[Congressional Record Volume 155, Number 39 (Thursday, March 5, 2009)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2782-S2789]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


                         OMNIBUS APPROPRIATIONS

  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I take the floor in defense of one of our 
most successful environmental statutes. Since its nearly unanimous 
passage in 1973, the Endangered Species Act has protected nearly 2,000 
species from extinction. That success has contributed significantly to 
the economic benefit of this Nation. According to a study by the Fish 
and Wildlife Service, wildlife-related recreation--meaning hunting and 
fishing and wildlife watching--generated more than $122 billion in 
revenue in 2006. So this statute has protected wildlife diversity and 
has protected our economy.
  In my home State of Maryland, wildlife watching generated over $1 
billion in revenue and sustained over 10,000 jobs.
  In December of 2008, the Bush administration finalized two rules that 
undercut the success of the Endangered Species Act. Now, that was in 
December of 2008, after the elections, after Senator Obama was elected 
President of the United States. The Bush administration issued two 
regulations in an effort to undermine the Endangered Species Act.
  One rule undermines important safeguards for all threatened and 
endangered species. The other withholds key protections from the polar 
bear.
  I believe it is critical the safeguards that have worked to protect 
endangered species for decades be reinstated. Section 429 of the fiscal 
year 2009 Omnibus Appropriations Act would give the Secretaries of 
Interior and Commerce the authority they need to do that. It will allow 
the Secretaries to reverse the Bush administration's midnight 
regulations and reinstate the regulations previously in place.
  To understand why this special authority is needed, I think it is 
helpful to understand how devastating the rule changes are. So let me 
say a little bit about the two rules President Bush put in place.
  For decades, under section 7 of the Endangered Species Act, Federal 
agencies have consulted with scientists at the Fish and Wildlife 
Service or the National Marine Fisheries Service to make sure an 
agency's planned actions do not jeopardize a threatened or endangered 
species.
  In line with a long record that expressed a low regard for science, 
in December, 2008, the Bush administration finalized a rule that 
effectively eliminated the critical role scientists play in the section 
7 system of checks and balances. What the Bush administration 
regulation did was to allow a Federal agency to avoid consultation with 
the scientists in making its determination as to whether there was an 
impact on an endangered species.
  Professional scientific organizations argued, came out and said, 
quite frankly, this is unacceptable. The agency does not have the 
capacity to make a determination as to whether a species is endangered 
by the action of the agency. They do not have the budget. They do not 
have the expertise. And, quite frankly, they have a different mission. 
So the impact of this regulation could have a devastating impact on the 
protection--legitimate protection--of wildlife.
  Now, some of my colleagues argue that requiring consultation with 
independent scientists will slow infrastructure projects funded through 
the recently passed American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. But let me 
remind my colleagues that the projects that are ready to go have 
already gone through this environmental review. They are ready to go. 
They will not be delayed as a result of section 7 of the Endangered 
Species Act. We are ready to proceed. And as President Obama recently 
said:

       With smart, sustainable policies, we can grow our economy 
     today and preserve the environment.

  But, quite frankly, these changes to the consultation rule were not 
the only regulations the Bush administration issued. We had the one 
that would compromise consultation with scientists in issuing the 
appropriate safeguards under the Endangered Species Act. The other was 
specifically aimed toward the polar bear. The new rule granted no new 
protections to the polar bear. Now, the President's regulations said 
differently, but that is not the case. The special rule not only denied 
additional protections normally provided under the Endangered Species 
Act, but it set a bad precedent for weakening ESA safeguards.
  The new rule does not require plans to monitor, minimize, or mitigate 
impacts that could harm the bears. And the rule does not allow 
scientists and agencies to even consider climate change as a factor 
that could injure polar bears.
  Last year, I had the opportunity, along with members of the 
Environment and Public Works Committee, to visit Greenland. We saw 
firsthand what is happening in regard to the loss of the snow caps and 
the impact it is having on the polar bear population.
  Global climate change is clearly affecting the future stability of 
the polar bears, and the regulation that was issued in December 
compromises that. It is quite clear why. Seven editorials from 
newspapers in 32 States oppose the Bush administration's efforts. 
Dozens of wildlife, scientific, and environmental organizations oppose 
the change. In addition, eight State attorneys general, including the 
attorney general of Maryland, have filed suit to have these regulations 
withdrawn.
  So we have an amendment that has been offered. The amendment would 
take out of the omnibus bill the additional authority we want to give 
to the agencies so that they can reverse the midnight changes attempted 
by the Bush administration. I would urge my colleagues to reject that 
amendment. Let's not compromise the protections we have in the 
Endangered Species Act that allow Federal agencies to have the best 
information before they take action on their projects. It is what we 
should be doing. It does preserve the diversity of wildlife in this 
Nation. It maintains the leadership of the United States on these types 
of issues. It is the right policy. We should go through regular order 
when we change it. The Bush administration did not do that. They did 
this as a last-minute gesture of the Bush administration. Let's restore 
the status quo, and then let's look at the normal regulation process 
for modifications that may be needed.
  I would urge my colleagues to reject the amendment offered that will 
undermine the Endangered Species Act.
  With that, I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Florida is 
recognized.
  Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak in 
morning business for 10 minutes.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. President, I rise this morning to speak once again 
about the pending bill before the Senate--the very large and 
significant omnibus spending bill--but more specifically about 
provisions in this bill that have very little to do with spending and 
have a lot to do with foreign policy, including provisions relating to 
U.S. and Cuban relations. I decided to inform the Senate of a few 
things that are in this morning's press and why what this bill will do 
makes so little sense for the United States at this moment in time and 
why it would be a mistake for us to approve the current bill.
  The current bill is an attempt to, frankly, usurp from the Executive 
the prerogative to conduct foreign policy. In his campaign, the 
President indicated there were some things he wanted to change about 
U.S. policy toward Cuba relating to travel and remittances. I would 
hope that would be done in the order of Presidential prerogatives and 
not by a legislative fiat but that, as it is done, it is done in a way 
that is conducive to the best interests of our Nation and the best 
interests of our long-term foreign policy objectives. Unfortunately, it 
is being done in a haphazard way, without real clarity about the 
implications it will have relating to what is attempting to be done.
  One of the issues relates, more importantly than all, perhaps, to 
agricultural business trade with Cuba. This is a $780 million-a-year 
business which is now done by the Cubans paying cash before they can 
receive the goods, before the goods leave our ports. This was done in 
the prior administration because, in fact, the Cuban Government was not 
exactly playing it as it was supposed to. The shipments would get to 
Cuba and then payment would not be there when the goods arrived, but 
maybe 30 days later, maybe 60 days

