Floor Statements

Mr. President, I ask for 2 minutes of personal privilege to add a few remarks to the Record. I, too, remain firmly committed to class action reform and have stated so publicly many times and will continue to state publicly that intention.

There are two or three reasons I could not vote to move to debate on this bill because there were not clear indications given that certain language in this underlying bill would be removed.

I understand the legislative process. I am clear about the legislative process, but I am also clear about the way that arrangements can be made in this Chamber, arrangements with this White House and the House so that we can come out with a bill that is fair to the American public, that helps us to increase jobs, to remove the forum shopping, and to eliminate the abuses that are in this system, without undermining people's rights to get their day in court.

So as one of the votes that obviously could have made a difference in the outcome today, I most certainly remain open. The language, however, regarding mass torts must be removed. The coupon settlement language must be addressed. The jurisdictional question somewhere between the Feinstein and Breaux language would be acceptable, and the bounty provisions, which are very important to civil rights legislation, must be addressed.

These are four issues that I am going to be discussing, and if the side that is for reform is really interested in real reform and not just a political issue, these discussions can be had with this Senator.

I thank the Chair.

Mr. President, with all due respect to the chairman, who is doing a good job of leading us through this bill, I say emphatically this amendment is in line with Security Council Resolution 1483, which was drafted in large measure by this administration when we lifted the sanctions on Iraq. Resolution 1483 passed by the Security Council was a U.S.-led effort.

This resolution says we should use the oil reserves in Iraq for Iraq's reconstruction. This resolution says we should ask Iraq to be a partner, not a begger. This resolution says we should not create a welfare state in Iraq but we should create a strong and vibrant democracy.

Iraq, at conservative estimates, can generate $40 billion a year, and it could go up to $100 billion a year.

Senator Levin, Senator Dorgan, and Senator Stabenow offer this amendment for the Senate's consideration.

Mr. President, reserving right to object, could I add by unanimous consent that after those two votes I be allowed 30 minutes equally divided?

Is there a possibility for some time in the morning?

I thank the Senator.

Mr. President, as usual the Senator from Maryland has put his finger on one of the most important aspects of this amendment. It is one of the reasons I rise to support the Bayh-Nelson-Ensign- Collins-Snowe amendment. It is a very sound proposal. It establishes several important principles relative to the steadfast commitment of this Congress to finish a job that has already been started.

As the chief sponsor of this amendment stated in his opening remarks, whether you voted to use force to overthrow this regime or not, the fact is, we are there now. We have an important job to complete. This is one of the most challenging tasks ever undertaken by the people of the United States. The Bayh amendment outlines a roadmap that might actually get us to where we want to go. Words such as freedom, education, prosperity, democracy, vibrancy, a free enterprise economy, I have heard my colleagues speak with passion. This amendment is an attempt not to undermine those principles but to ensure that we will actually get there, to the goal of this whole effort.

I am afraid without this amendment, the plan before the Senate, which we are well aware of, will not get us where we want to go.

It establishes a couple of important priorities. It says Iraqi security is important. It says the Congress, by good faith, will put up the $5 billion which, by the way, dwarfs the contributions of all other countries. And it sets up an incentive, a very important incentive, for the other nations to forgive the debts. It highlights the strength of the resources in Iraq and opens the opportunity to perhaps expand on that by rebuilding with the Iraqi-owned resources, once this plan is laid down.

The Bush-Bremer plan of billion-dollar grants only, often, and alone will simply not work. Let me repeat: The plan we have before us--not this amendment--the plan that has been presented of billion-dollar grants only, often, and alone will not work. It can't be sustained. The American people don't support it now. They will not support it in 30 days. They will not support it in 4 months. They will not support it in 4 years. The little girl the Senator from Montana spoke so passionately about is in school today. This amendment is about keeping her in school 2 years from now and 3 years from now and seeing that she graduates from college.

This amendment lays a sustainable roadmap to get us where we want to go. That is why I support it. That is why it is important. The RAND, World Bank, and Institutes of International Finance have estimated the cost will exceed $36 billion, $75 billion over the next not 30 days but 5 to 7 years. We need this amendment to get us on the right roadmap, laying down the right plan so we can sustain it to complete the task ahead of us which is very important, very complex and, as I said, one of the most challenging.

I support the amendment and urge my colleagues to do so as well.

Thank you, Mr. President. I appreciate the courtesies. The children have been long in bed and are sound asleep before this hour. But I appreciate the courtesies extended to allow me to take a few minutes to explain this amendment.

Amendment No. 1859

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendments be temporarily laid aside and call up amendment No. 1859, which is at the desk, on behalf of myself, Senator Dorgan, and Senator Levin.

Mr. President, this is a modified amendment based on a concept that Senator Dorgan, Senator Levin, and others have been working on now for several weeks. It is a very important amendment to consider in terms of shaping a sustainable aid package for Iraq.

It does not address or take any money away from the $20 billion. It simply establishes a framework whereby future reconstruction efforts in Iraq could be financed through a financing mechanism using the great oil wealth of that nation. It does not, in any way, affect the immediate $20 billion which the Chair and others and I were proud to cosponsor and which was shaped and crafted over an hour ago on the Bayh amendment.

This is about the future, not the present. It does not have an effect on the $20 billion.

Within an hour or two of this time, the Senate rose to the occasion. We had a very vigorous and enlightening, at times tough, but very good debate on the way we should put out our reconstruction efforts for Iraq. The Senate is fulfilling its role, shaping foreign policy, being a partner with the executive branch, and, in my opinion, since that amendment passed, improving the original plan.

As I said when I supported the Bayh amendment, the administration's original plan, which seems to people in Louisiana and to the American people to be billions of dollars of grants often, only, and alone will not work. Not only is it not popular, it is not sustainable in our democracy. Iraq doesn't have a democracy yet, but we do. In a democracy, we have to lay down plans that not only will the leadership support but the people support. Because without the people's support, no plan that

we lay down, either at the White House or in Congress, in the House or the Senate, is sustainable over a long period of time.

Why is that important? It is important because every study that has been conducted by independent think tanks and authorities has said that the task we have undertaken in Iraq is not going to be completed in the next 6 months or 1 year or 2 years. As the Presiding Officer knows, this is at a minimum a 5 to 7-year effort. Does that mean our troops will be there for 5 to 7 years? We hope not. Does it mean all the troops there now will have to be there in that number even 2 or 3 years? The effort itself of reconstruction--helping take a country that was cruelly administered by a dictator, taking it to a vibrant democracy with democratic institutions in place, based on the history and the region we are talking about--is not going to be easy.

Yes, I think the Iraqi people want that. Yes, we will be good partners. But it is not going to be easy. It is going to take time.

The amendment we spoke about earlier tonight, and voted on by a 52 or 53-vote margin, helps to take the original plan, which was not sustainable, and turn it into something that can be sustainable over time. It targeted the grants. It was strategic. It had strong incentives for debt forgiveness, which is a crucial aspect and principle of a strong reconstruction plan. And most importantly, it put up the $20 billion right now so we can get started and build a strong foundation for a successful reconstruction plan.

This amendment I am offering tonight, and hopefully we will vote on tomorrow, is a complementary piece. It says that because Iraq has some of the richest oil reserves in the world, most people think they are the second largest resource of oil in the world, they could be the first because not all of the fields have been explored and developed. In fact, it has in some instances been barely touched.

Let me show a picture of the country. As you can see, these are the oil fields that are outlined right here in the north, in the center, right outside of Baghdad, and in the southern portion of the country. But the geologists, the industry publications believe that there is as much oil in this section of Iraq, in the southwestern section, as there is here. As you can see, there is not one designation on this map because it has been totally unexplored.

The reserves we are calculating--and they are in the hundreds of millions, billions of barrels of oil, and not even counting the gas-- are well underestimated.

The point of this is that when these oil fields come back on line-- and they are coming back on rather quickly with the support of the communities and with the support of American ingenuity and technology and know-how, and, by the way, that technology is improving and has improved substantially--there is going to be even more oil and gas found, thus making the possibility of future construction and renovation and reconstruction definitely possible to be refinanced with these resources.

This amendment will help to ensure that the Iraqi people themselves are benefiting from their own oil reserves. It seeks to make that point in no uncertain terms. The reconstruction of Iraq for the benefit of the people of Iraq can be done and accomplished through a financing mechanism, allowing the oil reserves, which are plentiful and quite substantial, to be used in that way.

This is not Senator Landrieu's idea. I didn't come up with this idea. I heard about it. I heard administration officials speaking about it. In fact, Secretary Wolfowitz said just a year ago in an interview on this subject:

On a rough recollection, the oil revenues of that country

could bring between $50 and $100 billion over the course of

the next two or three years. . . . We're dealing with a

country that can really finance its own reconstruction, and

relatively soon.

This is what our own Secretary said. This Senate voted a few minutes ago to decide that, no, we were not going to move to this system right now. We were going to vote for this amendment that Senator Bayh and others offered. We said we would not move to the reconstruction based on the oil reserves at this time. Let's lay down the $20 billion in the way that we did it, part in a loan that could be forgiven if other debts are forgiven, part immediately for the construction. But, in the future, my amendment says that establishing this financing mechanism could match what the administration originally said they wanted to do, which, of course, makes sense not only to me but to the American people.

The American people want us to be successful in Iraq. This is their challenge. It is not something that belongs only to the leaders here in Washington or the President or the White House. The American people are giving their own sons and daughters to the effort. They are sending their own family members to the effort. They want us to come up with a plan that can make sure they are not sending them in vain. It is not just a matter of getting the troops home. As a mother, as a parent, I can appreciate and understand that if we lost a child, I would want to make sure the death was not in vain, that we actually accomplished what we set out to do.

We have to get a plan that will work. The American people know one thing that won't work, and that is asking the American people to foot the bill, 100 percent of it, with limited help, with us carrying the burden of the troops and the finances over a long period of time. What the American people think would work, and I agree with them, is to jump-start it with some grants, do everything we can to make other nations relieve the debt, and then, over the long run, establish a financing mechanism that the country of Iraq can themselves begin the reconstruction. And let me just say that it is not often that the administration agrees with the U.N. or that the U.N. agrees with the administration. We have been trying to find common ground now for months. The U.N. thinks one way and this administration thinks a different way, so they cannot get together.

