Dianne Feinstein

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. It is the one I had with Senator Domenici and which Senator Domenici is no longer on.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I thank the Senator. Mr. President, I would like to make one further point, just to debate this. There are many of us who believe the very size of the supplemental means we are going to be in Iraq for a substantial period of time, and, most probably, the supplemental is meant to run through the election. That is the inescapable real life that we live. So we look at this effort as one that is a joint effort between the White House and this Senate and this House in the sense that we are prepared to stay the course provided you share with us what the plan is, what the goals are, what the timetables for achieving the mission, in effect, are. It is hard for me to understand how more than $6 billion could be used in a 4-month period. So nothing is held up. It is three equal tranches. I have a hard time, with what I do know about it, envisioning more than $6 billion being spent in a 4-month period. So I do not believe this amendment is any kind of an encumbrance on the administration at all. It is simply a request for oversight, which I believe is our constitutional duty.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I believe the yeas and nays were granted, so there will be a vote; is that not correct?

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I would be happy to.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Madam President, I believe this amendment to this supplemental would provide some additional transparency and oversight as to how the $20.3 billion in reconstruction funding is spent. The amendment essentially releases the appropriation of the $20.3 billion in three tranches. These tranches are not fenced, but they are conditioned on the President presenting a reconstruction plan to Congress with specific goals and timetables, and reporting to Congress on how that plan is being implemented. The amendment began as a bipartisan amendment. Unfortunately, at this stage it is not, but it is cosponsored by Senators Murray, Durbin, Johnson, Clinton, and Boxer. Specifically, the amendment would provide for the immediate release of one-third of the $20.3 billion for reconstruction in Iraq--that is $6.77 billion--with the President required to provide Congress with a comprehensive plan for Iraqi reconstruction. The plan would include goals and timetables for specific reconstruction activities. Second, it would provide for the release of the remaining $13.54 billion requested in two equal disbursements of $6.77 billion, the second tranche after 120 days--or 4 months--and the final after 240 days. Both disbursements would be subject to a Presidential determination that the goals and timetables spelled out in these detailed reports are being met. Third, this would require that the President submit reports to Congress every 60 days about how the money is spent. What is the purpose of this? This is a lot of money. The American public are divided on whether we should spend $20 billion reconstructing Iraq or we should give it for deficit reduction or to priorities in this country. There is no plan. We do not know exactly how this money is going to be spent. What this amendment aims to do is provide a mechanism for both a certification process by the President that the goals and timetables are being met and for regular reports to this Congress about how that is taking place. That does not seem to me to be too much to ask. In doing so, it also gives us the ability to review how the money is being spent, what costs are being incurred, who else is contributing, and what progress is being made in meeting important security, political, and economic reconstruction milestones. These are significant improvements. It is hard for me to understand why the administration does not want this to be done, why the administration expects to be given a blank check, and this body that is charged with the purse strings is not able to carry out diligent oversight. There may be a significant disagreement among Members of the Senate about the wisdom of a course of action which has led us to this point in Iraq. But now that the United States is in Iraq, it is clear to me we must stay the course. We must rebuild the infrastructure. We must prevent civil war. We must see to it that Iraq does not become a base for terror and instability throughout the region. Indeed, from a national security perspective, I strongly believe the United States cannot turn tail and run. Instead, we must see to it that a stable governmental structure and a viable economy, apart from Saddam's tyrannical dictatorship, can in fact be put in place. If the United States were to pull out without completing the job--which rejection of the supplemental would mean--I believe Iraq would inevitably see civil war and a return to the Baathist regime, perhaps headed by someone as bad as or worse than Saddam Hussein. If the United States were to cut and run, as we did in Lebanon, or more recently in Somalia, we would send precisely the wrong message to both our friends and our foes around the world. For many, the challenges we now face in Iraq illustrate the shortcomings of a doctrine of unilateral preemption and preventive war to deal with an asymmetrical threat. When we use force against a state to seek regime change, we are left with the inescapable reality and role that we have today, and that is nation building. There is no other way to put it. But once there, we must complete the task. As much as I may wish we could structure this package as loans, that there be greater international contributions to the reconstruction effort, that Iraqi oil could be quickly brought on line to underwrite costs, that some of the funds earmarked to be spent in Iraq could be spent on domestic priorities instead, or that we pay for this supplemental by deferring a large tax cut for Americans earning more than $340,000 a year, thus far, all those options have been debated and voted down in this body. I voted for all these amendments, both in committee and on the floor. But today the United States has an inescapable responsibility in Iraq. It is clear to me that now we are there, we must win the peace. However, we, as a Senate, also have a responsibility, to know what the plan is, to be able to buy into that plan, to understand the goals and the timetables of this reconstruction effort, to know when a constitution will be written, to know when a government can be turned over, and to understand what specific projects are going to be undertaken. This amendment asks for nothing more than that. It is justified, I believe, because it does just that. I had five Republican sponsors. Apparently they were weaned off by the White House. But this resolution was carefully crafted not to create a