[[Page S2783]]

later, and it was all of a sudden creating a problem. So we fixed the 
problem, and American farmers are protected. They get to sell their 
goods to Cuba--and $780 million is not an insignificant amount of 
sales--they get paid in cash, and they get paid before the goods leave 
the port. That makes a lot of sense for America. It may not make a lot 
of sense for Cuba because it is an inconvenience. But I don't think we 
should be making policy to the convenience of a brutal, dictatorial 
regime so close to our shores and which is a hostile and avowed enemy 
of the United States.
  But what happened today in the news that is of interest? Well, 
several things. Let's see, how do we begin. There has been great hope 
that there will be change in Cuba because Raul Castro is now in charge. 
I remember as a child always hearing that Raul Castro was the enforcer; 
that Fidel was the nice guy and Raul was the tough guy. Raul Castro is 
credited with over 500 deaths under his supervision in the first months 
of the revolution. In addition to that, he is the head of the armed 
forces--the armed forces where an Air Force plane was directed by him 
and authorized by him to shoot down civilian airplanes in the Florida 
straits, killing three Americans and an American resident. That was 
done to an unarmed civilian aircraft.
  So there is great hope that this guy is going to be somehow an agent 
of change, is going to be an agent of pragmatism, and is going to be 
someone who is less ideological. I remember hearing all the time how 
the real ideologues were Raul Castro and Ernesto Guevara. Those were 
the two ideologues. They were the real Communists. It was Raul Castro 
who first went to the Soviet Union and made deals with them about 
beginning this arms buildup that led to the missile crisis that put the 
world in peril.
  So now we are talking about the future of Cuba. So he has had a 
shakeup. He has really had a military coup. If it was anyone else other 
than a romantic revolutionary in Cuba, the U.S. press would be talking 
about this as, in fact, a military coup, which is really what has 
happened. He has tightened the circles.
  There is an article today by the AP which talks about the closing of 
the ranks. The fact is that the only rays of hope, the only people 
under 75 years of age in any position of significant leadership--Carlos 
Lage and Felipe Perez Roque have both been ousted. Worse than that, now 
Fidel Castro has said they were undignified, or some other term such as 
that, which means they have now fallen into disgrace, never to be heard 
from again, and they are not going to be the future leaders. Many 
people thought Carlos Lage was the logical next successor. Nobody 
really knows who will be leading Cuba in the future. But much like the 
sclerotic Soviet Union leadership of the time before Gorbachev where 
they were passing around the titular head of government from one 80-
year-old to another, the Cubans are doing the very same thing. It is 
the same old guard. Ramiro Valdes, an enforcer, a tough guy, a hard-
liner, no-nonsense, ``kill them first, ask questions later''--that is 
who is really the effective No. 2 to Raul Castro today. So there is no 
real hope of change with this bunch in charge.
  Here is the other thing that is of significance and importance to our 
U.S. interests. This is not about the interests of the Cuban 
Government: If we buy agricultural products from you, then you become a 
lobbyist for us and you advance our agenda, and at the top of that 
agenda is we don't want to have to pay cash when we pick up the goods. 
We want credit. We want the goods to be paid for when they get to Cuba, 
in our own sweet time, which is really nothing more than another way of 
eroding the trade sanctions we have with Cuba.
  So there is another article today in the Miami Herald talking about 
Cuban influence in Venezuela spreading. Now, we know Hugo Chavez is not 
a friend of the United States. We also should remember that for almost 
50 years now, Fidel and Raul Castro and their band of collaborators 
have not been friends of the United States. They, in fact, have been 
avowed enemies of the United States and continue to be at every 
international forum, at every place where they can be heard.
  So this story today in the Miami Herald tells us that some 40,000 
Cubans are now working in Venezuela, and of course Cuba receives 90,000 
to 130,000 barrels of oil a day as a subsidy to continue their work and 
their repression of the Cuban people and the terrible living conditions 
they are in. So they are in public education, which is a way of 
controlling minds and hearts.
  I remember how the first Ministry that went to an avowed Communist 
after Defense was Education. Armando Hart became the head of Cuba's 
Education Ministry back in the early 1960s. It is a way of controlling 
what people are reading, what people are studying, because education is 
subverted for political propaganda purposes to wash the minds of young 
people. Now, this sounds all Cold War-ish and it sounds like crazy 
stuff, but it is going on today.

  So with Cuba's help, in addition to that, sources within the 
Venezuelan military say that Cuban military experts control several 
security circles that protect President Hugo Chavez. He doesn't trust 
his Venezuelans. He has to have his Cuban thugs there to keep him alive 
and protect him. They have penetrated strategic areas of the armed 
forces and the central government, including the situation room and 
Venezuela's Presidential palace. So they run his security, they run his 
situation room, the equivalent of our White House, and Cuban advisers 
play a critical role.
  Now, why is that important? Well, it is important because it shows 
the linkage, the alliance, the partnership, the working together of 
Venezuela and Cuba to try to spread their brand of anti-Americanism and 
socialism throughout Latin America where they are having, frankly, 
significant success with Venezuela's oil wealth and with Cuba's know-
how of the security apparatus and control.
  That is all working very well for them because, see, here is the next 
news item in that same article in the Miami Herald. It also mentions 
that an additional area where the Cubans are providing their dark 
expertise is in that of policing. They are working as advisers to the 
police forces throughout the country, and Cuban advisers will play a 
critical role. It won't be long before we will be seeing the Committees 
for the Defense of the Revolution coming to a neighborhood near you in 
Venezuela. That is unfortunate, and that is bad for the Venezuelan 
people.
  But here is now another thing not in the policy interests of the 
United States, another headline: This morning, Chavez orders 
expropriation of Cargill's rice plant. Another Miami Herald story. 
Well, the last I knew, Cargill is an American company. The last I knew, 
American investors invested their good money and have processing plants 
in a company based in Minneapolis, MN, and they operate in Venezuela. 
They invested in good faith. In good faith, they attempted to provide a 
service to the Venezuelan industry and commerce. So now we find out it 
is a purposeful, continuing attempt to expropriate, without appropriate 
compensation, American properties.
  We go full circle. This is how the Cuban trade sanctions began under 
the Eisenhower administration--it almost sounds comical now. The fact 
is that it began because of Cuba's expropriations of American property 
in Cuba without proper compensation and in violation of every 
international law and rule in existence. So today we find that, in 
partnership, the Cubans and Venezuelans are once again continuing this 
advance of anti-Americanism, of expropriation of American properties, 
of taking out each and every one.
  I believe this article details that Empresas Polar, another private 
enterprise, is no longer going to be private because the government is 
taking it over. Over the past year, Chavez has nationalized Venezuela's 
largest telephone, electric, and cement companies. His government is 
also negotiating compensation for a takeover of the country's biggest 
steelmaker, Sidor. So, as we can see, it is a pattern of government 
control. From the police forces that are being trained now by the 
Cubans--have been, really--to the security apparatus around President-
for-life Hugo Chavez, to everything else that goes on around them, we 
find that the Cuban presence is there and is continuing and is ever-
present.
  So at a time when all of this is taking place, at a time when just 
today