Let me tell you one thing they agree on. This is U.N. Security Council Resolution 1483 that lifted sanctions on Iraq right after we were successful in the war. Summarizing, it says the U.N. itself says the oil resources in Iraq should not be used to pay down debt owed to other countries. It should not be, basically, given away to anyone. But what should it be used for? The U.N. said it should be used for the reconstruction of Iraq. So the U.N. and members of the administration, including the Vice President--and I will show you what the Vice President said just a few months ago, in March. He said in answer to Tim Russert on one of the talk shows:

In Iraq you've got a nation that's got the second largest

oil reserves in the world, second only to Saudi Arabia. It

will generate billions of dollars a year in cash flow if they

get back to their production of roughly 3 million barrels of

oil a day, and in the relatively near future.

He is saying, no, we are not going to have to pick up the $100 billion, which is estimated; the Iraqis have that ability to do so themselves. Mr. President, this is something the U.N. supports. It is something the administration told the American people would be part of the reconstruction effort. Now we are finding, for some reason, a tremendous amount of resistance to this. It is hard to understand, and so that is why I am putting forth this amendment, which has been modified.

It doesn't try to substitute the financing mechanisms for any part of the $20 billion. It says in the future, after we have allocated this $20 billion, it is the sense of the Senate that the future reconstruction could be paid for using the Iraqi resources, which are plentiful--oil and gas.

Let me make one other point. I know my time is almost up. A lot has been said about the Marshall plan. One of the principles of the Marshall plan, one of the foundations on which the Marshall plan rested was the fact that Germany had more coal reserves than any country in Europe, and that because Germany was rich in coal, in natural resources, the U.S. plan that was fashioned in a way that was sustainable over a long period of time and could be based on the riches and resources of that coal was not to take it from Germany but to help Germany use its resources to rebuild itself, to establish peace and prosperity for itself and its neighbors.

So I don't have any reason to understand or know why the same administration that would say this is the way

we should proceed is now objecting to even outlining a possibility to use these resources, not for the people of the United States, not for the people of Europe, but for the Iraqis themselves. So that is the essence of the amendment that Senator Dorgan and Senator Levin and I have sent to the desk and asked for the Senate to consider. Hopefully, we will have a vote tomorrow.

To summarize briefly, the most important thing that we need to do is to, together with the President and the Congress and in partnership with the American people, right now, today, tonight, tomorrow, fashion a reconstruction plan that brings our troops home safely, minimizes the loss of life, and actually achieves our objectives.

A tremendous amount is riding on America's reputation, our position in the world, our pride, our word. It is resting on how well we do this. We have to have a plan that will work. What will work in the long run is unleashing the tremendous wealth of that nation, not for anybody else but for themselves, to fashion a plan that is good for the people of Iraq and for the American taxpayers who have already sacrificed a great deal in terms of treasure, life, and American blood--to come up with a plan that works for both countries and actually has a chance of working, so that this long-range strategy of peace in the Mideast we could actually accomplish.

So we offer this in good faith. I am sorry the other side has not yet accepted this amendment, so we are going to have to vote on it tomorrow. I hope that perhaps overnight, through the early hours of the morning, we can consider the great benefit of establishing such a financing mechanism and, that way, we will send the right signal to the Iraqi people that America is there to stay; that we have a plan that we can sustain in partnership with them using our strength and our technology and our ingenuity, their natural resources, to accomplish what their leaders have not been able to accomplish for them and which they tried to take from them.

Saddam Hussein took the oil revenues and used it for himself and his family, to build palaces. I know a little bit about this because I come from a State where the oil revenues are not always used on behalf of the people. I am very familiar with what happens when leaders take the public's resources and use it for their own benefit and not the people's: Children don't read, they don't go to college, hospitals are not built, roads stay gravel, highways don't get built, and jobs are not created. I know about that. I am saying this as passionately as I can to try to explain this. The people of Iraq need help with unleashig these resources for themselves, and setting up this financing mechanism is one of the best things we can do for them. It sends the right signal, and I am positive the American people would think that this makes a lot of sense, it makes common sense. Instead of asking us to bring the troops home, or we cannot sustain it, they might say: Senator, we can do this, we can help and be there for as long as it takes because it is important for America to be successful.

That is the essence of the amendment. I thank my colleagues. The hour is late. I know others have to offer amendments. I thank the leader from Nevada. This will be in line for a vote tomorrow.

Mr. President, I wanted to add a couple of thoughts this morning regarding the plan for nation building in Iraq. I had supported vigorously the amendment by Senator Dorgan last evening, but because of the time constraints I was not able to speak on that particular amendment. I plan to offer a similar amendment--and there are others--that will try to help the Senate focus again on the opportunities and possibilities for sustaining a successful effort in Iraq--a successful effort of nation building--by shifting the burden from the American taxpayers to the Iraqi people and their great resources.

As you know, Mr. President, I supported the use of force; I supported the overthrow of that regime. I believe that a lot of the information that was given to us has proven not to be true and accurate; nonetheless, I support the effort because this was a regime that needed to be overthrown. I am also here to say and agree that in order to be successful we have to sustain a long-term commitment, not cut and run, not window dress, not put lipstick on a pig, not pretend that things are going well--but have things really go well. The verdict is still out. I am sure it is not as bad as it is portrayed by the media. Usually nothing is as bad as that. The stories tend to be one-sided in many instances. The fact is, this is a very difficult undertaking. We have undertaken it only seven times since World War II.

There is a very interesting report that I want to mention at this time. I will give more detailed comments about it later. It is an extensive Rand report just finished on nation building. The title is, ``The Inescapable Responsibility of the World's Only Superpower.'' This is bipartisan; it is not a Republican plan, not a Democratic plan. This is a bipartisan American view of this issue, a very balanced approach. It says, basically, there are seven lessons that we have learned since Germany and our successful Marshall plan effort. I will read excerpts from them quickly and talk about it later.

It says that:

Multilateral nation-building is more complex and time-

consuming than a unilateral approach. But the multilateral

approach is considerably less expensive for individual

participants.

So there are tradeoffs. We are doing this in a more unilateral way. I don't necessarily have a problem with that. I understand we have made efforts to reach out to our multinational partners, and we have not been able to reach agreement. Sometimes the United States has to lead alone and lead decisively. I am, for one, not opposed to that. I just understand that it is more expensive. So let's find a way to pay for it. Further, the report says:

Multilateral nation-building can produce more through

transformations and greater regional reconciliation than can

unilateral efforts.

That is an argument for multilateral involvement. It also says:

Unity of command is essential. . . .

I believe unity of command is one element we have to preserve in Iraq. It seems as though we are on the path to that end. There are problems, though, that this report points out. One of them is:

There appears to be an inverse correlation between the size

of the military stabilization force and the level of

casualties.

In other words, the more troops and peacekeepers you have on the ground, the less soldiers you lose. One of the objectives I have as a Senator from Louisiana is to lose as few soldiers as possible.

I want to show you a picture--of course, we are touched by many pictures that we see, but I hope the cameras can pick up SGT Rich Armstrong of Lynchburg, VA. This man is not from Louisiana but from Virginia, right across the river. He is a staff sergeant who is saying goodbye to his wife Beth and his 8-month-old daughter Olivia. I hope this soldier can be brought back home so he can spend the rest of his life with his daughter and wife.

This is not about campaigns or politics. This is about trying to lay down the best plan to bring these soldiers home. The more troops you have there and the more police you have there, the less soldiers will come home either wounded or ``not'' at all.

This reports goes on to say:

Neighboring states can exert significant influence, for

good or bad. It is nearly impossible to put together a

fragmented nation if its neighbors try to tear it apart.

One of the amendments in the House, I thought, took us a step backward. It took aid away from neighboring states, when we need to encourage them to help in this effort.

I continue to quote:

Accountability for past injustices can be a powerful

component of democratization. Such accountability can be

among the most controversial aspects of any nation-building

endeavor, however, and therefore should be attempted only if

there is a deep and long-term commitment to the overall

operation.

My contention is that we are going to be there as long as we need to be, but the American people are not going to sacrifice their children or grandchildren's education, or the solvency of the Social Security trust fund, unless we find a better way to pay for it. If we do, then we can be there not just for 2 or 3 years, but like this Rand study says:

None of our cases were successfully completed in less than

seven years.

So one of my questions is, How many times is the administration going to come back and ask us to forego college education for our children, support for public schools, and the establishment of a good health care system in Louisiana to rebuild Iraq, when we have the resources in Iraq to do it; when the people of Iraq, in partnership with the United States--friends and allies in a strong partnership--using our know-how and their resources, can rebuild the country? This is not new; this is not Mary Landrieu's idea. We did this during the Marshall plan. We used Germany's coal reserves. It was one of the principles of the Marshall plan--how to rebuild Europe. Thank goodness we were dealing with a country--Germany, the aggressor in that situation--that had vast coal reserves. It was one of the reasons we could build the Marshall plan. That was very different

from this. The Marshall plan said that for every dollar the donor nation put in, the recipient nation would put up one. It structured a bipartisan, comprehensive, sustainable program.

What this administration is doing, even if this bill passes this week, is not sustainable because the people in your States and in my State are not going to dig down, putting the debt on the American taxpayers to pay for this. The one way to do it correctly is to use the great oil resources. This is not my idea. This is not just something based on the Marshall plan.

I will show you what Paul Wolfowitz said. Paraphrasing, he said the oil revenues of that country could bring between $50 billion and $100 billion over the course of the next 2 or 3 years. He said that we are dealing with a country that can really finance its own reconstruction, and relatively soon. This is not the Democratic leadership, Mr. President, and this is not Senator Landrieu saying that; that is Paul Wolfowitz, on March 27, 2003.

Let's see what Vice President Cheney said only a year ago. People say, what is the confusion? Why are we not using the oil resources? It is not because it was a bad idea. The administration put forward this idea. Yet for some reason they have changed their minds.

Paraphrasing this, Tim Russert said every analysis said this war would cost about $80 billion for the recovery of Baghdad, perhaps of Iraq, about $10 million. Vice President Cheney said he can't say that, and that in Iraq we have a nation that has the second largest oil reserves in the world, second only to Saudi Arabia. He said it would generate billions of dollars a year in cashflow if they get back to their production of roughly 3 million barrels a day in the relatively near future.

