private eligible institution.''.

  Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, this is the amendment that says, let's 
don't discriminate against the private schools. Let us let the kids go 
where they want. Let us give them an equal shot at Morehouse, at 
Tuskegee, at Spelman, and Stillman. Let us let them have an equal shot 
to go there as well as everywhere else. We have decided you can't. We 
are going to make you more disadvantaged to go to someplace that is 
culturally better for you.
  So I would ask reconsideration on the part of the chairman and the 
ranking member for this amendment. It makes sense, it is equal, and it 
treats every sought-after degree the same. We don't discriminate 
between private and public. It doesn't change where the restrictions 
are already. It doesn't say every private university in America can 
have it. What it says is, if we are going to hold this apple out in 
front of you and say here is your education, we are going to give you a 
fair shot whether you want to go to a private school or a public school 
that is on the list. We are going to treat you the same, and we are 
going to hope that no matter which one you attend that you finish that 
education and come back and become a productive citizen contributing to 
DC.
  That is what this is about. It is not about expanding the realm of 
private universities. It is saying that if I choose to go to Morehouse 
State, I should get the same treatment as if I choose to go to Oklahoma 
State or Ohio State or the University of Hawaii. I get the same 
treatment. Don't give me part of an apple, give me the whole apple. 
Give me everything.


                           Amendment No. 2887

  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that amendment No. 2888 be set 
aside, and I call up amendment No. 2887.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Oklahoma [Mr. Coburn] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 2887.

  Mr. COBURN. I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment 
be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To exempt millionaires from receiving educational scholarship 
                   funds intended for needy families)

       At the end of the bill, add the following:

     SEC. 2. MEANS TESTING.

       (a) In General.--Section 3(c)(2) of the District of 
     Columbia College Access Act of 1999 (113 Stat. 1324; Public 
     Law 106-98) is amended--
       (1) in subparagraph (E), by striking ``and'' after the 
     semicolon at the end;
       (2) in subparagraph (F), by striking the period at the end 
     and inserting ``; and''; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(G) is from a family with a taxable annual income of less 
     than $1,000,000.''.
       (b) Conforming Amendment.--Section 5(c)(2) of the District 
     of Columbia College Access Act of 1999 (113 Stat. 1328; 
     Public Law 106-98) is amended by striking ``through (F)'' and 
     inserting ``through (G)''.

  Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, this amendment says if you make $1 million 
a year, we shouldn't be paying for your kids to go to college. The rest 
of the American taxpayers shouldn't.
  I am disappointed to hear from the House that when they get this, 
when we get to conference, they are not going to accept it. It is 
amazing to me that anybody in this country would think that the Federal 
Government--all of us collectively--ought to pay for their children's 
education. If we are going to do that, then let us pay for everybody's 
education across the country.
  But that is not what this bill is about. This bill is about trying to 
direct funds to those kids who won't have an opportunity for college 
without these funds. And by giving those funds to the well-to-do 
families who do not need or require our help to send their children to 
college, we are stealing opportunity from those kids. There is a 
limited amount of money. Everybody knows that. There is a limited pie 
here. And for those 20 times 50,000, that $1 million is not going to be 
spent on somebody living below the poverty level wanting to get out and 
wanting to move up.
  I understand it is the chairman and ranking member's opinion that 
they will accept this amendment, so I graciously thank them for that, 
and my hope is you would hold this as we discuss this with the House. 
It is ludicrous to take this away from people who don't have means.
  Mr. President, I reserve the balance of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, amendment No. 2887 
is adopted.
  The amendment (No. 2887) was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  The Senator from Ohio.
  Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, the Senator from Hawaii and I have 
accepted the amendment that limits the participation of people in this 
program to those who earn less than $1 million, but the fact is what we 
tried to do when we put this program together was to mimic what we were 
doing in States today around the country. In my State, we have a very 
robust higher education system, but we do not have an income level that 
establishes who can participate and who can't. I suspect there are 
people in Ohio who have kids at Ohio State University who are 
subsidized and who may make over $1 million or make $350,000. But our 
State has chosen not to have an earnings limit as a matter of public 
policy. I suspect if you go around the country, you will find that is 
the case just about everywhere you go.
  Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. VOINOVICH. Let me finish, and then I will yield for a question.