[[Page S2784]]

these three articles are in our news media--this is just today, by the 
way. There are things such as this every day about what is going on in 
Latin America right under our noses. So on this very day, when these 
three news articles--we are probably going to take a vote tonight where 
we are going to pass a spending bill that contains provisions dealing 
with foreign policy issues that have not been through hearings, that 
have not had the consultation and input of the executive branch, and we 
will just go headlong into that. This is not to mention, by the way, 
the 9,000 earmarks--some of which are very questionable and some of 
which are by a company under Federal investigation as we speak--and a 
tremendous amount of spending that completely violates what the 
President said would be the change and the hope that the American 
people had, that there would be a new day, that we would be looking at 
every line in the budget and we would be looking at all the spending 
with a fine-tooth comb, and, by golly, there will not be earmarks 
because I will stop earmarks. I remember the President saying that. I 
wish today he would stand up and live up to those campaign promises.
  It is a very lame excuse to say that this is last year's business. 
This is happening on a Democratic majority watch in both Houses of the 
Congress. This is happening on the watch of a President who promised 
differently during his campaign. So whether it be because of what is in 
this bill as it relates to spending or whether it is by the overreach 
of seeking to dictate foreign policy in a very misguided and mishandled 
way, where, frankly it isn't really clear where we are left if the 
provisions in this bill are passed as to how the U.S. Government will 
enforce its regulations that are now being disbanded.
  It is making a real mess and mockery of the process. For a lot of 
those reasons, I hope my colleagues on both sides of the aisle will 
consider whether it is wise to support this bill, whether it is, in 
fact, a good idea or whether we should be looking at ways in which we 
can allow reason to prevail and put the best interests of the United 
States first, not the best interests of the agricultural import Cuban 
company that forces those whom they buy product from to sign a 
memorandum of understanding, where they agree to lobby on behalf of 
Cuba's agenda. One of the top items of that agenda is this issue of not 
having to pay cash as the goods leave the port.
  I know the chair worries about the rice farmers in Arkansas. It is 
great they can sell rice in Cuba. Rice to Cubans is like potatoes to 
the Irish. We love to eat rice with every meal. It is great that 
Arkansas is selling rice to Cuba. Isn't it great also that those rice 
growers from Arkansas are getting paid for it? The last thing we need 
in these economic times is to provide credit to a country that is 
uncreditworthy. They have the worst credit in the world, save one other 
country. I would like to know what is that country. Out of every 
country in the world, only one country has worse credit than Cuba. So 
to the second worst credit country, we are going to give them credit as 
they purchase food rather than simply allow the current business to 
continue; $780 billion is not a bad piece of business.
  It is going great. It ain't broke. Don't fix it. This bill seeks to 
fix that and more in a misguided and wrong way, which I know is not in 
the best interest of the United States.
  I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Rhode Island is 
recognized.
  Mr. REED. Mr. President, I rise in support of the Fiscal Year 2009 
Omnibus Appropriations Act.
  Before I begin, I want to commend Chairman Inouye for his leadership 
in bringing this bill forward. Over the course of this grueling week of 
debate, he has done his best to ensure that this process has been 
civil, open, and transparent. In doing so, he has protected the 
authority and responsibility of the Congress to shape the funding 
priorities of this country.
  I would be remiss if 1 did not recognize the work of Senator Byrd, 
who laid the groundwork in the Appropriations Committee last year, 
winning bipartisan support for nearly all of the bills that comprise 
this legislation.
  Finally, I wish to acknowledge the work of all of the subcommittee 
chairs, but in particular, Senator Mikulski, for her support in helping 
address the needs of New England's lobster and groundfish harvesters 
who continue to be severely impacted by Federal regulations and catch 
restrictions and face the prospect of losing not only their livelihoods 
but a way of life. Because she has been such an effective advocate for 
the watermen of Chesapeake Bay, she has recognized, perhaps more than 
anyone outside New England, the economic and cultural importance of our 
fishing communities, as well as the strain they are under.
  Mr. President, setting aside the fact that we must pass a bill now in 
order to avoid a Government shutdown, the fact is this is the right 
bill for us to pass.
  It will, as I indicate, avoid disruption of essential services to the 
Nation at a time when the American people demand and need the support 
of a functioning Government.
  This legislation complements the American Recovery and Reinvestment 
Act by funding additional programs that will save and create thousands 
of jobs. It includes continued investments in transit, highway, and 
water infrastructure. These kinds of investments are sorely needed 
throughout the country. In Rhode Island, trucks and other large 
vehicles must be diverted from a key stretch of the interstate because 
of concerns about its structural integrity. This is a disruption in 
commerce that Rhode Island and the region can ill-afford. This package 
includes funding to help speed the repairs at this important stretch of 
highway.
  The bill will also ensure we are investing in the institutions that 
are responsible for protecting the public interest, but have fallen 
down on the job. Indeed, over the course of this decade, we have 
witnessed the unraveling of essential regulatory agencies, from the 
Consumer Product Safety Commission to the Food and Drug Administration, 
often with alarming results. Certainly, the failure to provide adequate 
resources for these agencies has been a major contributor to their 
failures. With the supplemental appropriations bill passed last year 
and continuing with this legislation, we have begun to reverse the 
effects of years of chronic underfunding. Senator Durbin, in response 
to the concerns that Senator Dodd, and I raised with respect to funding 
for the Securities and Exchange Commission, SEC, worked to increase 
funding for the Commission in this bill. The additional $37 million 
provided here will give the SEC resources to aggressively investigate 
and prosecute fraud that cost taxpayers and investors billions of 
dollars. Coupled with systemic reform within the Commission, this 
funding will help restore investor confidence and integrity to our 
markets.
  Thanks to the efforts of Senator Harkin, this legislation also 
continues to invest in our most valuable national resource--our people. 
As the successor to the late Claiborne Pell, I am gratified that this 
omnibus bill substantially increases funding for the grant bears his 
name. This legislation, together with the funding provided in the 
economic recovery package, will help boost the maximum Pell grant by 
$619 to $5,350 in fiscal year 2009. It is worth noting how far we have 
come. Just 2 years ago, the maximum Pell grant was stuck at $4,050--the 
same level it had been funded at over the previous 4 years.
  To supplement Pell grant and other higher education assistance, this 
legislation maintains funding for the Leveraging Educational Assistance 
Partnership, leveraging additional need-based grant aid and support 
services for our neediest students and families. It also boosts funding 
for the teacher quality enhancement grants by $17 million to improve 
college teacher preparation programs and ensure that every classroom in 
America has a high-quality teacher.
  The bill increases funding for the state library program under the 
Library Services and Technology Act to $171.5 million. I have long 
advocated for this funding level because it is the amount necessary to 
reach a key goal included in the 2003 reauthorization of the Museum and 
Library Services Act that I authored to double the minimum State 
allotment. This additional funding will help libraries respond to the