That was before the war. That is the plan the people were told. We would use the oil. Now we have to use our kids' trust funds for college. It is not right.

Let me show the amount of oil that is in Iraq. I know something about this because Louisiana produces a lot of oil. If we export from Iraq 1 million barrels a day, that is $8 billion a year at $22 a barrel. The range for OPEC is $22 to $29. These are using the most conservative figures. If we would get up to 10 million barrels a day--it is not only possible, it is likely--we could be generating in Iraq $80 billion.

Why would the American people be picking up the tab when the Iraqis have their own resources, building pride, dignity, independence? Why? I don't understand it. Maybe someone else has their eyes on the profit.

I think the Iraqi people should benefit from their reserves. I think the American taxpayers should benefit from these reserves, not a handful of companies, if that is the idea. I am not saying it is, but we are very confused about why the administration said they wanted to use oil and now they don't.

I have an article titled ``Iraqi Plans to Increase Oil Output in 2004.'' This article was in the Wall Street Journal this morning. This is quicker than they thought. Trust me, horizontal drilling and new technologies can produce a lot of wealth.

I am going to finish this speech later in the day. The question Louisianans have is, Why can't we use the resources and riches of that nation to help rebuild it and stabilize democracy in a part of the world that desperately needs it?

I thank the Chair.

I yield to the other side, and I reserve the 2\1/2\ minutes for closing this morning on our side.

If that is the understanding, I have to ask the Chair-- I know the time was equally divided--was it also established which side would speak in the last 2 minutes?

Then I will take those 2 minutes.

That is acceptable. The next 10 minutes will be for Senator McConnell, and I will then take the 2\1/2\ minutes that is remaining.

Mr. President, there is hardly any point that my colleague from Kentucky so ably made this morning that I disagree with, or that most people on this side--not all but most--would disagree with. The issue is not whether we can stay and finish the job. Obviously, we have to do that, for any number of reasons, for our own security, for the stability of the region. We are a powerful nation that makes promises and keeps promises. That is not the question.

The question is, How should we pay for it? This administration has basically said it is our way or the highway: no loans, no modification of the tax cut, and no oil revenues can be used. The President is telling the American people, and the Republican leadership is saying to the American people, basically, that there is only one way to pay for this, and it is to dig deeper into our own basic deficit: borrow against our children's trust funds, borrow against paying for schools, hospitals, or colleges, and pay for it by increasing the deficit to our children and grandchildren.

Some of us are saying there is a better way. We could lend the money and establish a way for Iraq to build itself out of its own situation with our help and support, not by indebting Iraq, but by freeing up their natural resources to pay for a reconstruction that can sustain itself.

The point I want to make is there is no quick fix for nation building. The Rand study, a balanced independent study--they are not Democrat or Republican--says no previous case of nation-building was successfully completed in less than 7 years.

We will need something that we can sustain. This is a democracy in the United States, not a dictatorship. The people will need to support this effort. They are not going to support going into greater debt. They are not going to support having our children make sacrifices for Iraq's reconstruction. If someone has to make sacrifices, let the adults in this country make the sacrifices, not the children. And our greatest generation has already made enough sacrifices, let's not rob their social security trust fund.

This is a chart depicting Iraq. This is the southwestern portion of the country. We have not even explored for oil there and the experts-- again, Louisiana knows something about oil because we have a lot of it--say there is more oil in the southwest section than here. Here are the fields. They are not even fully developed. This has not even been explored, yet the President wants us to use the Social Security trust fund instead of these reserves. I think that is wrong. I think there is a better way.

I yield the floor.

On rollcall vote 382, I voted yea. It was my intention to vote nay. Therefore, I ask unanimous consent that I be permitted to change my vote since this will not affect the outcome.

Mr. President, the amendment establishes the Iraq Reconstruction Finance Authority. The amendment states the United States will not commit further grants toward Iraq's reconstruction beyond the $20.3 billion requested by the President. Any further monetary commitments by the United States should be secured through the Iraq Reconstruction Finance Authority using Iraq's revenues from oil production. This amendment does not cut the $20.3 billion requested by President Bush.

There can be no doubt that America must participate in Iraq's reconstruction. However, direct grants are not the only means of providing reconstruction dollars.

RAND reports that U.S. post-war reconstruction efforts in seven conflicts since World War II have averaged 7 years in duration. We must develop a sustainable means of financing Iraq's reconstruction. The American people will not support giving money to Iraq for 7 years when Iraq possesses well over 112 billion barrels of oil, valued at least $2.5 trillion at $22 a barrel, that could be used to finance Iraq's reconstruction. RAND and the World Bank report Iraq's reconstruction will cost at least another $36 billion. The Institute of International Finance says the price tag will hit $75 billion. Ambassador Bremer testified before the Appropriations Committee that the administration will ask for little or no money next year for Iraq's reconstruction, yet non-partisan studies indicate more funding will be necessary.

Conservative estimates say Iraq has 112 billion barrels of oil in its reserve, with possibly the same amount undiscovered. Conservative estimates say Iraq will generate $28 billion in oil revenues in 2004, 3.5 million barrels at $22 a barrel. Oil closed at $32 a barrel last night. Iraq is capable of generating billions in revenue each year so that Iraq can be a partner with the United States and the international community in its own reconstruction.

What worked in the Marshall plan should work in Iraq's reconstruction. Germany's vast coal resources were pledged to secure the matching requirements of the U.S. Government contained in the Marshall plan.

Will the Senator yield?

Will the Senator yield for a question?

I believe we have 1\1/2\ minutes. I wanted to ask the Senator----

I ask unanimous consent to speak for 5 minutes.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Madam President, last night the Senator from Idaho, Mr. Craig, and I were pleased to host, as cochairs of the Congressional Coalition on Adoption--with two of our colleagues from the House, Congressman Oberstar and Congressman Camp, and with the help of over 70 congressional offices--a celebration of the fifth annual Angels in Adoption Campaign.

I wanted to take a few minutes to speak about what a wonderful evening it was. Last night there were angels surrounded by stars on Pennsylvania Avenue as we celebrated and honored 165 individuals from 48 States for their work on behalf of children. Seventy Members of Congress and a total of almost 1,000 individuals were there as we awarded the national awards to Mohammad and Lanni Ali, who appeared in person. He is challenged with his physical abilities right now so we were so pleased to have him. Bruce Willis, who is the national spokesperson for foster care children, as asked by President Bush, was also with us.

The Angels in Adoption Campaign is a very powerful way of celebrating the miracle of adoption. We do work right on the Senate floor, through all of our work individually and collectively, to make the dream of adoption possible for so many children in the United States, as well as internationally.

From Louisiana we were pleased to be joined by Beverly Lewis of Alexandria. She was nominated and received an award because she, as a single mother but with a wonderful career, adopted three children from Russia and is now fostering an 8-year-old girl. Pam Bolke of Baker was nominated by my colleague, Senator Breaux. After reading a newspaper article about two young girls who had been abused, she and her husband stepped up and adopted the two little girls. Although they were filled with rage, they are now growing to be beautiful, loving little girls because they have unconditional love.

Louise Bourne of Lafayette was nominated by Chris John from our State. And I will submit the details of that for the Record. And Karen Caldwell of New Orleans, who was nominated by Congressman David Vitter, joined us last night.

As you can see, we had from the State of Maine many individuals, and from almost every State in the Union, because the Senators in this Chamber took it upon themselves--the Senator from Nevada joined us; Senator Bill Frist from Tennessee was with us--to seek out someone in their State, ordinary individuals but doing extraordinary work. Truly it was a wonderful evening to celebrate.

I will submit for the Record all of the angels, 165 individuals from 48 States, who were honored. They all received, besides a standing ovation from all of us, the beautiful angels pin I am wearing today and went home inspired and encouraged to do more for adoption.

It is an area on which we can agree, Democrats and Republicans. There is little disagreement among us on this issue. We have thousands of children in the United States waiting to be adopted, children whose rights have been terminated or the parental rights have been terminated. We have waiting in the United States over 100,000 children of all ages. I will submit those numbers for the Record.

I see my colleague from Idaho, Senator Craig. I thank him publicly for all of his leadership and the great work he did to make last night and the work that our coalition does truly bipartisan and truly effective.

I will.

We look forward to a great year.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to print in the Record the following information which I referenced in my remarks.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to print the following letter from Paul Strauss, District of Columbia ``shadow'' Senator.

Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Ohio who has been a great partner in this effort. He and I share a great deal of pride in the underlying bill. It was built and crafted with a tremendous amount of bipartisan support.

As he mentioned, one of the cornerstones and key provisions is a push, an initiative, to help support, change, and transform the foster care system in the District. Although it is not a Federal responsibility directly, as the District of Columbia, and as a major city in our country, we hope to have a model that is beneficial not only to the District and the residents in the region but also a model that shines as a bright line around the country as jurisdictions all over the country, including many jurisdictions in Louisiana, are struggling with this same question of how to give the taxpayers the accountability they deserve, how to give the parents and families the respect they deserve, and how and when to step in and separate children, for their own protection, safety, and health, from a family situation that is disintegrating or dysfunctional and try to heal the situation, reunite the child with the family, or, if that cannot happen, move that child through a temporary nurturing foster care situation until that child can either be reunited with the family or placed with an adoptive family.

I commend the District leadership publicly for the improvements that have been made, although we are a long way from where we need to go. With Senator DeWine's leadership, we were able to put millions and millions of dollars in last year's bill--as I recall, somewhere around $70 million--for a new court system to redesign the superior court, to actually identify--and Senator DeWine and Senator Durbin led this effort--and design a special court for domestic cases, for family cases, for child welfare cases, so hopefully we now have coming into play one judge--one child and one judge, one family, so children do not get lost between courtrooms or their files are not lost between social workers. We have one team, one judge working with the child for good resolution.

It takes not only good planning but it takes money. It takes resources. The mayor and the locals have stepped up to increase their budgets. We have stepped up to try, even with things as tight as they are, to find additional funding to support that foster care reform. That includes the courts, in getting the social worker ratios tighter so we do not have 1 social worker for every 50 children but 1 social worker for a manageable 15, 20, or 30, which is still a heavy caseload.

