Omnibus Appropriations

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, the Senator from Tennessee is a friend of mine. He has served as Secretary of Education, we talk about education issues, and we share a common admiration for the new Secretary of Education. But I would like to correct, while he is still on the floor, a few of the things he said.

Five years ago, the Bush administration said, for the first time in the history of America, we will create a federally funded voucher program. Here is what it says: Federal taxpayers' dollars will be given to parents of students in the District of Columbia--Washington, DC--who want to put their kids in private schools. The Federal Government will pay a certain amount of money in tuition vouchers to those schools on behalf of the students and their parents.

It was a 5-year experiment, and there was a lot of controversy associated with it. Some of us were skeptical. I offered three amendments to this DC voucher program. The first amendment I offered in the Appropriations Committee said that all the teachers in the voucher schools--the private voucher schools--have to have a college degree. The amendment was defeated. It was defeated because those pushing for voucher schools said that is going to stop creativity, it is going to confine these schools, and we should let them do what they are going to do.

I didn't buy that because, frankly, we impose those standards on public schools across America, but my amendment was defeated.

Now, the second amendment I offered said the DC voucher schools--the buildings themselves--had to pass the fire safety code of the District of Columbia for teaching children. All right? The amendment was defeated. Those pushing the voucher program said: You know, you don't get it. This is about a creative approach to education. It may not be the traditional classroom setting. We defeat your amendment.

The third amendment said: Well, in fairness, if the argument is that voucher schools are better than DC public schools, there ought to be a common standard to judge them. So my amendment said they shall take the same achievement test--the voucher school students and the public school students--so we can then compare apples to apples. My amendment was defeated, and the argument was voucher schools have to be allowed this creativity to think anew and to try different things. I don't buy it.

So I started with real skepticism and I voted against this program. Now, in the ensuing time--the 4 or 5 years--1,700 students have received Federal subsidies to go to private schools. It is the only place in America I know where that is happening. The idea, of course, was that at the end of this experimental authorization period, we would try to step back and ask: Was this a good idea? Was it good for the kids, good for the families, good for the District of Columbia, and our Nation?

That was the idea behind it. This law creating these DC voucher schools was to expire this year in June. Now, my committee funds the District of Columbia, the Federal funds that go into it, and so we said: You know, that may be too abrupt. It may not be fair. So what we will do is we will extend through the 2009-2010 school year the DC voucher schools, but somebody has to step back and take a look at this and ask: Is it working?

When the Government Accountability Office went to take a look at it, they said that some of these schools are world class--these voucher schools--and some of them end up being classes taught in the basement of a private church in the District of Columbia by people who don't have the competence to teach.

Now, the Senator from Tennessee doesn't want that to happen in his State, and I don't want it to happen in my State, and I certainly don't think it should happen here on our watch. So I extended this program 1 year, and it is in the hands of Senator Joe Lieberman. Senator Lieberman is the chairman of the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. He gave his personal assurance to the Members of the Senate that there will be a hearing and an attempt to markup reauthorization of this program. That is the orderly process, it is the sensible process, and at the end of the day we are going to learn a lot about the voucher schools and how they are doing.

Now, in the meantime--and I know the Senator from Tennessee knows this--I would say we have a new school chancellor in the District of Columbia who is trying her very best to bring reform to public education. I know some of her proposals are controversial, but I think she is on the right track to bring in quality teachers and a quality learning environment in the public schools. So let us look at this thing in the perspective of an experiment for 5 years, that was extended 1 year by this bill, that we can take an honest look at and ask: Did it work?

Put aside for a moment whether you agree the Federal Government ought to put money into the hands of families to send kids to private schools and ask the basic question: Did it work? Are the students better off? Are they learning more? That is a legitimate question, and I want to know the answer, and I will bet the Senator does too. In the meantime, we should provide an environment for the public schools in the District of Columbia to have real reform, and that involves some money, I am sure, but it ought to be money we invest wisely as we invest in the voucher schools. There have been a few articles that have been inaccurate about the DC voucher program, and I wished to present my point of view on that program while the Senator from Tennessee is still here. I wish to move to another topic, unless he wants to address a question, which I would be happy to entertain.

Mr. ALEXANDER. I thank the Senator from Illinois, and I look forward to working with him on helping the District of Columbia, including the mayor and the superintendent in the District who would like for this to continue.

The question I have is: Why is it necessary for this legislation to insist that the program end in September of 2010 and that we add the provision the city council would have to approve it if it is continued by the Congress?

Usually, when we have education programs whose authorization runs out, we continue them for a while as we go through the analysis the Senator talked about, such as the Higher Education Act which took us 6 years or the Head Start Act which took us 3 or 4 years or No Child Left Behind or so many others. Why is it necessary that we even address the ending of this program in this legislation?

Mr. DURBIN. I might say, in response to the Senator from Tennessee, that is a legitimate question. When the law was written, that is what it said: This program will expire. The authorization will end. I have extended it in
this bill an additional year so we can take the time not to push the kids out of the classrooms and take the time to make the judgment whether it is working.