[[Page S2785]]

demand for free access to all types of information and digital and 
online service. With the economic crisis we are suffering through, 
libraries have become critical centers for guidance and career services 
for unemployed workers as they search for jobs, and families as they 
search for the diversion that a public library can provide in very 
difficult economic times.
  The bill increases funding for the National Institutes of Health by 
almost $1 billion, which will fund 10,600 new research grants. I 
strongly supported the historic doubling of NIH funding between 1998 
and 2003. Regrettably, since 2003, our investment in science has 
eroded. As a result, only 24 percent of research projects are currently 
funded, compared to 32 percent in 1999. I am glad that with the 
economic recovery bill and this bill, we will reverse that trend and 
invest in lifesaving research that will result in cures and treatments 
for debilitating diseases.
  The bill increases funding for community health centers by $125 
million, which will provide access to an additional 470,000 uninsured 
Americans. In my State, this program just awarded a grant to a health 
clinic that was on the verge of shutting its doors. The funding is a 
lifeline that saved 25 jobs, and could create another 22 jobs within 
the next 18 months. More important, the center will provide primary 
health care, mental health counseling, and dental care to those who 
have lost their jobs, and with them their health insurance, during this 
economic crisis. This will keep people healthy and reduce health care 
costs in the future.
  The bill increases support for health care workforce programs, which 
is critical to increase access to primary care and to address the 
nursing shortage that our country faces.
  Lastly, the bill increases funding for immunizations by $30 million, 
which will provide vaccinations to an additional 15,000 children. 
Immunizations are one of the most cost-effective ways to improve health 
and an important component in transforming our health care system to 
prevent sickness, and not just treat it.
  Mr. President, for all of these reasons and more this bill makes the 
right investments in our country and I urge its passage.
  I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. ALEXANDER. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
order for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Gillibrand). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. ALEXANDER. Madam President, I wish to discuss the DC voucher 
program, officially the DC Opportunity Scholarship Program. This is a 
program that was established in 2004 to provide low-income families 
with scholarships to attend private schools in the District of 
Columbia.
  The legislation we are debating, unfortunately, makes it harder for 
that program to continue. The fiscal year 2009 omnibus legislation 
includes language that would end the scholarship program in September 
2010, and it says we could not continue it by appropriation, which is 
unusual. It would also add the requirement that the DC City Council 
would have to approve whatever we did.
  That is a very unwise situation, I believe. The U.S. Secretary of 
Education, Arne Duncan, said yesterday that poor children getting 
vouchers to attend private schools in the District of Columbia should 
be allowed to stay there. He said that to the Associated Press. I am 
reading from that article where it says that Secretary Duncan opposes 
vouchers. But he says essentially that Washington is a special case, 
and kids already in private schools on the public dime should be 
allowed to continue.
  To quote him directly, he said that ``I don't think it makes sense to 
take kids out of a school where they're happy and safe and satisfied 
and learning. . . . I think those kids need to stay in their school.''
  I think Secretary Duncan is right. I also think--and I said this at 
his hearing--that Secretary Duncan is the best of the distinguished 
appointments President Obama has made. He can be a real help to the 
children in this country. I look forward to working with him.
  I am an original cosponsor of an amendment that Senators Ensign, 
Lieberman, Gregg, Voinovich, Kyl, DeMint, Brownback, and Cornyn have 
introduced that would solve this problem, that would remove the 
language from the omnibus bill that would make it harder for the DC 
Voucher Program to continue.
  I think we should also take note that DC Mayor Adrian Fenty and 
Chancellor Michelle Rhee, both of whom are acting courageously to try 
to improve the schools in the District, favor keeping the program.
  The Washington Post, the Chicago Tribune, the Wall Street Journal 
editorial pages have all voiced support of this program since this 
omnibus language was introduced in the House. The DC program is being 
singled out.
  I understand this may cause some problem with some House Members who 
would rather see us not amend the bill that came to us, but that is our 
job. This is the Senate. That is the House of Representatives. If, in a 
great big bill that spends $410 billion, we see some things that need 
to be improved, we ought to have a chance to improve them. In this 
case, there is broad agreement with the President's Education Secretary 
and many others that the DC kids need this and deserve this. There are 
1,700 children currently attending private schools in DC using these 
opportunity scholarships of up to $7,500 a year.
  I make this point to call attention to the DC voucher program and the 
importance of making certain we have a chance to amend the omnibus 
bill--the bill before us--so we do not make it harder for the DC 
voucher program to continue. If that means we have to go on into next 
week in order to have a sufficient number of amendments, then we should 
do that.
  I appreciate the fact that the majority leader has adopted this year, 
as he should, the practice that the Senate is a place that is 
distinguished primarily by virtually unlimited debate and virtually 
unlimited amendments and then we vote. So a premature conclusion to 
this bill before we have a chance to improve it, such as keeping the DC 
voucher program, I think would be unwise.
  Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the 
Record the Associated Press article, the Washington Post editorial, the 
Chicago Tribune editorial, and the Wall Street Journal editorial.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

            US Schools Chief Wants DC Kids to Keep Vouchers

                            (By Libby Quaid)