Those are two of the important initiatives. Having the right kind of database, having the right kind of people step to the plate to become foster care parents, to promoting adoption as a way to move children to a permanent, loving home--that takes the cooperation of the social workers, the families, the extended family, and the court.

All of those initiatives are funded in this bill to some degree--not to the extent, of course, that we would like but I think to the extent we can begin to see some real headway in terms of improvement for the children of the District.

There are anywhere from 6,000 to 8,000 children ranging in age from infants to 18 to 21 who need this assistance. The chairman has also been very eloquent regarding the needs of children aging out of the system, children who were taken away from their parents, where parental rights were terminated, and the system we created failed to find that child a new family. So at the age of 18 or 21, the child ages out and is literally handed a plastic bag with a few pieces of clothing and not much else other than good luck, good wishes, and goodbye.

That, of course, is not sufficient. In this bill and other efforts this Congress

is making, we are trying not only to help children aging out of the foster care system in the District of Columbia but all over the Nation. There are 25,000 such young children who age out each year. There are exciting projects underway to help these young people despite the fact that they got a short straw in terms of the way their first 21 years of life went. We are hoping to step in, in a more comprehensive way, and give these young people opportunities for college, for skill development, for social development.

Of course, all the money in the world spent on the back end is not worth the effort that could be in the front end regarding prevention. That is what Senator DeWine has so correctly done and why I support him in his efforts.

Now a word on the school reform proposal being considered and debated. There were a number of points I tried to make on this proposal Friday. I agree with Senator DeWine; we should have our Members present amendments to try to get some sort of idea in terms of time. Perhaps we will have today and tomorrow to discuss this issue. Senator Durbin and a few other Senators on our side will have amendments to lay down.

One of the issues I will discuss is the issue of choice. It was one of the goals of Leave No Child Behind, and an important goal. It was not the central goal. It was not the underlying goal. It was a desirable goal. The goal of Leave No Child Behind was excellence through accountability--excellence for the children in the public school system and accountability to their parents and taxpayers who pick up the tab for that system.

In that legislation, we laid down many ways that jurisdictions can provide more choices for students all over this country, for the millions and millions and millions of children who are in public education. We want real choices, not false choices. I am afraid some voucher proponents who continue to talk about vouchers for private schools say the real issue is choice. It is not choice; it is real choice. It is informed choice. It is not just choice. And it is affordable choice.

Senator Carper and I, in one of eight points in an amendment we have discussed, tried to point out to the proponents that the $7,500 voucher, while it sounds like a lot of money--and $7,500 is a lot of money--the average private school tuition in the District of Columbia is $10,800. We are trying to point out, as written in the proposal being considered, there is no guarantee that $7,500 voucher would actually get a child into the school of their choice for that amount of money because the school of their choice might have a tuition of $20,000 or $18,000 or $12,000.

One of the aspects of our amendment is, if you are for choice, then be for a real choice; make the voucher real, not fake. We have been criticized as having a filibuster on the cheap. I say that proposal is like vouchers on the cheap.

It is not going to work if the tuition is $20,000 or $15,000 or $12,000. The proponents want to say the taxpayers should be prepared to pick up whatever to give a real choice. Well, that is an expensive whatever. But the opponents want to say we will pick up a voucher for a child to go to a private school, then pick it up. That is what I say. Pick it up. Why stop at $7,500?

One of the parts of our amendment is to have the voucher basically be accepted by the private school--this is all voluntary on the private schools' part, which is a very good part of the underlying bill. This is not mandatory. No private school has to participate, and there would be many reasons, as written in many newspapers in the country, why many private schools in the District would not want to participate. If they are going to participate, they would have to follow certain guidelines--not cumbersome and, in my mind, not anything that would be very difficult to follow--again, just trying to meet the minimum accountability standards. But if we are going to give children a choice, let's give them a real choice and not vouchers on the cheap, No. 1.

No. 2, one of the most important things about creating any system of choices, whether you create more choice in a public school or more choice for children to go to private schools, is to have informed choices. I would think that we could be spending more money--or more effort and money than we are, and I would be surprised that the proponents who have argued for choice, choice, choice, have not put forward a proposal to try to help the parents of the District of Columbia to have more informed choices about the choices they have now, which is completely public school choice.

In order to make good choices--as we have seen, the choices you make are only as good as the information you have with which to make them. We are experiencing this with our foreign policy as we speak. If your information is not as secure and as thorough and deep and as tight as you would like it, maybe sometimes the choices you make would be different if you had the right kind of information. It is the same thing about public schools and about school choice. If you could have a consumer report, like many of us get for the appliances that we purchase, you could tell what kind of washing machine or dryer you would like, or what car you would like to buy. It is quite easy. Not only can you view the product in a number of different locations without a lot of pressure, but you can read in detail about the way the product carries out its work or the way the product functions. The same effort should be underway here.

That is one of the things that Leave No Child Behind put forward in its reform effort, trying to help improve choices, increase choices but informed choices, and why is there now a report card, a report, accountability? It is so parents can know. If I have a choice to send my child to this or that school, it is not just walking in the front door and shaking hands with a few individuals and observing if the school looks like it is in good repair and observing the children in the school; but it is also looking a little beneath the surface. What are the teacher/parent ratios? How large are the classrooms? Is my child getting this kind of attention? What do the records show? How many children have become national merit scholars at this school? How many things do parents want to know about their children? If we are interested in choice--of which I am a strong supporter, which is why I have supported charter schools and this kind of accountability and information--then I would think that the voucher proponents would be interested in that kind of information.

But, again, the amendment we have discussed, laid down--the necessity of gathering that kind of information and evaluation, not telling the public schools what they have to do, or ratios, but reporting mechanisms that would allow parents to make wise choices and would also allow the taxpayer who is picking up this tab to have some sense of whether their money was being used for a good purpose or not. Maybe the taxpayers would have a different view. But no matter what we do, whether we have a voucher that goes--which I have argued goes only to children in failing schools, not a broad-based voucher--to have an opportunity to put the system in place for those children to leave that school and to move to a different school, you are going to have to have better information than the proposal that is before us. So the issue of basically voucher on the cheap choice might sound good but it is not real unless you have the right kind of information.

The third point I wish to make is this. My colleague just said this, and you could argue--and I hate to argue with him on any point because he and I have agreed on so many issues for this bill. But I have to take issue with one statement, and he is not the only one who said it. The other Senators have talked about the concept of extra money or new money. This $40 million that exists in the Senate bill, which is a third for vouchers, a third for charters, a third for traditional public schools, is not new tax dollars. There was no new revenue stream created to pay for this. Part of the money came from the Defense allocation. Part of the money came from Commerce-State-Justice and part of it came from the allocation for the District of Columbia. So this money has come from other places in the budget to come to the District of Columbia. It is not new money. It was here before. It is here now. It is just now shaped for this education initiative.

I agree that the District should get $40 million for a demonstration project

for any number of reasons. I don't agree with all of the details of the voucher proposal, but I hope we can stop saying this is new money because, in my mind, unless there was a proposal like everybody is going to pay one more dollar for their parking tickets or one more penny for sales tax or everybody is going to pay one more something, it is not new money; it is coming from somewhere else to fund this initiative--not from the education budget, that is true, but it is coming from other budgets.

The Wall Street Journal writes about this every week in a very critical way of my position. I say to them, as they wrote again today, several of us who have supported the modification, they want to remind me--they say:

Senator Landrieu should remind herself that this is extra

education money.

Let me say to the Wall Street Journal and to any other newspaper that would be reporting on this, I don't know if you can convince any educator in America that there is any extra money anywhere for education. I don't think you could argue with any educator anywhere and say there is extra money. People may say we are spending too much in this area, and our money is not being spent well, so let's move it and repair schools; or we have too much money in the repair school budget, so let's move it to buy computers; or we have great computers but we don't have the teachers who have the training to operate the computers and to teach them, so let's take that money and move it. But I don't know anybody who thinks there is extra money in education, and especially extra money for a program that doesn't accomplish the goals that you have outlined and doesn't meet the objectives of Leave No Child Behind.

I will have some other things to say about this article as the day proceeds. I wanted to talk for a minute about the concept of new money, extra money, about choice and the difference between real choice, informed and uninformed choices, and, again, the issue of vouchers on the cheap, because $7,500 will not get many children in the District much because the schools here are quite expensive--not just in the District but in the region and throughout the country. There are many expensive schools that are much more than $7,500.

If we are going to try to help children who are in failed public schools to get a real informed choice, then at least give them a voucher that will get them through the front door and they will not have to go out and have a bake sale in their neighborhood to get the extra money to go because that is not a real choice.

Those are the comments I wanted to make. There are other Senators who will be coming to the floor to speak. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I think the previous comments by our distinguished colleague from Utah merit a brief response. Again, I thank the chairman of the committee, my colleague from Ohio, for being so cooperative on this issue. As I often say, there is usually no disagreement between us, and this is an unusual situation where we have a slightly different viewpoint on this particular education measure.

In reference to what the Senator from Utah said, I would like to make a couple of points.

No. 1, I think part of the argument which he presented was that opponents to this voucher plan fail to accept the fact that the Mayor of the District of Columbia asked for vouchers.

I want to again reiterate for the record that at no time, to my knowledge--and I have talked with the Mayor privately; I have heard him speak publicly; I have been at any number of meetings; I have heard his testimony; and I have read his testimony--did he come to the Congress and to the President to ask for voucher money. He came to ask for money for help with his school system and said he would be open to a variety of different suggestions.

The administration said--and wisely when we passed Leave No Child Behind--no to vouchers for about 10 or 15 good reasons. It said: Mr. Mayor, we are happy basically to help, but you have to take a portion of this in voucher money. The original proposal was, as I said, $10 million in vouchers only, broad-based vouchers, no help for public schools, no help for charter schools, and vouchers to private schools.

No mayor should be blamed for wanting to have additional money for schools--additional money which is not coming out of his budget, it is not extra to us, it is not new money to the Federal Government, but it is new money to the District--no mayor should be blamed for wanting to have additional funding. So the Mayor said basically: I believe in our charter school program, and I believe in our transitional program for public schools. So I will basically take the vouchers portion and make it the best I can.