[[Page S11624]]

  Second, in terms of the private colleges, we looked at what we do 
around the country, and if you are in the State of Ohio and you are a 
resident of Ohio, we have a special program that says if you go to a 
private school, you don't get the full subsidy you would get if you go 
to a public school, but we provide the private schools up to $2,500 so 
you can attend a private school. When we put this program together, we 
had a limitation saying, as we have in the State--and we took certain 
areas of Virginia and Maryland and brought them in as part of a State--
and we said if you go to the University of Maryland, if you go to the 
University of Virginia, then you can participate in this program. But 
what we realized at the time was that the number of people trying to 
get into Maryland and Virginia was so large it wouldn't give these kids 
the chance they needed to have so they could get into school, and so we 
opened it up to public colleges all over the United States of America. 
As Senator Akaka says, there are people in Hawaii, I am sure we have 
people in Pennsylvania and all over America, in Oklahoma, and we are 
trying to do what a State would do.
  The other thing we did, which was unusual, is that because we have 
historical Black colleges around the country, we provided a special 
program that at those private colleges, even though they are outside of 
the region of the District of Columbia, the children would be able to 
receive up to $2,500, and that lays out why this whole program came 
together. What the Senator from Oklahoma is making mention of is that 
he wants everybody to get the same amount of money. If we provide equal 
funding for private and public colleges, as proposed by the amendment, 
we would be limiting the reach of what is, by all accounts, a very 
successful program.
  The current level of funding of the DCTAG is about $33.2 million. If 
we expanded that to allow District schools to receive grants of up to 
$10,000, funding would have to be increased significantly to serve the 
existing population served by the DCTAG. As mentioned earlier in the 
debate, the average grant amount per student is $6,500. They do not get 
the $10,000, they get the average of $6,500, and the difference of 
$3,500 would have to be made up somewhere. Of the 6,400 students 
enrolled in the DCTAG today, 886 are attending private colleges. These 
students are receiving about $2 million. If this amendment were to 
pass, funding would have to increase by over $5 million to cover these 
students, or the District would have to reduce the number of students 
attending public universities by 875 students. So it is a matter of 
money and dividing it. My guess is that would result in fewer students 
attending college because the pool of available money would shrink.
  I would hope none of my colleagues is willing to ask 875 students not 
to attend college. This program has been an unprecedented success since 
the first grants were handed out in 2000. There is an old saying, and I 
have believed in it my entire years in Government--over 40 years--``If 
it ain't broken, don't fix it.'' This program is not broken. This 
program is one of the most successful programs in the United States of 
America to reduce dropout rates and increase the attendance of 
youngsters to get a college education. I hope my colleagues who are 
listening and paying attention right now will vote against this 
amendment because I don't think it is going to add one iota to this 
program except to take away from it.
  Mr. COBURN. Will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. VOINOVICH. I am glad to yield.
  Mr. COBURN. Do the people of upper income in Ohio pay higher taxes in 
the State of Ohio?
  Mr. VOINOVICH. Yes, and I am sure the people in the District of 
Columbia are paying higher income taxes to the United States of 
America.
  Mr. COBURN. So the people of Ohio, who send their children to Ohio 
State, even though they pay in-State tuition, actually pay more for 
that college because they pay a much higher percentage of the State 
budget and the State of Ohio, similar to the State of Oklahoma, has 
decided that with that increased income, we will grant everybody. But 
it doesn't cost the same. So the argument is, in terms of the 