       Washington.--Education Secretary Arne Duncan said Wednesday 
     that poor children getting vouchers to attend private schools 
     in the District of Columbia should be allowed to stay there 
     even as congressional Democrats work to end the program.
       His remarks, in an interview with The Associated Press, put 
     the Obama administration at odds with Democrats who oppose 
     the program because it spends public dollars on private 
     schools.
       Duncan opposes vouchers. But he said Washington is a 
     special case, and kids already in private schools on the 
     public dime should be allowed to continue.
       ``I don't think it makes sense to take kids out of a school 
     where they're happy and safe and satisfied and learning,'' 
     Duncan told said. ``I think those kids need to stay in their 
     school.''
       Democrats in Congress have written a spending bill that 
     would effectively end the program after next year. The bill 
     says Congress and the city council would have to OK more 
     money, which is unlikely.
       A vote is expected later this week.
       Lawmakers, in a statement accompanying the bill, said no 
     new children should be enrolled in the program. And they said 
     D.C. schools chancellor Michelle Rhee should take steps to 
     minimize any disruption for kids as they transition back into 
     public schools.
       The issue of vouchers exposes a deep fissure between 
     Republicans, who support them, and Democrats, who oppose 
     them.
       Republicans insist that parents deserve a choice if their 
     kids are in failing schools, saying vouchers create 
     competition that puts pressure on public schools to do 
     better.
       Democrats say it is impossible to expect public schools to 
     do better while precious public dollars are being siphoned 
     away to private schools.
       ``I don't think vouchers ultimately are the answer,'' 
     Duncan said. ``We need to be more ambitious. The goal 
     shouldn't be to save a handful of children. The goal should 
     be to dramatically change the opportunity structure for 
     entire neighborhoods of kids.''
       The voucher program in Washington has been an exception in 
     the debate over vouchers. Because of the sorry state of 
     public

[[Page S2786]]

     schools in the nation's capitol, some Democrats were willing 
     to allow it in 2003 when a Republican-led Congress created 
     the voucher program.
       And while big-city school superintendents generally oppose 
     vouchers, Rhee, the schools chancellor, has said she is open 
     to the District's voucher program.
       ``I don't think vouchers are going to solve all the ills of 
     public education, but parents who are zoned to schools that 
     are failing kids should have options to do better by their 
     kids,'' Rhee told The New York Times recently.
       The D.C. program gives scholarships to about 1,700 poor 
     kids so they can attend private schools.
       It is the only federal voucher program in the country. 
     Other cities and states have similar programs--vouchers are 
     available in Milwaukee, Cleveland, Florida, Utah, Arizona and 
     Georgia--but they are paid for with local tax dollars.
       Several states offer tax credits to help pay for private 
     school, but those are also local and not federal programs.
       Obama sent mixed messages on vouchers during his 
     presidential campaign. He told the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel 
     in February 2008 that he was open to vouchers if research 
     showed they work. But his campaign swiftly backtracked, 
     issuing a statement saying Obama had always been a critic of 
     vouchers.
       Supporters of the District's voucher program are quick to 
     point out that Obama's daughters attend a private school in 
     Washington, Sidwell Friends School, that also has students 
     whose tuition is paid through the voucher program.
       When asked about Duncan's remarks, Sen. Lamar Alexander, R-
     Tenn., said the education secretary was ``exactly right.''
       ``Senators should listen to him by voting this week to 
     continue funding vouchers for DC schoolchildren,'' Alexander 
     said.
                                  ____


               [From The Washington Post, Mar. 2, 2009].

                        `Potential' Disruption?


 Ending D.C. school vouchers would dash the best hopes of hundreds of 
                                children

       Rep. David R. Obey (Wis.) and other congressional Democrats 
     should spare us their phony concern about the children 
     participating in the District's school voucher program. If 
     they cared for the future of these students, they wouldn't be 
     so quick as to try to kill the program that affords low-
     income, minority children a chance at a better education. 
     Their refusal to even give the program a fair hearing makes 
     it critical that D.C. Mayor Adrian M. Fenty (D) seek help 
     from voucher supporters in the Senate and, if need be, 
     President Obama.
       Last week, the Democrat-controlled House passed a spending 
     bill that spells the end, after the 2009-10 school year, of 
     the federally funded program that enables poor students to 
     attend private schools with scholarships of up to $7,500. A 
     statement signed by Mr. Obey as Appropriations Committee 
     chairman that accompanied the $410 billion spending package 
     directs D.C. Schools Chancellor Michelle A. Rhee to 
     ``promptly take steps to minimize potential disruption and 
     ensure smooth transition'' for students forced back into the 
     public schools.
       We would like Mr. Obey and his colleagues to talk about 
     possible ``disruption'' with Deborah Parker, mother of two 
     children who attend Sidwell Friends School because of the 
     D.C. Opportunity Scholarship Program. ``The mere thought of 
     returning to public school frightens me,'' Ms. Parker told us 
     as she related the opportunities--such as a trip to China for 
     her son--made possible by the program. Tell her, as critics 
     claim, that vouchers don't work, and she'll list her 
     children's improved test scores, feeling of safety and 
     improved motivation.
       But the debate unfolding on Capitol Hill isn't about facts. 
     It's about politics and the stranglehold the teachers unions 
     have on the Democratic Party. Why else has so much time and 
     effort gone into trying to kill off what, in the grand scheme 
     of government spending, is a tiny program? Why wouldn't 
     Congress want to get the results of a carefully calibrated 
     scientific study before pulling the plug on a program that 
     has proved to be enormously popular? Could the real fear be 
     that school vouchers might actually be shown to be effective 
     in leveling the academic playing field?
       This week, the Senate takes up the omnibus spending bill, 
     and we hope that, with the help of supporters such as Sen. 
     Joseph I. Lieberman (I-Conn.), the program gets the reprieve 
     it deserves. If it doesn't, someone needs to tell Ms. Parker 
     why a bunch of elected officials who can send their children 
     to any school they choose are taking that option from her.
                                  ____


                [From the Chicago Tribune, Mar. 3, 2009]

