Omnibus Appropriations Act, 2009 - Continued
Floor Speech
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, later this afternoon, the Senate will consider an amendment by the Senator from Nevada, Mr. Ensign, relative to the DC Voucher Program. Senator Ensign has been on the floor several times today to discuss this program. I wanted to make certain the record was clear on both sides as to the issue before us.
This was an experimental program that was started 5 years ago. At that time, under the Bush administration, with a Republican Congress, they made a proposal to the District of Columbia. They basically said: We will give you somewhere in the range of $14 million to $18 million for your public schools--which any school district would gladly accept--and another $14 million to $18 million for your charter schools if you will use a similar amount to start a DC voucher program.
So we started this program 5 years ago and had some $14 to $18 million, and it was said to the District of Columbia, we will pay tuition, we will give families up to $7,500 to pay the tuition of children who want to attend private schools.
The argument was made that the DC Public Schools were not as good as they should be; that many of these children would have a much better opportunity if they attended these voucher schools. So this was an experiment. It had never been tried before. There was some controversy associated with it. I offered amendments in the Appropriations Committee to try to establish what kind of standards there would be at these DC voucher schools. In fact, I thought my amendments were rather straightforward--the kind of amendments most people would take for granted.
The first amendment I offered in the committee said: I hope all the teachers in the DC voucher private schools will have college degrees. That amendment was defeated. The argument was made that we shouldn't restrict the teachers in those schools, who may be nontraditional. They may not have a college diploma. Though we require in the public schools that all teachers have college degrees, they didn't want to require that in the DC voucher schools.
The second amendment I offered said the buildings where the DC voucher schools are being conducted should meet the basic life safety codes--health and fire safety code of the District of Columbia. That was rejected as well because these would be nontraditional buildings. Now what kind of comfort does that give a parent whose kids are going to school--whether it is a public school, a charter school or a voucher school--if there is any question of safety? But my amendment was rejected.
The third amendment I suggested was one I thought was only fair. If we are trying to create a private school voucher so students can have a better learning opportunity, at the end of a year or two we need to measure success. The only way to measure success is if the DC Public Schools and the voucher schools use the same achievement test so we can see if a fourth or fifth grader in one school or the other is doing better. That was rejected too. They wanted no comparison.
Excuse me if I am suspicious of this program if you can't mandate bachelor's degrees for teachers, if you can't mandate the buildings pass the health and safety code of the District of Columbia, and you can't mandate they have the same basic tests so we can compare them. So I went into this skeptical. I thought the fix was on. They were going to create this program with few, if any, rules and take it or leave it.
Well, it went forward and it was funded. After a year or two, the Department of Education and the General Accountability Office took a look at it and they raised serious questions about all this money--these millions of dollars coming into this program in a hurry--and whether they had the proper management techniques, whether they were handling the money right, whether they were giving it out properly, and whether the right families were receiving it--some fundamental accounting and bookkeeping issues which we should ask of every program, particularly those using taxpayers' money. So there was a question of the administration of the program. Then they went on to find some things which were troubling. For example, the GAO report said schools that didn't traditionally charge tuition were now being funded. In other words, they were free schools before we created this program and now they were charging tuition.
What does that mean? For the school year 2006-2007, they offered scholarships to about 30 students in one of these schools, and a school that traditionally had asked only for a small monthly fee as a sign of commitment to the school. They raised their money from charity and donors. Now, since the Federal Government was here with this DC voucher scholarship program, they decided that 30 of their students should qualify for these scholarships. Well, that comes out to $210,000 being spent by the Federal Government in a school that traditionally didn't even charge tuition. Does that raise a question? It raised a question in my mind.
They also found out there were a number of schools that lacked these occupancy certificates. Even after I offered this amendment raising a question about the safety of the schools, the schools went on to operate without filing the adequate certificates with the District of Columbia--the City of Washington, DC--that they were safe and that they, in fact, offered the kind of facilities they said they did. The GAO report said District officials provided documentation indicating that 3 of 18 schools the GAO selected for review lacked certificates of occupancy--3 out of 18. Six of them had permits that did not specify their use as a private school, child development center or before and after school care center, and 7 of the 18 appeared to have occupancy permits that designated use as child development centers with before and after school care.
It turned out there wasn't a consistent presentation by these schools of what they were. They included in the GAO report photos of two of these schools. One of these schools looked like a single-family residence in a neighborhood where they were supposedly holding school in the basement. Another one looked like some kind of commercial building. It didn't look like a school at all. It raised a question in my mind as to why we would allow them to get by with this. If they were receiving Federal money to sustain their program, at a minimum they ought to have teachers with a bachelor's degree, they ought to meet the requirements of safety, and they ought to have a test they can compare with the DC Public Schools. They didn't.