difference in incomes: Those people who make exceptional incomes in 
Ohio and Oklahoma actually pay more for their kids to go to college in 
their States because they pay a much higher percentage of the total 
income taxes in the State.
  The second point is I think the Senator is right. If it ain't broke, 
don't fix it. This is one of the rare programs that ought to be 
expanded, but we have terrible priorities in this Senate and in this 
Government. So we will not take another $10 million to make sure more 
kids go and get rid of some duplicitous earmark somewhere that is a 
favor for some politician somewhere so we can, in fact, enhance it.
  This is a very straightforward amendment. It says why would you 
discriminate against somebody who wants to go to a private college over 
a public college? That is what we are doing. The answer is because we 
don't have enough money. That is the answer. The answer is we do not 
have enough money, so therefore, if we give the same amount of 
scholarship to private schools as we give to public, we would not have 
enough money for 886 people who are getting a full boat now.
  The answer to that is here is a program that is working, here is 
where we ought to have priorities, here is where we ought to be putting 
more money rather than less. But the answer, our closed-minded answer 
in Washington is: That is all the money we have. Even though this is 
working and a lot of other programs are not working, we are not going 
to defund those programs that are not working. We are not going to 
measure with a metric whether they are effective. We are going to let 
them go. Here is a good program that is making a difference in people's 
lives, and we are not going to go fight for more money.
  To me, that says it all about where we are in Washington today.
  Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I would like to say--and I am pleased 
the junior Senator from Oklahoma is talking about a Federal program 
where he wants to see more money spent. I think that is terrific. The 
fact is, he does agree this is a very special program. I would like to 
point out so do the appropriators, because year after year, they have 
provided more money for this program.
  Initially, it started out at about $17 million. They are up to about 
$33.3. In their consideration of the importance of this program, they 
have, in fact, provided more money for it because it is a very 
worthwhile, successful program. The fact of the matter is we all 
believe that if we evened it out across-the-board, fewer of our 
youngsters, the socially deprived kids in the District, would be able 
to take advantage of the program.
  Again, I wish to emphasize we tried to copy what we do in States such 
as Ohio, where we say to the private schools: You are here. God bless 
you. And we give them, not the total subsidy, $6,500--they get up to 
$2,500 for those students.
  If you are thinking about kids who need help, I know in my State if 
you have a youngster who has some potential--by the way, these 
youngsters who have the potential are taking advantage of the college 
assistance program the private sector set up here, set up by Don Graham 
over at the Washington Post. So they come in with this little extra 
money for them. We also have the Pell Grant Programs available to these 
individuals.
  I can tell you this. If we had a bright kid in the District who was 
qualified to go to Georgetown--we mentioned a young lady who is at one 
of the top universities. They have special programs that reach out and 
say here is a youngster--such as my dad--who is bright, hard-working, 
and we are going to give them some extra, such as dad got at Carnegie 
Tech so he could go on to get his architectural degree.
  I think we are talking about reality here. We are talking about a 
program that is making a difference. I respectfully say I think the 
proposal doesn't help the program but rather takes away from it.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Hawaii.
  Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, reclaiming my time, I wish to echo the 
remarks of my good friend and ranking member, Senator Voinovich. 
Senator Coburn's amendment threatens to reduce the number of 
participants in the program by nearly 1,000 students and

