District of Columbia Appropriations Act, 2004

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2004

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will resume consideration of H.R. 2765, which the clerk will report.

The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

A bill (H.R. 2765) making appropriations for the government of the District of Columbia and other activities chargeable in whole or in part against the revenues of said District for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2004, and for other purposes.

Pending:

DeWine/Landrieu Amendment No. 1783, in the nature of a substitute.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio.

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, we are back on the District of Columbia appropriations bill. It is my hope that we will, within the next several days, be able to conclude our deliberations on this bill.

This bill, as we have discussed at length already, is a very positive bill. Senator Landrieu and I have worked on it with the help of the other members of the committee. It does a great deal for the children of the District of Columbia. One of the things Senator Landrieu and I are both proud of is the work it does for the foster care system, a system that has truly been broken in the District. The District of Columbia has had some serious problems in regard to its foster care system. The Washington Post and other news media outlets have reported time and again about the foster care system. This legislation, for the first time, commits the Federal Government to try to assist in the repair of the system.

The bill also continues the work of the Congress with the District to deal with some very severe infrastructure problems—a sewer problem, for example.

It also addresses the school problem in the District of Columbia, which is the one area that has been contentious. We have taken some time already to debate the issue. As I have pointed out, this bill takes a balanced approach to the school challenge. It is a program that has been designed by the Mayor. It is an innovative program that provides for $40 million of new money—I emphasize that this is new money—that will be injected into the system: $13 million that will go to public schools, $13 million to charter schools for the creation of new charter schools, and $13 million used for a brand new program to create scholarships for the poorest children in the District of Columbia.

It is a program that, as the Mayor has said, was designed by him, a program he supports, as he has publicly stated, and that he has asked the Congress, the Senate to approve. It is a program that will go a long way to help the children of the District of Columbia.

I ask this afternoon for my colleagues who do have amendments—I know Senator Landrieu will be discussing in a moment an amendment she and Senator Carper will be proposing; I know Senator Durbin has an amendment, and some of the other colleagues may have amendments—to come to the Chamber and offer their amendments so we can move the bill forward.
We are prepared to vote on the amendments. It is time for us to do that so we can move this legislation forward.

I yield to my friend and colleague, Senator Landrieu.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I wish to respond to my colleague's comment about "new money." I hesitate to do this because my colleague and I agree on so many issues. We have worked so well on this bill. But we disagree about this phrase. I will say why I have used this phrase.

First, this is new money. This is new money to the Mayor. If you ask him, "Mayor, is this new money to you," he is going to say: "Yes, it is, Senator, new money. I didn't have this $40 million, and would I like this $40 million for my schools, for my kids? Yes, I would. I would like 13 million new dollars for my public schools. Yes, I would like 13 million new dollars—new dollars—so I can have these scholarships; I would, indeed."

It is new money. It is, in fact, new money. It is new to these kids. It is new to their parents. It is new to the schools. It is 13 million new dollars for charter schools, and it will create new charter schools and they will, in fact, be new.

Why do we use the term "new"? We have to understand the context. One of the arguments made many times against these scholarships, or, as my colleague would say, vouchers, is that you can't do that or you shouldn't do that because it takes money away from public schools. As the debate is taking place across the country, people will say: You shouldn't be taking money away from the public schools and putting it into scholarships; that is not fair.

When this program was designed, when this bill was put together, the decision was made that we were not going to do that.
What we want to do and what the Mayor wants to do is make this a win-win-win situation, with no money taken away from the public schools. In fact, money would be given to the public schools. So, yes, in fact, it is new money. That is the context in which the term "new money" is used.

Those of us who are in favor of this bill and in favor of this program use the phrase "new money" simply to emphasize no money is being taken away from the public schools, and, in fact, it is new money to the public schools, new money for the charter schools and new money, yes, for these scholarships. That is why we use that phrase. Quite frankly, that is why I am going to continue to use it, and I think it is very important to point that out.

I wish to go back to another point my colleague made about the $7,500 scholarship, that it might not be enough at some of these schools. First of all, I think in most cases it will be enough. Let me tell you why. A recent survey conducted by the Washington Scholarship Fund, with assistance from the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee staff, found the average weighted tuition among DC private schools with vacancies to be $6,172, well within the $7,500 scholarship amount provided by this program. That is something we need to keep in mind.