                          A Vote for Ignorance

       ``If there was any argument for vouchers, it was, `Let's 
     see if it works.' And if it does, whatever my preconception, 
     you do what's best for kids.''--Barack Obama, Feb. 13, 2008.
       There's a novel concept--approaching education policy with 
     the paramount goal of helping students rather than, say, 
     teachers unions or school bureaucracies. So novel, in fact, 
     that within days of making that statement, Obama thought 
     better of it. ``Senator Obama has always been a critic of 
     vouchers,'' his campaign declared.
       Now Democrats in Congress are lining up to oppose this 
     alternative rather than waiting to see if it works. In the 
     giant spending bill passed last week by the House, they cut 
     off money for the only federally financed voucher program in 
     the U.S.
       It's in Washington, D.C., which has among the worst schools 
     in America. A 2007 report found that fewer than half of the 
     capital's grade-school pupils are proficient in reading or 
     math--and results are worse in higher grades.
       In 2004, Congress financed a pilot program to give some 
     1,900 children vouchers to attend private schools.
       It's a modest undertaking, providing just $7,500 per 
     child--less than a third of what the District of Columbia 
     spends per pupil in public schools. It only begins to satisfy 
     the demand for educational alternatives, since more than 
     7,000 kids applied for the vouchers. Ninety-nine percent of 
     the recipients, by the way, are black or Hispanic, with an 
     average family income of less than $23,000.
       But vouchers are anathema to many in the Democratic Party 
     because teachers unions feel threatened by the prospect of 
     more children going to non-union private schools. So this 
     bill says there will be no more money for the program after 
     this year and directs the head of D.C.'s public schools to 
     ``promptly take steps to minimize potential disruption and 
     ensure smooth transition'' for kids who will be forced back 
     into schools their parents found wanting.
       Democrats to kids: Tough luck.
       What's the hurry here? This experiment has yet to run its 
     course, with only two years' worth of data assessed so far. 
     Patrick Wolf, a University of Arkansas professor who is 
     leading the assessment, found that children who got vouchers 
     have performed no better than those who were turned down. But 
     he says there have been ``large positive effects'' on their 
     parents'' satisfaction.
       And there are reasons for hope. Of the 10 studies of 
     existing voucher systems, says Wolf, nine found significant 
     academic improvements.
       President Obama doesn't need to be told about the 
     deficiencies of Washington's public schools: He rejected them 
     in favor of a private school for his daughters.
       Ask how many members of Congress send their children to 
     public schools in D.C.
       They are pushing through legislation that is grossly unfair 
     fashion toward 1,900 children and their parents who don't 
     have the luxury of paying for private schools.
       We need more information about the effects of school 
     vouchers. Should Democrats in Congress have their way, we 
     won't get it.
       If they want to end the experiment at such an early stage, 
     it's not because they think it's failing, but because they 
     fear it's working.
                                  ____


              [From the Wall Street Journal, Mar. 3, 2009]

                  Will Obama Stand Up for These Kids?

       Dick Durbin has a nasty surprise for two of Sasha and Malia 
     Obama's new schoolmates. And it puts the president in an 
     awkward position.
       The children are Sarah and James Parker. Like the Obama 
     girls, Sarah and James attend the Sidwell Friends School in 
     our nation's capital. Unlike the Obama girls, they could not 
     afford the school without the $7,500 voucher they receive 
     from the D.C. Opportunity Scholarship program. Unfortunately, 
     a spending bill the Senate takes up this week includes a 
     poison pill that would kill this program--and with it perhaps 
     the Parker children's hopes for a Sidwell diploma.
       Known as the ``Durbin language'' after the Illinois 
     Democrat who came up with it last year, the provision 
     mandates that the scholarship program ends after the next 
     school year unless Congress reauthorizes it and the District 
     of Columbia approves. The beauty of this language is that it 
     allows opponents to kill the program simply by doing nothing. 
     Just the sort of sneaky maneuver that's so handy when you 
     don't want inner-city moms and dads to catch on that you are 
     cutting one of their lifelines.
       Deborah Parker says such a move would be devastating for 
     her kids. ``I once took Sarah to Roosevelt High School to see 
     its metal detectors and security guards,'' she says. ``I 
     wanted to scare her into appreciation for what she has at 
     Sidwell.'' It's not just safety, either. According to the 
     latest test scores, fewer than half of Roosevelt's students 
     are proficient in reading or math.
       That's the reality that the Parkers and 1,700 other low-
     income students face if Sen. Durbin and his allies get their 
     way. And it points to perhaps the most odious of double 
     standards in American life today: the way some of our loudest 
     champions of public education vote to keep other people's 
     children--mostly inner-city blacks and Latinos--trapped in 
     schools where they'd never let their own kids set foot.
       This double standard is largely unchallenged by either the 
     teachers' unions or the press corps. For the teachers' 
     unions, it's a fairly cold-blooded calculation. They're 
     willing to look the other way at lawmakers who chose private 
     or parochial schools for their own kids--so long as these 
     lawmakers vote in ways that keep the union grip on the public 
     schools intact and an escape hatch like vouchers bolted.
       As for the press, complaints tend to be limited to the odd 
     column or editorial. That's one reason it was so startling 
     back in 2000 when Time magazine's Tamala Edwards, during a 
     live televised debate at Harlem's Apollo Theater, asked Al 
     Gore about the propriety of sending his own son to private 
     school while opposing any effort to extend the same choice to 
     African-Americans without his financial wherewithal. As CNN's 
     Jeff

[[Page S2787]]