[[Page S11625]]

would increase the costs of the program by more than $5 million.
  Furthermore, it conflicts with the intent of the legislation. Because 
of the high number of private schools in the District, Congress allowed 
students who chose to stay close to home a greater range of options, 
similar to a State school program. However, it was never intended to 
supplement the private education to the same degree as public 
education.
  Once again, I urge my colleagues to vote against his amendment and in 
support of the underlying bill.
  At this time, I yield the floor and reserve the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. COBURN. I will finish up with this. I thank the Senators for 
their debate and points of view.
  The reason the average is $6,500 is because you only give $2,500 to 
the private. If you took all the private schools out, the average would 
be $10,000. That is what you get. So to play the game with numbers is 
not accurate because when you filter in the $2,500, you get that 
average of $6,500.
  I would make the point again, you, in fact, are discriminating 
against a young DC minority child who says I want to go to Morehouse 
State, and I want to major in X at Morehouse State. I know heroes of 
mine who went to Morehouse State.
  Under this bill, you say you can't do that. They may be bright, but 
$2,500 compared to that education, versus $10,000 in public, doesn't 
begin to accomplish the level of financing and scholarships--it will be 
next to impossible. I ask you to reconsider. The intent of what you are 
trying to do--we can, in fact, appropriate more money for this. If I 
and George Voinovich and Danny Akaka go for a spending increase on an 
appropriations bill, that will make history in the Senate. That would 
make history. We could do that. We could find the money to do that.
  The point is, why should we take away opportunity? Why should we be 
the parlayers of somebody's lost opportunity? We ought to give it to 
all, it ought to be equally based and ought to be based on their 
aspirations, their hopes for what they want to do. We should not 
artificially say because you want to go here, this is all the 
opportunity you get. But if you want to go somewhere that doesn't 
excite you, doesn't stimulate you, isn't going to give you as good an 
education, we will give you more money.
  I think that is inherently wrong and disadvantageous to the very 
people we are trying to help. Not only should we want them to get the 
education, we should want them to get the best education, so they can 
be the best that they can be.
  I will yield the floor.
  I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? There is a 
sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays are ordered.
  Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I yield the remainder of my time.
  Mr. VOINOVICH. 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. AKAKA. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call 
be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time has been yielded back.
  The question is on agreeing to Coburn amendment No. 2888.
  The yeas and nays have been ordered. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from West Virginia (Mr. Byrd) 
and the Senator from Illinois (Mr. Obama) are necessarily absent.
  Mr. LOTT. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator 
from New Mexico (Mr. Domenici).
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 38, nays 59, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 337 Leg.]

                                YEAS--38

     Alexander
     Allard
     Bennett
     Bond
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burr
     Chambliss
     Coburn
     Cochran
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Craig
     Crapo
     DeMint
     Dole
     Ensign
     Graham
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Hatch
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Kyl
     Lott
     Lugar
     Martinez
     McCain
     McConnell
     Roberts
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith
     Stevens
     Sununu
     Thune
     Vitter

                                NAYS--59

     Akaka
     Barrasso
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Brown
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Clinton
     Coleman
     Collins
     Conrad
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Enzi
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Grassley
     Harkin
     Inouye
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Klobuchar
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     McCaskill
     Menendez
     Mikulski
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Nelson (NE)
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Salazar
     Sanders
     Schumer
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Voinovich
     Warner
     Webb
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--3

     Byrd
     Domenici
     Obama
  The amendment (No. 2888) was rejected.
  Mr. AKAKA. I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. MENENDEZ. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on the engrossment of the 
amendment and third reading of the bill.
  The amendment was ordered to be engrossed, and the bill to be read a 
third time.
  The bill was read the third time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The bill having been read the third time, the 
question is, Shall the bill pass?
  Mr. BUNNING. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  At the moment, there is not a sufficient second.
  Mr. BUNNING. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays, please.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from West Virgina (Mr. Byrd), 
the Senator from Connecticut (Mr. Dodd), and the Senator from Illinois 
(Mr. Obama) are necessarily absent.
  Mr. LOTT. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator 
from New Mexico (Mr. Domenici).
  The result was announced--yeas 96, nays 0, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 338 Leg.]

                                YEAS--96

     Akaka
     Alexander
     Allard
     Barrasso
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boxer
     Brown
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burr
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Chambliss
     Clinton
     Coburn
     Cochran
     Coleman
     Collins
     Conrad
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Craig
     Crapo
     DeMint
     Dole
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Graham
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Inouye
     Isakson
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Klobuchar
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Lott
     Lugar
     Martinez
     McCain
     McCaskill
     McConnell
     Menendez
     Mikulski
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Nelson (NE)
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Salazar
     Sanders
     Schumer
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stabenow
     Stevens
     Sununu
     Tester
     Thune
     Vitter
     Voinovich
     Warner
     Webb
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--4

     Byrd
     Dodd
     Domenici
     Obama
  The bill (H.R. 1124), as amended, was passed.
  Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote, and I move 
to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

                          ____________________