One of your colleagues, whom you vote with frequently and who sits behind you, from Oklahoma, who has this passion about authorizations, he says: You know, you do an authorization bill, and you are talking about spending money. I don't happen to agree with him. I think it takes an appropriation in addition to an authorization. But if an authorization has any meaning, particularly when dealing with a new venture, in terms of Federal taxpayer dollars going to private schools, I think we owe it to everybody--the taxpayers as well as the parents, teachers, and kids--to ask the hard questions.

If the GAO comes in and tells us someone somewhere in the District of Columbia has created what they call a voucher school so that their wife can declare herself principal and their daughter can declare herself a teacher and the kids can sit in a building which doesn't have a fire exit, I am a little worried about that. I don't think we ought to go on with business as usual in that situation, and I would like to at least have an honest appraisal.

I would say to the Senator from Tennessee, it is my impression Senator Lieberman of Connecticut is leaning toward the voucher school program, so he doesn't come to this with prejudice against it. I would not presume that is his ultimate position, but I think he will be an honest broker. He will bring all the facts out. I think that is why we are here, and I think it is a legitimate exercise of our responsibilities.

Mr. ALEXANDER. I thank the Senator from Illinois, and would only note that Senator Lieberman is a cosponsor of the amendment we would like to have a chance to vote on.

AMENDMENT NO. 607

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

Of course, many of us have stated our positions on the record time and again, but this comes down to a specific element here. What Senator Wicker does is to strike the language in the bill that permits funding of the U.N. Population Fund for six limited purposes. He has stated that his reason for doing so is to make certain we don't put money into China, where there is evidence of coercive abortion and involuntary sterilization; and he certainly says he doesn't want Federal funds to be spent for the promotion of abortion anywhere in the world.

I would say there are two elements of the bill which I would recommend to all Members before they vote on the Wicker amendment, which I hope they will oppose. Page 763 of the bill--it is a big one, but I will point you to the specific page, 763--says:

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

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

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

So we ask the Secretary of State to go to New York and find out how much money is going to China, where we suspect coercive abortion and involuntary sterilization. The second paragraph says we will then deduct that amount of funds from any money that goes to the United Nations for family planning.

So it is specific, and we are specific in terms of these practices. We can't spend any money for these practices; and, secondly, no money to the People's Republic of China which is not set off by a reduction in the Federal investment.

Now, let me tell you why this amendment not only ignores the clear language of the bill but should not be passed. There are six limited purposes for which we are trying to use the U.N. Population Fund, and they are, among other things, to reduce genital mutilation and obstetric fistula and to provide voluntary family planning and basic health care to women and girls.

It has been my opportunity and honor to visit Africa. In one of those visits, with Senator Brownback of Kansas, we went to the Democratic Republic of Congo, which doesn't get the publicity of many places in Africa, but it has been one of the killing fields. There have been thousands--maybe hundreds of thousands--of people killed in this region. It has been torn back and forth since the Rwandan genocide, with the exploitation of minerals. The net result has been the poorest people on Earth, smack dab in the center of Africa, have been pushed out of their villages and into refugee camps, and they have been victimized by guerilla soldiers.

Well, I went to a hospital in Goma, which is in the Democratic Republic of Congo. It is one of those places where you think if God has a bad day, the first thing he does is look at Goma because they have had it all--poverty, disease, all the strife of guerrillas and all the war that revolves around them and, to put the icing on the cake, a volcano which erupts with regularity. These poor folks get it in every direction. But there in Goma was a hospital called DOCS hospital. DOCS hospital is sustained and financed by protestant churches in the United States. It has a modern surgical suite, paid for by the United Nations.

When you go to this hospital, you see women lined up in a row, hanging onto their meager belongings, waiting for the chance to be admitted to the hospital. Why? Because this is the only place within hundreds of miles where they can go for surgical treatment of what is known as obstetric fistula. Obstetric fistula--I will try to describe it; not being a doctor--is the result of early pregnancies, long labors of young girls, rape, terrible mutilation that occurs and causes serious problems for these women. They become incontinent, they are unable to join their families, they are shunned by their villages. This is their only hope. They come to this hospital and they wait. They sit in the dust in the road hoping--and it is sometimes weeks later--to be seen by a doctor. They cook outside and help one another, and then they may go through a surgery. At the end of the surgery, they end up two to a bed trying to recuperate. Some of them, because they are so badly mutilated, have to go through multiple surgeries and wait month after weary month while a handful of surgeons and nurses do heroic jobs in trying to put their lives back together.

Is that worth putting some money into? Is it? Is it worth saying to the U.N. Population Fund: Can you help these people? Can you bring in some doctors, some surgeons to treat them? They are victims, helpless victims, who are trying to put their lives back together. I think it is money well spent.

I have a friend of mine named Molly Melching. Molly Melching is in Senegal. She was in the Peace Corps there, and after her service in the Peace Corps she decided to stay on. She has created an organization called Tostan. Tostan is trying to stop the ritualistic genital mutilation of girls. It is horrible, and it is dangerous. Village by village, tribe by tribe, Molly is making progress, and I think that is the right thing to do, for the dignity of these young girls and for the role of women in these African societies.

Is it worth money from the United Nations Population Fund? I think it is.

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

We know you cannot spend the money here for coercive abortion, we
know you cannot spend the money here for involuntary sterilization, we know if you spend the money in China we are going to take it away from the United Nations.

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

I urge my colleagues to oppose the Wicker amendment.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source