     Greenfield would note later in the same debate, Mr. Gore 
     ``bristled'' when Ms. Edward's put the question to him.
       Virginia Walden-Ford, executive director of D.C. Parents 
     for School Choice, wouldn't mind making a few more 
     politicians bristle. ``I'd like to see a reporter stand up at 
     one of those nationally televised press conferences and ask 
     President Obama what he thinks about what his own party is 
     doing to keep two innocent kids from attending the same 
     school where he sends his?''
       As for Sidwell, the school has welcomed the Opportunity 
     Scholarship program. Though headmaster Bruce Stewart declines 
     to get into either politics or the Obamas, he says that a 
     program that gives parents more educational options for their 
     children is not only good for their kids, it's good for the 
     community. Plainly he's not doing it for the money: Even the 
     full D.C. voucher covers only a small fraction of Sidwell's 
     actual costs.
       All of which leaves the First Parent with a decision to 
     make: Will he stand up for those like his own children's 
     schoolmates--or stand in front of the Sidwell door with Mr. 
     Durbin? It's hard to imagine white congressional Democrats 
     going up against him if he called them out on an issue where 
     they have put him in this embarrassing position. This, after 
     all, is a man who has written of the ``anger'' he felt as a 
     community organizer, when his attempts to improve things for 
     Chicago school kids ran up against an ``uncomfortable fact.''
       ``The biggest source of resistance [to reform],'' he said, 
     ``was rarely talked about ... namely, the uncomfortable fact 
     that every one of our churches was filled with teachers, 
     principals, and district superintendents. Few of these 
     educators sent their own children to public schools; they 
     knew too much for that. But they would defend the status quo 
     with the same skill and vigor as their white counterparts of 
     two decades before.''
       Let's just say that Sarah and James Parker--and thousands 
     just like them--could use some of that same Obama anger right 
     about now.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.
  Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, the Senator from Tennessee is a friend 
of mine. He has served as Secretary of Education, we talk about 
education issues, and we share a common admiration for the new 
Secretary of Education. But I would like to correct, while he is still 
on the floor, a few of the things he said.
  Five years ago, the Bush administration said, for the first time in 
the history of America, we will create a federally funded voucher 
program. Here is what it says: Federal taxpayers' dollars will be given 
to parents of students in the District of Columbia--Washington, DC--who 
want to put their kids in private schools. The Federal Government will 
pay a certain amount of money in tuition vouchers to those schools on 
behalf of the students and their parents.
  It was a 5-year experiment, and there was a lot of controversy 
associated with it. Some of us were skeptical. I offered three 
amendments to this DC voucher program. The first amendment I offered in 
the Appropriations Committee said that all the teachers in the voucher 
schools--the private voucher schools--have to have a college degree. 
The amendment was defeated. It was defeated because those pushing for 
voucher schools said that is going to stop creativity, it is going to 
confine these schools, and we should let them do what they are going to 
do.
  I didn't buy that because, frankly, we impose those standards on 
public schools across America, but my amendment was defeated.
  Now, the second amendment I offered said the DC voucher schools--the 
buildings themselves--had to pass the fire safety code of the District 
of Columbia for teaching children. All right? The amendment was 
defeated. Those pushing the voucher program said: You know, you don't 
get it. This is about a creative approach to education. It may not be 
the traditional classroom setting. We defeat your amendment.
  The third amendment said: Well, in fairness, if the argument is that 
voucher schools are better than DC public schools, there ought to be a 
common standard to judge them. So my amendment said they shall take the 
same achievement test--the voucher school students and the public 
school students--so we can then compare apples to apples. My amendment 
was defeated, and the argument was voucher schools have to be allowed 
this creativity to think anew and to try different things. I don't buy 
it.
  So I started with real skepticism and I voted against this program. 
Now, in the ensuing time--the 4 or 5 years--1,700 students have 
received Federal subsidies to go to private schools. It is the only 
place in America I know where that is happening. The idea, of course, 
was that at the end of this experimental authorization period, we would 
try to step back and ask: Was this a good idea? Was it good for the 
kids, good for the families, good for the District of Columbia, and our 
Nation?
  That was the idea behind it. This law creating these DC voucher 
schools was to expire this year in June. Now, my committee funds the 
District of Columbia, the Federal funds that go into it, and so we 
said: You know, that may be too abrupt. It may not be fair. So what we 
will do is we will extend through the 2009-2010 school year the DC 
voucher schools, but somebody has to step back and take a look at this 
and ask: Is it working?
  When the Government Accountability Office went to take a look at it, 
they said that some of these schools are world class--these voucher 
schools--and some of them end up being classes taught in the basement 
of a private church in the District of Columbia by people who don't 
have the competence to teach.
  Now, the Senator from Tennessee doesn't want that to happen in his 
State, and I don't want it to happen in my State, and I certainly don't 
think it should happen here on our watch. So I extended this program 1 
year, and it is in the hands of Senator Joe Lieberman. Senator 
Lieberman is the chairman of the Committee on Homeland Security and 
Governmental Affairs. He gave his personal assurance to the Members of 
the Senate that there will be a hearing and an attempt to markup 
reauthorization of this program. That is the orderly process, it is the 
sensible process, and at the end of the day we are going to learn a lot 
about the voucher schools and how they are doing.
  Now, in the meantime--and I know the Senator from Tennessee knows 
this--I would say we have a new school chancellor in the District of 
Columbia who is trying her very best to bring reform to public 
education. I know some of her proposals are controversial, but I think 
she is on the right track to bring in quality teachers and a quality 
learning environment in the public schools. So let us look at this 
thing in the perspective of an experiment for 5 years, that was 
extended 1 year by this bill, that we can take an honest look at and 
ask: Did it work?
  Put aside for a moment whether you agree the Federal Government ought 
to put money into the hands of families to send kids to private schools 
and ask the basic question: Did it work? Are the students better off? 
Are they learning more? That is a legitimate question, and I want to 
know the answer, and I will bet the Senator does too. In the meantime, 
we should provide an environment for the public schools in the District 
of Columbia to have real reform, and that involves some money, I am 
sure, but it ought to be money we invest wisely as we invest in the 
voucher schools. There have been a few articles that have been 
inaccurate about the DC voucher program, and I wished to present my 
point of view on that program while the Senator from Tennessee is still 
here. I wish to move to another topic, unless he wants to address a 
question, which I would be happy to entertain.
  Mr. ALEXANDER. I thank the Senator from Illinois, and I look forward 
to working with him on helping the District of Columbia, including the 
mayor and the superintendent in the District who would like for this to 
continue.
  The question I have is: Why is it necessary for this legislation to 
insist that the program end in September of 2010 and that we add the 
provision the city council would have to approve it if it is continued 
by the Congress?
  Usually, when we have education programs whose authorization runs 
out, we continue them for a while as we go through the analysis the 
Senator talked about, such as the Higher Education Act which took us 6 
years or the Head Start Act which took us 3 or 4 years or No Child Left 
Behind or so many others. Why is it necessary that we even address the 
ending of this program in this legislation?
  Mr. DURBIN. I might say, in response to the Senator from Tennessee, 
that is a legitimate question. When the law was written, that is what 
it said: This program will expire. The authorization will end. I have 
extended it in

[[Page S2788]]

this bill an additional year so we can take the time not to push the 
kids out of the classrooms and take the time to make the judgment 
whether it is working.
  One of your colleagues, whom you vote with frequently and who sits 
behind you, from Oklahoma, who has this passion about authorizations, 
he says: You know, you do an authorization bill, and you are talking 
about spending money. I don't happen to agree with him. I think it 
takes an appropriation in addition to an authorization. But if an 
authorization has any meaning, particularly when dealing with a new 
venture, in terms of Federal taxpayer dollars going to private schools, 
I think we owe it to everybody--the taxpayers as well as the parents, 
teachers, and kids--to ask the hard questions.
  If the GAO comes in and tells us someone somewhere in the District of 
Columbia has created what they call a voucher school so that their wife 
can declare herself principal and their daughter can declare herself a 
teacher and the kids can sit in a building which doesn't have a fire 
exit, I am a little worried about that. I don't think we ought to go on 
with business as usual in that situation, and I would like to at least 
have an honest appraisal.
  I would say to the Senator from Tennessee, it is my impression 
Senator Lieberman of Connecticut is leaning toward the voucher school 
program, so he doesn't come to this with prejudice against it. I would 
not presume that is his ultimate position, but I think he will be an 
honest broker. He will bring all the facts out. I think that is why we 
are here, and I think it is a legitimate exercise of our 
responsibilities.
  Mr. ALEXANDER. I thank the Senator from Illinois, and would only note 
that Senator Lieberman is a cosponsor of the amendment we would like to 
have a chance to vote on.