Furthermore, two-thirds of the schools that reported vacancies charge tuition under $7,300 and most have a sliding scale to accommodate a family's ability to pay. We think the fact is this is not going to be a problem, but I say to my colleague, I already indicated to her when we were negotiating earlier last week that I don't have a problem with that particular language in her amendment. It certainly makes sense to me. I don't have any problem with that provision in her amendment.

We have reached the point in this debate when we need to know about the amendments. We talked a lot about them. We need to get them. I am not going to propound a unanimous consent request at this point, but I put everybody on notice, within an hour or two I am going to ask unanimous consent that we set a time certain later today that we have a specific cutoff time so we can get these amendments noticed and so everyone will be notified what the amendments will be. There is no reason we can't put everyone on notice and have a time certain later today when these amendments all can be filed so that we know where we are so we can move forward.

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

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Utah for a very strong statement. I think he said it very well. We hope this pilot project will cause the competition that we want to see. We hope it will cause the public school system in the District of Columbia to improve. Certainly, at the very least, what we hope to see is 2,000 children who will directly benefit, who will receive these scholarships. We hope it will make a difference in their lives. That is what we think will, in fact, make a difference.

As he said in his little story that he ended with, it will make a difference in these children's lives. If we can make a difference in one child's life or two children's lives or, in this case, 2,000 children's lives, isn't it worth doing? I think the answer is clearly that it is.

The situation in the District of Columbia school system—my colleague has described that. Other colleagues have described how bad the situation is. We can't turn our backs.

The Mayor has said he will not turn his back. He has tried over the last several years to do what he can to improve the school system. He has dedicated himself to this. He has set it as a priority. He has come to us and said this package that is in front of us today is an integral part of his efforts as Mayor of the city of Washington, DC, an integral part of his efforts to try to improve the lives of the children who live in this great city. Frankly, it is the least we can do to have the courage to follow his direction and come forward with this well-balanced approach.

Again, it is a well-balanced approach. We take this new money, $13 million for new charter schools, $13 million for public schools, and $13 million for the scholarship program. It is, in fact, the right thing to do.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the RECORD two pages we received today from the Mayor. It is entitled "Government of the District of Columbia, Executive Office of the Mayor, Myths and Facts About the D.C. Opportunity Scholarship Program."

There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, let me respond to a few comments which have been made by my colleague from Louisiana.

First, we seem to keep coming back to this issue about what the Mayor is for and what he is not for. Unfortunately, my colleague keeps inferring that the Mayor of the District of Columbia, Anthony Williams, really, truly is not for this scholarship program. I think we need to get beyond that issue.

I have a letter that I have already entered in the RECORD. It is already part of this RECORD. It is dated September 11, 2003, to me from the Mayor. The Mayor states in part:

This initiative—

He is talking about this three-pronged initiative that we are talking about, which includes the scholarship program—

This initiative was designed by District leadership for District [students] and is not being imposed on the District from outside, as some would have you believe. As mayor, I am trying to make the best choices for the residents of this city, and without a state government to which, under normal circumstances, I would make this request. In this regard, I believe it is appropriate for the federal government to act on behalf of the nation's capital when the local mayor and school board president seek assistance.

Further, in a document that I, a few moments ago, asked to be made part of the RECORD, which is entitled "MYTHS and
FACTS"—I will read a portion of this—

Myth:

D.C. Mayor Anthony Williams is reacting to pressure by the White House and Department of Education to start a voucher program. .    .    .

Now, this document came from the Mayor's office.

Fact:

In February 2003, Mayor Williams and .    .    . [the] Chair of the District Council's Education Committee brought their ideas for a Three Sector Educational Initiative [which] (includes funding for public and public charter schools, and private school scholarships for low-income families) to the White House and the Department of Education. The White House and Department of Education agreed to work with city leadership on its plans for improving education and expanding options for District families.

Again, in both of those documents, Mr. President and Members of the Senate, Mayor Williams has said they initiated these ideas. They are the ones who came forward with the plan. They are wholeheartedly in favor of it.

I wish we could put this behind us. The Mayor is in favor of this plan. This is the Mayor's plan. He wants it. I think we should put this behind us and quit talking about it. This is something the Mayor of this city wants.

We talk about accountability. Senator Landrieu is talking about accountability. I would ask any of my colleagues who are on the Senate floor or back in their offices to look at the bill as it now stands to see whether or not they think there is enough accountability.