Now, what happened? The program was 5 years in duration. It was described as a pilot program--an experimental program--and the idea was, at the end of the day, to take a measurement as to whether this worked: Did this provide better education for the millions of dollars we put into it? Well, if we followed the law, that program would have expired in June of this year. I was in charge of the Appropriations Committee for the District of Columbia, and I decided that wasn't fair to the 1,700 students currently in the DC voucher scholarship program. To cut them off as of June of this year, without any certainty as to what is going to happen the next year, I thought was unfair to the students and their families. So instead of ending the program, which would have happened without an authorization, I extended it 1 year so it will cover the students in these programs for the school year 2009-2010.
I thought that was fair. And I said in that period of time Congress had to do its job. We had to go in and ask these questions about the schools: Are they working? Are they worth the money spent? Are the teachers doing a good job? Are the students better off at the end of the day?
Senator Ensign has brought some impressive photographs of young students who have been successful using this program, but we have to ask about 1,700 students and what is working and what isn't.
The second thing we said in the bill which we are considering is that this is a program that affects one public school district--Washington, DC--that is managed by the DC City Council. I believe that if they are going to extend this program beyond next school year, the government of Washington, DC, should decide whether they want it in their school district. I wouldn't want it in Chicago--which I am proud to represent, or in Springfield, IL, my hometown--to have someone come in from the Federal Government and say: We are creating a new school program here. We don't care what the local voters say or the local school board says. We are from the Federal Government; we are only here to help you.
I don't buy that logic. So we said those two things are required: Reauthorize the program, have the DC City Council approve the program, and then we can consider going forward. Now, the committee that considers this reauthorization is not a hostile and angry committee. It is chaired by Senator Joe Lieberman from Connecticut, who has expressed his support for the DC voucher program. So it isn't as if I am sending it to a committee that is going to deep six it and forget it. He is going to have a hearing about the future of the DC voucher schools. Senator Ensign, who comes to the floor and argues we should not ask the questions, we should not demand reauthorization, we should not ask the DC City Council whether they want the program to continue, is also a member of that committee. So he will have his chance under the bill that is before us to make this evaluation.
Now, let me be very candid about this. Half the students are in Catholic schools. The archdiocese of Washington is offering education to many of these students. I have had teachers and parents and others who have come to me and said it is working. A lot of these kids who otherwise wouldn't be getting a good education are getting a good education. I don't believe the archdiocese and schools should be frightened by this examination. If they are doing what they say they are doing--and I trust they are--this examination is going to prove it, and they are going to find out, at the end of the day, that the money is being well spent.
In the recent version of the Catholic newspaper here, which was published in the Washington, DC, area--and I will not read it in detail--there was some language about how a reauthorization could take years. Well, that is not the fact. It can be done on a very expeditious basis by the committee. Senator Reid, the majority leader, has said he will bring this matter to the floor for consideration.
Let us assess where we are with this DC voucher program, which would have expired in June of this year. We have extended it another year. We have said the 1,700 students are protected. They can continue to go to the schools they are attending right now. We have said that in that period of time Congress will take a look at the program and decide if the money is well spent and then report a bill if they want to reauthorize the program to the Senate floor for consideration. I think that is fair.
I hope those who are opposed to my language in this bill can come before the Senate and explain the alternative. If we are going to continue this program, literally for millions of dollars each year, and never ask any questions, it is not only unfair to taxpayers, it is unfair to the students. We have to make sure this is working and working effectively.
I had it within my power, I believe, to have ended this program, as promised, in June of 2009. I didn't do it. I extended it for an additional year. So those who argue the language in this bill kills this program are ignoring the obvious.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I rise to oppose the Cornyn amendment and urge my colleagues to oppose it as well.
On January 30, President Obama issued Executive Order 13496 to inform Federal contractor employees of their rights under Federal labor law. Under the Executive order, there are 120 days of rulemaking to prescribe the size, form, and content of this notice to be posted. In other words, it is underway at this moment.
I am opposed to this amendment because we didn't restrict the ability of former President Bush to inform employees of Federal employers of their labor rights. We should allow President Obama the same opportunity.
I urge Members to vote no.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, 5 years ago we created an experimental pilot plan for 5 years that would expire in June of this year. Rather than let it expire and these 1,700 students and their families be disadvantaged, we extended it for a year in this bill. What is going to happen in the course of that year? Senator Lieberman's committee is going to take a close look to see if the over $70 million we spent on this program has worked. Are the students getting a good education, better than they would in public schools, better than in charter schools? Are the teachers competent in this program? Are the schools they are learning in safe buildings?
These are fundamental questions we should ask of every school program. I do not understand reluctance on the other side to have an honest evaluation of the program that has cost us over $70 million in taxpayer funds.
At the end of the day, those schools that are doing a good job will be given good grades. Those that are failing in this process do not deserve to be renewed. I have extended this program for a year in the bill, and the other provision, which I am going to allow Senator Schumer to address, gives to the DC City Council the same thing you would want the Las Vegas City Council to have if Congress tried to impose a program on them.
I yield my remaining time to Senator Schumer.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Source