                           Amendment No. 607

  Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, there is an amendment pending--and it is 
an amendment offered by Senator Wicker of Mississippi--which is one of 
those red-hot amendments that gets people riled up around here because 
it deals with a controversial issue, and that is the issue of abortion.

  Of course, many of us have stated our positions on the record time 
and again, but this comes down to a specific element here. What Senator 
Wicker does is to strike the language in the bill that permits funding 
of the U.N. Population Fund for six limited purposes. He has stated 
that his reason for doing so is to make certain we don't put money into 
China, where there is evidence of coercive abortion and involuntary 
sterilization; and he certainly says he doesn't want Federal funds to 
be spent for the promotion of abortion anywhere in the world.
  I would say there are two elements of the bill which I would 
recommend to all Members before they vote on the Wicker amendment, 
which I hope they will oppose. Page 763 of the bill--it is a big one, 
but I will point you to the specific page, 763--says:

       . . . none of the funds made available in this Act nor any 
     unobligated balances from prior appropriations Acts may be 
     made available to any organization or program which, as 
     determined by the President of the United States, supports or 
     participates in the management of a program of coercive 
     abortion or involuntary sterilization:

  A flatout prohibition. It is already there. Then when it comes to the 
issue of China, which has been the centerpiece of this debate about 
coercive abortions and involuntary sterilization, there is a long 
section--page 929--which I will refer my colleagues to. The net result 
is this. It says in the first paragraph:

       Not later than 60 days after the date of enactment of this 
     Act, the Secretary of State shall submit a report to the 
     Committees on Appropriations indicating the amount of funds 
     that the UNFPA is budgeting for the year in which the report 
     is submitted for a country program in the People's Republic 
     of China.

  So we ask the Secretary of State to go to New York and find out how 
much money is going to China, where we suspect coercive abortion and 
involuntary sterilization. The second paragraph says we will then 
deduct that amount of funds from any money that goes to the United 
Nations for family planning.
  So it is specific, and we are specific in terms of these practices. 
We can't spend any money for these practices; and, secondly, no money 
to the People's Republic of China which is not set off by a reduction 
in the Federal investment.
  Now, let me tell you why this amendment not only ignores the clear 
language of the bill but should not be passed. There are six limited 
purposes for which we are trying to use the U.N. Population Fund, and 
they are, among other things, to reduce genital mutilation and 
obstetric fistula and to provide voluntary family planning and basic 
health care to women and girls.
  It has been my opportunity and honor to visit Africa. In one of those 
visits, with Senator Brownback of Kansas, we went to the Democratic 
Republic of Congo, which doesn't get the publicity of many places in 
Africa, but it has been one of the killing fields. There have been 
thousands--maybe hundreds of thousands--of people killed in this 
region. It has been torn back and forth since the Rwandan genocide, 
with the exploitation of minerals. The net result has been the poorest 
people on Earth, smack dab in the center of Africa, have been pushed 
out of their villages and into refugee camps, and they have been 
victimized by guerilla soldiers.
  Well, I went to a hospital in Goma, which is in the Democratic 
Republic of Congo. It is one of those places where you think if God has 
a bad day, the first thing he does is look at Goma because they have 
had it all--poverty, disease, all the strife of guerrillas and all the 
war that revolves around them and, to put the icing on the cake, a 
volcano which erupts with regularity. These poor folks get it in every 
direction. But there in Goma was a hospital called DOCS hospital. DOCS 
hospital is sustained and financed by protestant churches in the United 
States. It has a modern surgical suite, paid for by the United Nations.
  When you go to this hospital, you see women lined up in a row, 
hanging onto their meager belongings, waiting for the chance to be 
admitted to the hospital. Why? Because this is the only place within 
hundreds of miles where they can go for surgical treatment of what is 
known as obstetric fistula. Obstetric fistula--I will try to describe 
it; not being a doctor--is the result of early pregnancies, long labors 
of young girls, rape, terrible mutilation that occurs and causes 
serious problems for these women. They become incontinent, they are 
unable to join their families, they are shunned by their villages. This 
is their only hope. They come to this hospital and they wait. They sit 
in the dust in the road hoping--and it is sometimes weeks later--to be 
seen by a doctor. They cook outside and help one another, and then they 
may go through a surgery. At the end of the surgery, they end up two to 
a bed trying to recuperate. Some of them, because they are so badly 
mutilated, have to go through multiple surgeries and wait month after 
weary month while a handful of surgeons and nurses do heroic jobs in 
trying to put their lives back together.
  Is that worth putting some money into? Is it? Is it worth saying to 
the U.N. Population Fund: Can you help these people? Can you bring in 
some doctors, some surgeons to treat them? They are victims, helpless 
victims, who are trying to put their lives back together. I think it is 
money well spent.
  I have a friend of mine named Molly Melching. Molly Melching is in 
Senegal. She was in the Peace Corps there, and after her service in the 
Peace Corps she decided to stay on. She has created an organization 
called Tostan. Tostan is trying to stop the ritualistic genital 
mutilation of girls. It is horrible, and it is dangerous. Village by 
village, tribe by tribe, Molly is making progress, and I think that is 
the right thing to do, for the dignity of these young girls and for the 
role of women in these African societies. Is it worth money from the 
United Nations Population Fund? I think it is.

  And voluntary family planning, we have ascribed to that particular 
goal in America, that women should have a choice to plan their families 
with their spouse and with their conscience. I think the same thing, 
short of abortion, should be available through the United Nations 
Population Fund. Unfortunately, the Wicker amendment strikes the 
language which permits funding for those purposes. It is not right.
  We know you cannot spend the money here for coercive abortion, we

[[Page S2789]]

know you cannot spend the money here for involuntary sterilization, we 
know if you spend the money in China we are going to take it away from 
the United Nations.
  This amendment goes too far. I urge my colleagues, particularly those 
who are of a persuasion that opposes abortion and believe they should 
oppose it in every circumstance, give women in the poorest countries on 
Earth the option of voluntary family planning. Do something for these 
poor women who have been victimized by rape and war, and these young 
pregnancies that unfortunately cause so much damage to their bodies. 
Give them a chance to put their lives back together. Also, when it 
comes to genital mutilation, the United Nations should be in the 
forefront of promoting modern treatment of women and not leave 
ourselves in the distant dark past of these tribal customs. I am sure 
Senator Wicker does not intend for this to happen, but I am afraid that 
is the result of it.
  I urge my colleagues to oppose the Wicker amendment.

                          ____________________