If the Mayor has a different position, I would like to hear that. But that is my general understanding. I have said that again. The reason that is important is because part of the amendment that Senator Carper and I wanted to lay down to clarify is one of the major issues in this debate, which is that some of us don't mind having a demonstration program if it is done in the right way for the District of Columbia. But under no circumstances do we want every mayor in this country--or every Governor or every school board president or every reform leader-- to think they have to come to Washington to ask for new money or additional money. The only way they are going to get it is if they give a portion of it to private schools for private school vouchers. We don't think there should be a Federal presence. I don't think there should be a Federal mandate, and certainly no Federal contingency, and in this proposal there is.

That is not right.

The hiding behind and saying the Mayor asked, the Mayor asked--I will tell you the Mayor asked, just as every mayor in the country is asking for help, and every Governor is asking for help, and every school board president is asking for help. Why? Because we raised the bar pretty high on them. We said if 50 percent of your teachers aren't certified by 2006, they have to be certified. We said we realize that you don't have a 100-percent graduation rate. By X time--not mandated but unified--you are going to have to improve your graduation rate or else; and your testing scores, or you are going to have to close your schools and reorganize.

I supported that accountability. I am not complaining that we did that, although the responsibility now is very great on the local level.

I also supported additional funding that would go along with those reforms. Unfortunately, this administration passed a law that left a lot of the funding, basically, on the cutting-room floor. It is not going to get to the communities around this country and in the District of Columbia itself. It fell short by $21 million.

Yes. The mayor asked for help, but he didn't ask for vouchers.

The second thing I want to say is that I agree with my colleague from Utah. That is one of the reasons I supported a middle-of-the-road, if you will, principled compromise, suggesting to the administration that if we really want to have a demonstration project, then I would be--as one of the cosponsors of this historic No Child Left Behind Act, not all Democrats, not all Republicans--most certainly interested in a true demonstration program that lasts for 5 years where the money was divided a third, a third, and a third between charter schools, public schools under improvement, and then, perhaps for children in failing schools to go into other opportunities in this District of Columbia, if the accountability were there and if the measurements were tight enough to show that truly at the end of 5 years we are making any progress.

The reason I think that is compelling is because the situation in Milwaukee--the ``test'' in Milwaukee that has been underway for 13 years with private school choice and private school vouchers--is still inconclusive. The taxpayers in Milwaukee and in the United States want to know whether their taxpayer money is resulting in better academic achievement. There is some evidence to suggest that parents are more satisfied, and that is most certainly a worthy goal. We want parents to be satisfied with their children's education as consumers. But that is not the central focus of Leave No Child Behind. The central focus is academic excellence through accountability so that we can have a school system with as much choice, as much opportunity, and as much transparency for the taxpayer to see if we really get our money's worth through our school system.

If we are going to have a test, the amendment that Senator Carper and I offer would basically guarantee that at the end of 5 years we would be able to say definitively there are voucher proponents who do not want to know whether a voucher works or not because they are not interested in the accountability portion. They are just interested in the choice or the freedom portion. As long as people have choices, as long as parents generally are happy, what does it matter if their children are failing? If they had real choices and if they could go anywhere with money and informed decisions, that might be something on which we could rely. But they do not have informed choices because the system doesn't allow for that kind of information. It is the same as if you are going to buy a car or an appliance. The vouchers are sort of vouchers on the cheap. You don't really get a voucher to go anywhere you want. Some of these schools cost $20,000. Some of these schools cost $15,000. The voucher they propose doesn't really give you that choice. It is a false choice based on absent information.

But the final point that the Senator from Utah made warrants some comments as well. I have been searching for a way to describe this and to answer. I actually found a better way than I could have written myself in the newspaper last Friday. It is written by Jarvis DeBerry, an African-American columnist who has written on this exact question.

Why not save a few, if you can? That was the story spoken of so eloquently by the Senator from Utah about walking along the sand and saving a starfish and being questioned: Why are you wasting your time? At least I can save one.

I actually happen to agree with that philosophy. But I would like to read this article into the Record because it answers it in a way which I think helps frame this debate.

It is entitled, ``Vouchers No Way Out of a Failing Society.''

It is not too long. I think I have the time to read it here.

He says:

If you had a child at a failing school, which person would

you look toward for help? Harriet Tubman or Frederick

Douglass?

Let me state the question another way: If you had a child

at a failing school, would your primary concern be helping

your child escape or making sure the schools were improved so

that escape would no longer be necessary?

I understand that the question has the effect of reducing

Tubman and Douglass to one-dimensional characters: One who

escaped slavery, then subsequently worked for freedom by

plucking slaves from bondage one by one; the other who also

escaped but then became famous for taking the podium and

urging the country's leaders to live up to the written

promise of freedom and justice.

But what about a better way to illustrate the crossroads at

which many black people stand? Is it better to take one's

promising child out of the system or stay put and make

sure that the system gets better for everybody?

Judging from the attacks that have been aimed at Sen. Mary

Landrieu by a group called D.C. Parents for School Choice,

it's clear that her opponents want black people to believe

that Landrieu is indifferent to black people's interests.

Why? Because she sends her children to the tony Georgetown

Day and hasn't supported a voucher program that would give

about 2,000 D.C. families $7,500 each they could use towards

tuition and private parochial school.

It further states:

. . . the woman leading the charge against vouchers in D.C.

is black, as is the woman who's pushing for them. The

argument that support for vouchers is the more authentically

black position is usually made by folks who aren't black.

And what those people usually fail to comprehend is this:

While deep down nobody wants a life of poverty and

oppression, escaping such a fate often brings with it its own

kind of guilt. Why do you think so many young black men who

come into money are determined to ``keep it real'' or that

poor black people destined for success are admonished to

``Remember where you came from?''

Because solo success seems empty. After she escaped from

slavery, Harriet Tubman would have been perfectly justified

if she'd never returned to the South. But she made 19 trips

back and helped about 300 people escape. The fact that she

had to pull out her pistol to keep some escapees on track

used to make me think that the people at the end of her

pistol were cowards.

But now I wonder if some of them were simply eaten up with

guilt because they were escaping and their loved ones

weren't.

If D.C.'s voucher program is to give private tuition money

to 2,000 students, it does not seem to me to be anti-black to

worry about the fate of the other 66,000 or so students who'd

be left behind.

But would I try to keep an individual student from trying

to escape to a better school? No, I wouldn't. Even though

that person's departure would further weaken an already

struggling school, and I know vouchers for everybody would

not be possible.

This might sound like an argument for the scholarship plan, but I make two points: One, this columnist is writing about moving children out of failing schools, not just any school. And he is talking about only 2,000 slots, allowing children to move out of a system that is not their fault. That is not what this proposal does. This proposal is not limited to children in failing schools.

Although some people argue we should not allow children to move out, I have not. I have argued that under certain carefully crafted circumstances, children could move out while we are fixing the system. But the problem with some voucher proponents is they focus on moving children out and not helping the children still there.

As I have pointed out in this debate, although the proponents say they support charter schools and public schools, there is no guarantee that money will be divided the way it is represented. They state their intention, but there is no guarantee until the administration, the President, comes forward saying there will be no bill because I will veto it if there is not help for the kids left behind. Then the great efforts underway for reform, as well as giving these few 2,000 students an opportunity to a higher performing school; we actually know it is higher performing because we have accountability--the proposal pending before the Senate--continues to have many deficiencies.

Again, Jarvis lays out in this article a key question to the debate. While fixing the public school system--and it is a system that needs fixing--it is not to be unaccounted for. It is clear how much work needs to be done in fixing that system, but it is being fixed. Some who have been working for 25 years to try to fashion the public spirit and focus for fixing the system--some, not all--have also come to the idea that if there are a few spots in schools that are available for these children and it can be done in a fair way with the right kind of evaluation and the right kind of parameters, am I going to stand in the way of a few children getting an opportunity? Not this Senator. There are other Senators who have a different view.

But to say that because I am of that position, that I should be for a whole system of vouchers, which is what this voucher proposal is, hiding behind a DC demonstration project, then absolutely no.

I ask unanimous consent that this article be printed in the Record. I hope it answers points raised.

Mr. President, I also have some letters from other African-American leaders in the District who are opposed to the voucher plan, most notably the DC Delegate to Congress, Congresswoman Norton, who gives a long and detailed explanation of why she is opposed.

Particularly of interest in her letter:

First, the city has the largest number of public charter

schools per capita in the nation.

She continues:

Charter schools are so popular here with residents that

they have long waiting lists, and many are housed in

inadequate facilities and need federal funds.

I am pleased to say part of this proposal is, in fact, for charter schools, except we have no guarantee the administration would veto anything if charter schools were not in the proposal. We are waiting for clarification.

I ask unanimous consent to have this letter printed in the Record.

Parents United for D.C. Public Schools sent a long letter opposing the use of precious dollars--although they are new to the District, they are not new dollars to the Federal Treasury--saying they would prefer to use that money in other ways. Their letter warrants a great deal of thought and I ask unanimous consent it be printed in the Record.

And from Kathy Patterson, who represents Ward 3, I have another thoughtful letter. She states in her letter:

There are several other education reforms proposed

previously in the District of Columbia schools. I urge you to

consider one of these alternatives when the D.C.

appropriation comes before the Senate.

Pre-kindergarten education. Today, District of Columbia

policymakers allocate sufficiently locally generated tax

revenues to provide pre-kindergarten education for roughly

half of the 4-year-olds in the city. Many of us view

expansion of pre-K education to ALL district 4-year-olds as a

top priority for funding. . . .

Not one of the priorities, it is a top priority.

So, again, we can understand why voucher opponents would say why are we so intent on taking this $10 to $13 million to spend on a voucher program, not limited to children in failing schools, saying it is a demonstration project but not really having the evaluation mechanisms to support that contention when you could ask a broad range of liberal to conservative, the whole range of people, what would be the most important thing we could do for education in the District. It would be to fund pre-K and early childhood education. Why? Because we know the benefits of quality early childhood education.

She goes on to say the second great use of this money would be additional bilingual schools.