Senator Feinstein came to the floor last week and added some very helpful language to this bill, which makes the accountability very good. It certainly improved the accountability. We thought we had good accountability in the bill before, thanks, again, to Senator Feinstein and her work in the Appropriations Committee, but her amendment added to the accountability and requires that these scholarship students take the same—the same—test that the District of Columbia public school students take.

Again, we are going to be able to measure how well this program works. We are going to see it year after year after year.
The report is going to be there. The parents are going to see it. The taxpayers are going to see it. The residents of the District of Columbia are going to see it. We are going to be able to measure it. We are going to be able to tell how well this program is working—the same tests, identical.

Second, the Feinstein amendment, which has been adopted by this body, which is a part of the bill, requires the Secretary and Mayor to select an independent entity to evaluate the performance of the students participating in the scholarship program.

That is just the highlights. I will not read and take the time of the Members of the Senate. But the accountability is built into this bill now.

If my colleague has other things she wants to put into this bill, we certainly would be more than happy to entertain them and to listen to them, if she has other ideas to improve that accountability.

Again, she talks about vouchers on the cheap. I would say, again, our studies show, and what the HELP Committee's staff has come up with, along with what the District of Columbia officials have come up with, is that clearly most of the availability slots are less than the $7,500.

But for those that would be more, I have no problem with including language in this bill, if my colleague wants to do so, that would require any school which is going to take the voucher to say that is it, they couldn't go back to the parent and say, we want additional money. You are either going to take it as the entire payment or you are not going to accept the student. I have no problem with language in that area to do that. That would be perfectly fine with me.

It is important for us to remember how we got here and why the Mayor wants to do this and why those of us who are strong advocates for this proposal came to the floor to do it. When you look at the statistics of what is going on in the District of Columbia, they are actually shocking figures. How bad are the schools in the District of Columbia? They are bad. Everybody knows that.

If you look at the figures, if you look at the SAT scores, if you look at ACT scores, if you look at graduation rates, all of the statistics—and they have been cited, and I will not take the Members' time to do that—if you look at the dropout rates, if you look at reading scores, the proficiency scores, the math scores, they are shocking. To think that within blocks of this Nation's Capitol, we are tolerating a school system that is not doing any better for the kids, these poor kids who live in our Nation's capital. It is wrong. It is not right. We have an obligation to do something differently.

What we have before us today is something different. In a sense, I could argue it is a radical proposal. But it is really not. It is a conservative proposal. It is a cautious proposal in a sense, because what we do is we say we are going to put more money in the public schools. We are going to take the Mayor's lead, and we are going to put that $13 million more into the public schools, and we will entrust it to the Mayor because that is what he wants.

My colleague from Louisiana has been very interested in charter schools and played a major role in the development of them. The Mayor wants to try to expand charter schools so we will put more money for them. We are not going to put all our eggs in one basket. We are going to try that, too.

But then we are going to try something else, something we have not done before in the District of Columbia; that is, we are going to put some public money, some Federal tax dollars into scholarships for 2,000 kids. That doesn't seem to me to be such a radical proposal. At the same time we are giving more money to the public schools, at the same time we are giving more money to charter schools, let's put $13 million, the same amount as for the other two, let's put in $13 million to create these 2,000 new scholarships for poor kids. Yes, you have to be poor to qualify. Yes, let's keep in mind under this bill the way it is written as to priority, the priority goes to kids from failing schools. Let's create that as well. So we are not putting all our eggs in one basket.

We are not saying we are going one way. We are saying we are going to try something else. We are going to try a balanced approach. We are going to try an approach the Mayor approves of. Let's do something different. We are going to do something a little different, because we are not satisfied with the status quo, because we don't think what is currently going on in our Nation's capital is good enough for the kids who live there.

I say to my colleagues, if you are satisfied with the way things are in the District of Columbia, then take this out of the bill. Go ahead. And when the time comes, vote for the Durbin amendment. Take this out and say: We are going to continue to do things the way we have done them in the past. That is OK.

But if you want to try something different, if you want to try this balanced approach, this rational approach, an approach the Mayor wants to try, then vote down the Durbin amendment, keep the bill the way it is, and let's move forward. Members will have the opportunity tomorrow to do that.

I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.