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.

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.

____________________