The Oyster Bilingual Elementary School provides an

excellent education to District children, with English and

Spanish-speaking teachers in each classroom. While Oyster is

located in my Ward, Ward 3, it serves a broad cross-section

of children throughout the District. The D.C. Board of

Education has fought to replicate the successful program in

other areas, an effort that requires additional funding. The

Congress could earmark $10 million in support of a second

bilingual elementary school within D.C. public schools.

I understand that school is about 40 percent Hispanic and Latino, perhaps 20 to 30 percent African American, and 20 to 30 percent Caucasian children. It is a diverse, excellent school with a wonderful bilingual curriculum. We could create one or two other models based on that with this money.

Finally, she discusses elementary English and math instruction, describing a well-received former initiative of a previous administration of a grant program through the Department of Education designed to provide reading specialists and math specialists to each District elementary school to strengthen instruction in these key areas. The grant was not continued.

I ask unanimous consent that letter be printed in the Record.

Yes.

Mr. President, I do have a statement of administration policy. I appreciate my colleague raising that issue. I know we are scheduled for a vote at 5:30. We only have a few more minutes for this discussion.

But as my colleague from Delaware has stated, there is a statement of administration policy that basically focuses on the $13 million voucher proposal. It does not mention charter schools. It does not mention additional funding for traditional public schools.

We subsequently received a letter from Secretary Paige after this document was presented indicating that his Department is in support of the three-sector approach. But the Senator from Delaware is correct. Until we have a more definitive statement from the administration and our Republican colleagues, even if we accept that language in this bill, there would be really no confirmation.

I have to object. I am going to have to object.

Right after the vote, we can agree to time, if the Senator wishes.

There is actually a reason. I am sorry. After the vote, we would be pleased to have the Senator speak.

Mr. President, if I may make a suggestion--Senator DeWine can speak for himself--this bill is so important and this subject is so important to so many people, I am wondering if we could just be flexible and move the discussion of DC in and out of other things, not stopping anything else that is important or would take precedence, but this issue really deserves full debate. As you know, the hours of Senate debate are not always completely and fully taken. I offer for consideration that we have time this morning, we will have time on Monday, and if the leadership wants to move to something else, we could temporarily set this aside and come back to it. There are many Members, at least on our side, who really want some time to speak about this issue. They are most certainly entitled to because it is a very important issue--not just for the District but for the Nation. I lay that out to my friend and colleague as a suggestion.

Mr. President, I want to begin by commending, as I have often, my colleague from Ohio for his leadership on this issue. It has been a joy and a privilege to work with him as we have alternated the chairmanship of this very important committee for this region and this Nation and, obviously, for the residents of the District itself. It has been a real joy to work with him. We have found a tremendous amount of common ground in the course of these few years, and I think we have made a lot of progress in some of the most complex challenges here in the District. He noted this morning the challenge, still, with the foster care system and its weaknesses, and he outlined how this committee and this Congress has worked in partnership, very closely, with all the city leaders to recognize the problems, admit them, and begin to put in the resources and the management changes necessary to make that child welfare system much better and, hopefully, a model for the Nation.

I am proud to have worked with him, along with other Senators. Senator Durbin is one, along with Senator Hutchison from Texas and others, who worked on some initial foundation work on restoring fiscal discipline, if you will, and fiscal health to the District. That is another accomplishment of which we can be very proud, both on the Democratic and Republican sides.

So as my colleague from Ohio has said, there is a lot to be proud of in this bill. There is a tremendous amount of progress that has been made, and we will continue to find common ground where we can. But there is one area of this bill where we are struggling to find common ground, and I am not sure we will be able to because principles are very important in terms of education reform and accountability.

I want to start this discussion this morning on that proposal by sharing an article that I read in the paper this morning on a completely different subject, but I think it makes the point very well.

We woke up this morning to read a headline in the New York Times on the front page. The headline says: ``Dogged Engineer Pressed NASA on Shuttle, but Rebuffs Were Constant.''

I submit this article for the Record because it is lengthy and it is very detailed, but it is excellent. I ask unanimous consent to print the article in the Record.

Mr. President, my point is, as we seek the truth in what happened with the tragedy of the crash of the shuttle, we will have to explore the tragedy in detail, and if we continue to press and focus on the details, the truth will emerge. If we continue to focus on the details and take the time, the truth will emerge, and when the truth emerges, if the truth is allowed to emerge, then the appropriate actions can be taken.

NASA, of course, says that safety is their highest priority. There is not a person I know who ever worked for NASA or who works for NASA today or who will work for NASA in the future who does not believe that safety is important.

When we explore the details, as this article does beautifully, we will be able to say: They say that, but what do they really mean? They say safety is important, but when this engineer--I believe his name is Mr. Rocha, and they go through in detail about his pleas that went unheard, his sterling reputation that was pushed aside by others who were basically ready to launch. We will find the truth.

The same is going to be true in this debate with the District of Columbia on this scholarship voucher program because the details of it are very important. The details will show us the truth about what happened.

I wish to begin by saying that my colleague from Ohio is correct in the sense that the Mayor does support this three-pronged approach. He is correct. But the way we got to this point I wish to share with my colleagues this morning.

The President offered earlier in the year in his State of the Union Address a choice initiative. The President, in his budget, basically said: Despite the fact I am not going to fully fund Leave No Child Behind, I am not going to fund it at the authorized level as promised and implied, instead, I am going to offer--his budget shows--a $75 million voucher initiative for the country, and it is going to be put-- the budget showed and the administration said--in the Health and Human Services appropriations bill. That is how this whole issue began.

The administration said one thing, but I want to focus on what the budget actually showed. The budget that was laid down showed: We are not going to fully fund Leave No Child Behind, but this administration wants to fund a choice program for the Nation and they want to fund that through the Health and Human Services appropriations bill.

The Health and Human Services appropriations bill is chaired by the Senator from Iowa and the Senator from Pennsylvania, Mr. Harkin and Mr. Specter. They together, and their staffs, basically sent word back that we would not have a voucher proposal in their bill. There was bipartisan agreement: We do not want vouchers in this bill. We do not want to support Federal vouchers. And so it was removed from that bill.

It managed to find its way into the DC appropriations bill because this bill, for better or worse, is sometimes the bill that is used to make political points instead of good public policy.

That is what the record will reflect. That is the truth, and I will submit for the Record those details as this debate goes forward.

The voucher program finds its way into the DC appropriations bill, of which committee I am the ranking member.

When the proponents of vouchers say this was the Mayor's idea, I have to comment on this for a moment. The Mayor will be able to express publicly, as he has, his position and can respond in any way, but the Mayor said--and I say this as respectfully as I can, and I think he has said this publicly--that he at no time went to the White House to ask for a voucher program. He did not say: I need money for my schools and I am convinced the voucher program will work and I would like vouchers for the District.

What happened was, this money was drifting in the budget, finding its way to DC, being pushed to DC by proponents of vouchers, and the Mayor was given a very difficult choice, which any mayor would be tempted to take, which was: Mr. Mayor, we have some money. Your school system needs help, and we are happy to give you some money, but--but--we need you to agree to a voucher component.

The Mayor, for whom I have the greatest respect for many reasons-- one, because he is an out-of-the-box thinker, he is innovative, he is gutsy, he is smart, he is honest--had a very difficult choice. As I have told him, if I were the Mayor, I am not sure I would have made a different choice than he did. But because we are Senators and not mayors, we have a respectfully different perspective.

He said: I will take the money. I will take the $40 million. I have schools that have leaky roofs. I have schools that have no computers. I have children in my schools who haven't had gym classes in 10 years. I have an obesity problem. I have children who can play music but they have no instruments. I have children who will be great in science except they have no microscopes. And I have children who can learn but I have 40 kids in a class and I need more teachers. If I were the Mayor, I would have taken the money, but I am not the Mayor.

The Mayor was forced to make a pretty difficult decision driven by voucher proponents who will not give up on the vouchers. Even though we passed Leave No Child Behind, there is a determined group of people who will not give up on vouchers. The Mayor, as best as he could--and he has my respect and admiration--at least took a really rotten proposal and crafted a three-pronged approach and said: OK, let's present it: a third for charter schools, a third for public schools, and the transitional schools, the great reforms that are underway, and, all right, I will take a third for vouchers. Then it went forth: This is the Mayor's proposal; this is what the Mayor has asked.

I hope the truth has been spoken, and if any of my colleagues want to debate those points or submit for the Record a different view or a different story, please do. But that is how we got to this point.

Every time we get on this subject, the proponents want to say this was the Mayor's idea and the Mayor is a Democrat; he is an African- American Democrat; this was his idea. I want to be clear for the record, this was not the Mayor's idea. This was the President's idea, the administration's idea laid down in a budget, rejected by the Republican chairman and a Democratic ranking member of the Health and Human Services Appropriations Subcommittee, that has made its way to the DC Appropriations Subcommittee, and then was modified to become the issue we are discussing today.

The Mayor, from his perspective, I could argue, made the best choice for his city, but that might not be the choice the Senate needs to make, for obvious reasons.

One of those obvious reasons, to anybody with an open mind, is that we should not, as a Senate or Congress, at this critical time in the funding history of education reform, in any way send any signal to any city that they

cannot get money from Washington, they cannot get new money from Washington, unless they take a voucher program.

They keep saying this is new money. One could argue that, but let's just take it as new money. The only way someone can get money is if they enter into a voucher proposal. It should be obvious to people who are following this debate that that would be an inappropriate signal, and a dangerous signal, to send out as States, cities, counties, and parishes, as in the State of Louisiana, are struggling with making decisions about how can we get more money for these reforms, where should we allocate them. They have flexibility now.

Let me say on that point that voucher proponents do not want to listen to what the truth is. They do not want to listen, but this is the truth: Under the historic bipartisan bill that, if implemented, funded, and followed, can improve schools in America, under title I dollars, under tutorial services that are in that bill, communities today can craft private school vouchers or choice in their local jurisdictions. It is not done because there are very serious and reasonable people on both sides of the debate, but local jurisdictions can do that now. The question is, Should the Federal Government have basically a mandate for vouchers over, for instance, charter schools, transitional public schools, public contract schools, or other kinds of newly innovative reforms? The answer is obviously no.

So when Senator Carper and I offered the amendment to the other side saying, look, we just cannot support a Federal mandate for vouchers-- although we as cosponsors of this important and significant legislation understand where the Mayor is coming from--would you please remove the Federal mandate, we were told no.

There is a reason: Because the voucher proponents want a Federal preference for vouchers. But they will not get it in the long run. They may have the power now to get it in the short run, but they will not get it in the long run because the people of the United States do not want a Federal mandate for vouchers. Particularly, the people of the United States--Republicans and Democrats, Independents, Black, White, Hispanic, and Asian--who support the new reforms in education do not think vouchers are a superior method to charter schools, to public school innovation, to accountability, and that was a great victory that, in my opinion, they are not willing to undo.

Another part I wish to speak about this morning is the evaluation component. The reason Senator Carper and others have argued with the vouchers-always-only-and-forever crowd, basically, is that if a scholarship program is going to be offered, recognizing that there is a tremendous amount of opposition to it on legitimate constitutional grounds--separation of church and state--but if one could manage to get through those very important issues, one of the key reasons for moving in this direction would be to demonstrate definitively whether this works.

Why is this important? Because those of us who are trying to find the ways to bring excellence to education through a public system with as much choice as possible, to every child, regardless of the kind of family or resources to which they are born, we believe strongly that this Nation can and should--and if it stays the path--do what no other nation has ever done in the world, and that is a belief that every child can learn if we provide resources for every child to learn, whether they are blind, deaf, in a wheelchair, have some disease, or they were born with incomplete mental capacity. This Nation believes no child should be left behind.

For 200 years, we have struggled through segregation times, through slavery times, through lots of times to reach that goal. We are making progress on that goal. Are there lots of problems? Yes, there are lots of problems, but we are making progress.

Those of us over the decades, way before we were in this Senate, who fought--and some in some instances died--over this principle continue to work today. So those of us who are committed to keeping our eyes on the prize--and the prize is excellence in education for every child and equity and equality, without pulling the children from the top down but by pushing all the children up--keep our eyes on that prize.

People ask me: Why, Senator, do you feel so strongly about this evaluation component? It is because I think there would be some good reason--actually, I would argue to my colleagues who are opposed to vouchers, and I respect them all for their very strong views, that if they were going to do a scholarship program, one value for the Nation would be to have a demonstration project that could show once and for all, to those who think vouchers are the greatest thing since sliced bread and to those who think it is the worst thing since the Devil himself, to come together and have the data and reason together and say it either worked or it did not work.

So when Senator Carper submitted our amendment and we said, all right, we are reluctant, but if we could do this, this evaluation has to be tight--Milwaukee has had this for 13 years. I will be submitting for the Record constant referrals to that written by almost every objective newspaper in the country. There are some that are not, but most newspapers are objective. Most of the newspapers, whether they are conservative or liberal--I am not talking about very partisan papers-- state it is inconclusive because there is no evaluation component. So we put one in our proposal that requires full and independent evaluation for the scholarship program that would include, amongst other things, a comparison of the academic achievements of scholarship students in high-performing schools and nonscholarship students attending high-performing public or charter schools.

Let me repeat that it would require a full and independent evaluation for the scholarship programs that would include, among other things, a comparison of the academic achievement of scholarship recipients in high-performing private schools and nonscholarship students attending high-performing public or charter schools, because that is what we do not know.

Let me explain what we do know. We do know if you take a poor child out of a school that is mismanaged and underresourced and put that child in a private school that is better managed and better resourced, that child will do better. It does not take a genius to know that. Anybody knows that. We don't need a study. We don't need a thing. We know it.

I will tell you what we don't know. What we don't know is, if you take a poor child and put that child in a high-performing or moderately performing private school, and then you take that same poor child and put that child in a high or moderately performing public school or a public charter school or public contract school, does that child do better or worse? That is what we need to know because what we need to know is does the scholarship itself make a difference? Does the scholarship, the act of giving the scholarship to the parent and the choice and the freedom, make a difference when all other things are controlled? Nobody in America or the world knows that.

So Senator Carper and I said we would like to know that. We would be willing, maybe, to put this debate to rest once and for all if we could commit to a rigorous evaluation by outside experts who are not from the Democratic spin room or the Republican spin room. Then maybe we could be for this. They said no.

Let me go to two more points, briefly. I see my colleague from South Dakota is here and he probably wants to speak on this, or perhaps other subjects, but there are two issues I want to hit before we move to something else.

Last night several of my colleagues came to the floor and argued for vouchers on the basis that we do this for higher education and we have one of the finest higher education systems in the world. And they are right. We are proud of our system of higher education. It has been developed over hundreds of years. People from all over the world want to come to use our higher education system. Even given some of its weaknesses, it is a pretty remarkable institution we have created.

But there is a fundamental difference between higher education and elementary and secondary education that cannot be ignored. It is one of the details that is very important to understand.

Higher education is not mandatory in the United States. If you want to go, you can go. If you don't want to go, you do not have to go. But elementary and secondary education is basically mandatory in the United States. Children have to go to school. There are some exceptions for children in home schooling, which I actually support. Some people don't, but I think home schoolers do a beautiful job over time, as long as they are held accountable, and that is true in some States. But education in this country is mandatory; at least we have to offer it. It has to be universally offered.

In America today, even considering how great our higher education system is, only 20 percent of adults have college degrees. In African- American or Hispanic populations, that may be down to 10 or 15 percent. Maybe the national average is about 20 or 25.

We would like 100 percent of children to have a high school degree. They can drop out, but our goal as a Nation is 100 percent to have a high school degree. So the systems in their essence are different.

I will say maybe the word mandatory is a little strong. It is a goal of the United States to have 100 percent of our population to have a high school degree.

So you cannot compare these systems. While choice, as I said, is desirable, with the freedom like we have in the higher education system, because we do not have a policy that says we want to provide 16 years mandatory through college, then the freedoms that can exist in higher education are very different than what the public could support or afford for elementary and secondary education.

I wanted to get that statement on the record.

I see my colleague from South Dakota who wants to speak as in morning business. I will resume the discussion of Leave No Child Behind and the scholarship tuition debate when he has concluded.

Mr. President, back to the budget of the District of Columbia, earlier this morning it was said by our friends on the other side of the aisle that perhaps we should just have a debate today and Monday and move off of this bill, indicating a permanent move off of this bill.

I argue there is certainly a way, if this body desires--and I hope they would continue this very important debate--to figure out a way to spend some quality time debating this proposal. There are many concerned Members on both sides, I am certain, based on the level of intensity and the discussions at the committee level.

Since I was chair or ranking member of those committees, I was on the front row for those debates. I am confident there are Members on both sides who want some time to talk about this issue and to debate it in full. There is no reason that could not continue for weeks, as we take up other matters and move decisively based on agreements that can be reached.

As the ranking member, I go on record to both Republican and Democratic leadership, it would be my strong suggestion we continue to debate this issue. The details are extremely important for the Nation to grasp so we can move on to education reform.

There was debate earlier regarding the District of Columbia. A lot has been said about the Mayor's position. Yesterday, Mayor Williams was in the Senate. He has been a tireless advocate for school reform in the District. He should be commended.

I will read the Mayor's own words regarding his position. I believe his position has been misconstrued by opponents of vouchers. His words will clarify his position, so I will read into the Record this morning the Mayor's comments before the Governmental Affairs Committee in the House of Representatives.

He says:

Along with city council education committee chair Kevin

Chavous [who is another very strong and respected leader in

the city for education reform] and board of education

president Peggy Cooper Cafritz [who also has done an

excellent job of leading reforms in the school district in

Washington, DC] I support a 3-sector approach that would

focus new Federal resources towards increasing the

availability of quality education options for district

students and families.

He says, I repeat, ``I support a 3-sector approach . . . ''

It does not say: ``I support a voucher-only approach.''

He says:

I support a three-sector approach that would focus new

Federal resources towards increasing the availability of

quality education options for District students and families.

This strategy would require a significant and ongoing

investment toward the following: One, the development of a

Federally funded scholarship program for students to attend

nonpublic schools; two--

And this a detail that is extremely important that has been overlooked by some and undercut by others--

a permanent and predictable support for the District of

Columbia's public schools--

``permanent and predictable support for the District of Columbia's public schools''--

targeted at leadership and instructional excellence and

student achievement; and, three, a fiscally sound and

comprehensive approach to the acquisition and renovation of

charter school facilities.

This is the Mayor's position.

He goes on:

Why a three-sector approach? The most compelling reasons

focus on fairness, the legacy of Federal/District relations,

and a strong sense that choice means the most when a number

of quality educational options is maximized. Specifically, I

mean that while DCPS faces considerable administrative and

operational challenges that transcend any particular funding

level, our public schools are paying the price of a legacy of

disinvestment and crumbling school buildings, many

constructed originally by the Federal Government. While

bearing the cost associated with both the local school

districts and a state system, the city has the tax base of

neither. As the recent GAO report documented, the city needs

ongoing assistance from the Federal Government in addressing

the structural imbalance.

So let me take the Mayor's words, the Mayor's position, to make some points.

First of all, this statement should make it clear that the Mayor himself and Councilman Chavous and education President Peggy Cooper Cafritz have soundly rejected the vouchers-only approach. Yet to this day, on the floor of the Senate, at this hour--we have now been debating this issue on and off over the last several months; not publicly in this Chamber, but this debate has been raging in committees, in conference rooms, and meetings all over America--we have not had a definitive statement from this administration that they, too, reject the vouchers-only approach and that they will protect the three- pronged approach through this process.

Let me repeat, the administration has not, to my knowledge--if they have, please, someone, send me a letter or a telegram or an e-mail that would say: Senator, you are wrong. The administration only supports a three-sector approach, we will commit to that and make that possible by using the power of the White House--which is considerable--to ensure that happens.

In fact, one of the reasons I am particularly puzzled is because yesterday the administration released a statement of policy. For every bill, as we all know, when we are debating bills, which is appropriate, the administration says to Congress: These are the things I like about your bill. These are the things I do not like about the bill. And as the system goes, if we do not get a little bit more in line, usually, with what the administration wants--whether they are Republican or Democratic Presidents--sometimes they will veto what we do. That is process. So it is important to hear from the administration about what they are thinking so we can decide if we are willing to risk a veto. So we like to get these statements. It is helpful to this process.

I hold in my hand the President's statement, and I am going to submit it again for the Record:

The administration is pleased the committee bill included

$13 million for the President's school choice initiative

fund. This innovative reform will increase the capacity of

the District to provide parents, particularly

low-income parents, with more options for obtaining a quality

education for their children who are trapped in low-

performing schools. The administration appreciates the

committee's support for strengthening the District's school

system and strongly urges the Senate to retain this

initiative.

Now, unless I missed a paragraph--and I don't think I did, because it is only two pages long, and the others go on to other issues--there is nothing here on the three-sector approach. There is no charter school language. There is no public school initiative language.

So in one hand I have the Mayor's comments, which speak of a three- sector approach, and in the other hand I have the administration's comments. That is why Senator Carper and I laid down an amendment to try to clarify this issue. To date, it has not been clarified.

In all fairness to my colleague from Ohio, he did say last night--and I believe what he said is true--that a clarifying statement is on its way. Perhaps it is here and it just has not reached me. If it is, I will be happy to submit that for the Record at any time anyone can produce it for me. But I do not have it, and neither does my staff. So that is an important point to clarify. Maybe that will be clarified as this debate goes on.

The other part of the Mayor's comments that I think sheds a lot of light on the detail of what this argument is about, and I actually agree with the Mayor--not all Democrats do--but I agree with him when he says: ``a strong sense that choice means the most when the number of quality educational options is maximized.''

Now, let me put a few things on the record that the proponents of vouchers-only want to continue to say that is fundamentally untrue. It is just untrue. What they say is, families in the District of Columbia have no choice. It is my understanding--and I am going to submit it for the Record because if I am wrong I would like to be corrected--that recently--I am not sure on what day or year--but in the last few years, under the District's reform initiatives, there is districtwide choice in public schools.

Not every jurisdiction in America has districtwide choice, but it is my understanding--and I think I am correct--that in the District of Columbia--unlike New York City or San Francisco or even New Orleans, which I am more familiar with, or Baton Rouge or Shreveport, which I am more familiar with, those cities being in Louisiana--there is widespread choice. Parents can move from school to school with greater ease. That is a very important component.

Also, it is my understanding that there are more charter schools in the District of Columbia than any other jurisdiction per capita in the Nation, with 14,000 out of the 67,000 children enrolled in public charter schools, and there are waiting lists for charter schools.

But the problem is, there has been limited money in the Federal budget. Basically, there has been limited money for charter schools, so there is a waiting list of children to get into quality charter schools. Because the funding has been short on the Federal level, and perhaps maybe short on the local level, we cannot create more charter schools.

But the answer for the proponents of vouchers is, we are not going to give additional money for charter schools. We are just going to lay down a voucher-only proposal. Clearly, the Mayor said that would not be his position.

And finally, the Mayor says in his statement:

The city needs ongoing assistance from the Federal

Government to address the structural imbalance.

So here is really the big picture that is quite troubling. This administration, instead of coming to the District of Columbia initially and saying, ``We want to help you fund your reform efforts that are underway. We want to really encourage you in terms of your charter schools. We recognize your structural deficit, and we want to help with your structural deficit,'' instead of saying, ``We acknowledge that your public schools need some additional resources,'' the administration and the House--I should say specifically the House Republican leadership--has not offered anything in the budget toward those ends.

They have offered kind words. They have offered comments. But they haven't offered anything in the budget--which is the only thing you can take to the bank, the only thing you can count on--to the District. They have offered a $10 million, now $13 million, voucher only--not just voucher only to go to kids, children in failing schools, they want to have a voucher program for children to go to any school.

Some of us wanted to work with the other side of the aisle and did work with this administration to pass Leave No Child Behind that allowed great flexibility at the local level, that encouraged and pushed for more choice within the constitutional limits, and that suggested front and foremost that quality was not only important for the student and parents but for the taxpayers who are picking up this tab. And it is a big lift for taxpayers all over this Nation, not just to help the District with its funding and the taxpayers here. But taxpayers all over this Nation pay a lot of money in property taxes and in sales taxes and in other fees associated with supporting schools. The taxpayers deserve to know if that money is resulting in a quality product. The mayor acknowledges that.

Unfortunately, the proposal, in its detail--not what is said about it but in its detail--gives no assurance for quality. There is no evaluation component that is rigorous enough. There is a modest evaluation component. But because it lacks rigor, there is no quality control in the current proposal, which is one of the reasons the mayor's position is actually, when read and understood, quite different from the voucher proposal, at least seemingly from the administration, based on their own statement, and definitely from the House Republican leadership.

I would like to read Chairman Davis's comments into the Record. He said:

Some are making a mountain out of a molehill over the fact

that this legislation authorizes funding for school choice

but not enhanced funding for DC public schools or charter

schools. The reason for this is simple. This bill deals with

authorization for a new and historic program. Authorization

for spending on DC public schools and charter schools already

exists. The debate will be over how low and how high that

spending should be.

That is what Representative Davis said. But what the Mayor says is different. What the Mayor says is that this strategy ``would require a significant and ongoing investment that is permanent and predictable.'' These are two very different positions.

Again, the Mayor of the District of Columbia:

We need a three-sector approach with predictable and

permanent support.

This is the House leadership approach: Some people are making a mountain out of a molehill. We don't really have to authorize any new, predictable, permanent funding--I am paraphrasing--for public schools and charter schools because they already exist. This debate will be simply how high or how low that spending should be.

One of the problems Senator Carper and I have, and it is a significant problem, is in recognizing this disparity. We went to our friends on the other side and said: These are totally different positions. I know what you are saying, but these are different positions. Can you clarify that for us? We would be willing, if you all would admit or agree, to not a $40 million new authorization but a $200 million authorization over 5 years. It is not just $40 million for 1 year. And the only permanent part of that $40 million is the voucher component. We said: If you want to do a 5-year program, we could even agree if you would say we are going to do $200 million over 5 years, $40 million a year for 5 years--a third, a third, and a third--so that we would have for 5 years a predictable source of Federal revenue that, no matter what happened, no matter what the underlying budgets did, no matter how big the deficit got, no matter how tough the war turned out to be, at least this demonstration project would be $200 million--a third for public schools, a third for charter schools, and a third for this new voucher program. But at the end of 5 years, we would have accomplished one great thing, and that would be a definitive answer as to whether or not scholarships work, because for the greatest school system in

the world today, our future depends on knowing that.

The rhetoric is so high on both sides, with some people saying, you will never fix public schools if you don't have vouchers, and some people saying, if you go to vouchers, you will wreck the system. Those of us who are interested in school reform and quality and the truth would be interested in funding a predictable $200 million Federal demonstration project in a city such as this, where the Mayor is supportive and several key leaders, but, let me be quick to say, in a city that has voted against vouchers and in a city with equally respectful leaders on the other side.

But our colleagues said no because they are not, to my knowledge or my view, the proponents--again, this is not my colleague from Ohio but the proponents of vouchers only, and there are some--are evidently only interested in this $10 million voucher program for the District, even in a district where the people are on record in the last referendum as voting 81 percent against vouchers. That remains a point of contention.

Let me move now to a discussion about charter schools for a moment. I will submit some more items for the Record.

There has been no disagreement between Senator DeWine and me, as the chairman and ranking member of this committee. Again, without his support, this would not be possible. The Senator from Illinois, Mr. Durbin, the Senator from Texas, Mrs. Hutchison--of course, they speak for themselves--have been leaders for charter schools as well. Without their support, the District would not be in the enviable place it is today; that is, having more students per capita having options for charter schools. So far, this very worthy and worthwhile experiment seems to be working. Most of the charter schools are doing a very good job.

In 2001, because rigorous evaluation components are in place, 99 percent of the students in the Oyster School--this is a very exciting initiative underway in the District, a bilingual, very cutting edge charter school in the Nation--are performing above basic in math and 100 percent are performing above basic in reading. This is just one example of one of the 41 charter schools that are operating in the District. It is a pre-K through sixth grade school; 362 students are attending. The students-for-teacher ratio is 11.7 students for every teacher, which is excellent. They are in the District of Columbia public schools. You can get other information from their Web page, but they have 17 percent African-American, 1 percent American-Indian, 3 percent Asian, 52 percent Hispanic, and 27 percent White students.

The details of this and the reports look excellent. This is happening all over the United States of America. This Congress has come to a point to say let's push the envelope, let's open up choice, let's create new charters, but let's do it in the public realm; and when we are spending public dollars, let's have accountability and have reports like this so the parents know, the students know, and the taxpayers know where we are getting the money we are spending.

I could not be more complimentary or excited about the fact that in our budget Senator DeWine and I have every year tried to do what we could to support this wonderful effort underway by adding some money. It hasn't been a huge amount because our budget is tight and we have limits. But in each of the budgets, we have tried to put in some money for the charter school effort. So we are not just saying we think charter schools are good; Senator DeWine and I are saying not only do we think the effort is good, but it is worthy of our support. We put our money where our mouth is, and we will continue to do that. If we can get general agreement from others to do that, perhaps we could make some progress.

Another charter school called the Tree of Life Charter School says the results were quite impressive for a second-year school. Most significant is the fact that 88 percent of the school students improved in reading. This represents the largest percentage of students showing positive gain among all charter schools this year. More than half of the students improved in math. Students showed good progress in performance levels, with 75 percent of the students performing at basic or above in math and 72 percent at basic or above in reading.

It should be noted that the majority, 91 percent of the school's population, is low income. The Tree of Life Charter School is another example of what is working in the District and what we as the Congress should continue to fund in a predictable and dependable way.

Again, that is what is missing in this proposal today. There is, in the underlying bill, money for charter schools, money for public schools, and money for vouchers. But there is no agreement, no commitment, and there are no solid statements that have been made or arrangements that have been made--which can be made--to indicate that the funding for charter schools would even happen next year. I realize that appropriations are annual. I understand that. But I also realize when this Federal Government wants to make a point about making sure that funding could be dependable, there are ways that can be done; it has been done in the past and it can be done now.

So I, for one, would be open to a limited, carefully crafted opportunity for children in failing schools to go to private schools, if there are seats available and if there is a proper evaluation. I find it extremely disconcerting that in this proposal there is not a similar commitment to charter schools and, as a result, at this point it is one of the reasons I am unable to support the proposal. There are many other reasons.

Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.