problem for the administration but to say, as a Senate, we have an absolute right to know the details, to know the timelines, to know the plans, and you, Mr. President, have an obligation to report to us on what they are and to certify that what you say is actually happening. That is all this amendment does. It does not fence funds. It does not require another vote by this body. But it does say, if we support you, you have an obligation to let us know what you are doing, how you are doing it, and the timelines of completing the mission. I don't think that is too much to ask. Along with my prior cosponsors, before they dropped off, we worked hard on this. This was negotiated not to present an encumbrance but to present a justifiable reporting requirement with certification by the President. The only thing was that the money would be released in three equal tranches 4 months apart. I have a very hard time, unless people do not want to say what they are doing, as to why this amendment would not be acceptable to the other side of this aisle as well as to this side of this aisle. It is my sincere hope that by some miracle we could get that concurrence. The work we have yet to do in Iraq is consequential. How do we stabilize Iraq? It is a nation with a long and bloody history of tribal rivalries. It has known only despotism and tyranny. How do we plant the seeds of democracy? What is the timeline for that? This country has never known democracy. How do we rebuild an economy shattered by years of neglect, repression, and war? I believe we can accomplish this job. Iraq could well become a beacon of stability in this volatile area. But it is a tall order. In conclusion, I believe the amendment is a well-thought-out approach that gives Congress and the American people a more meaningful and substantive oversight role in the reconstruction of Iraq and it says to this administration, we will work with you, we will stay the course, but the American people must know where that course will lead us and how we are going to get there. This amendment asks for no more and no less. I yield the floor.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Madam President, I send an amendment to the desk.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I would be happy to bring one over.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. It is my only amendment.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, as we continue to debate this supplemental, we continue to find ourselves dancing around a very important question that we've been asked--the one that Senator Dorgan raises today: how is reconstruction in Iraq to be paid for? First, let me say that it is clear that we unequivocally support our troops and nearly all of us support their mission. I voted to support the President in this effort a year ago this month and continue to support our efforts to liberate Iraq from the terror that continues to grip its citizens. But, the answer to the question of cost is much less clear. Last week I came to the Floor in support of Senator Biden's amendment to rollback a small portion of the President's May 2003 tax cut. Senator Biden's amendment would have paid for this supplemental while protecting every American from undue hardship. That amendment failed to gain the necessary support that would have made it part of this supplemental. And, those who voted against that amendment have yet to tell the rest of us how it is that we can afford to spend $20 billion on Iraqi reconstruction and pass that cost onto our children. So, as of today, we still have not figured out how to pay for our efforts in Iraq. For a moment, let us set aside the portion of the supplemental that I believe has nearly universal support here in the Senate--that being the portion to pay for ongoing military operations. Let us focus instead on that portion of the supplemental that deals exclusively with reconstruction in Iraq. The administration would like us to approve more than $20 billion for projects we all consider necessary for any fledgling nation, but should the American public or the Iraqi people pay for these types of improvements? Should the American people be paying for pickup trucks, radios and computer training? Remember, these are improvements that were, in large part, needed prior to our arrival in Iraq. Let me be clear, I am not questioning the need for these improvements, but rather who ultimately pays for them. In February 2003, and on at least three other occasions, we were told by the White House that ``Iraq, unlike Afghanistan, is a rather wealthy country. Iraq has tremendous resources that belong to the Iraqi people. And so there are a variety of means that Iraq has to be able to shoulder much of the burden for their own reconstruction.'' The White House knows, as we do, that Iraq is in control of the second largest proven oil reserve on the planet and modern financing techniques will allow Iraq to leverage these natural resources to rebuild its nation. Senator Dorgan's amendment encapsulates an idea that is proven and at work all over the globe. The worldwide securitization market is in excess of $2 trillion. We have heard from several experts, including the Export-Import Bank, that securitization is workable and, in this case, desirable. Securitization is the most legitimate way to provide reconstruction dollars and to foster a sense of Iraqi ownership in the outcome of this process of liberation, and I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Delaware. I appreciate those words. Both Senator Chafee and I felt very strongly that this rate rollback that affects the top 1 percent is really the right thing to do at this time. I particularly compliment the Senator from Delaware on the way he worked out this bill, because essentially this is a rollback of the accelerated rate cut that the top 1 percent received in May 2003. It rolls back the acceleration just enough to pay the $87 billion cost of this supplemental. So it becomes a very reasonable way to pay for a part of this war which, to date, including this supplemental, will cost the American people more than $150 billion. This is a big day in the Senate. As many of us have pointed out this week at the Appropriations Committee hearing on the supplemental, there are questions in the $21 billion reconstruction portion of the supplemental request. Senator Byrd has twice tried to divide the package--once in the Appropriations Committee, once here on the floor. We have not been successful in being able to do that. At the same time, we also recognize the seriousness of the need that the Iraqi people and their transportation and water infrastructure face after decades of neglect. We certainly recognize the needs that our men and women have in Iraq. The fact is, we don't have the money to pay for improvements in our own infrastructure. Owing to a lack of money, just a few hours ago I decided against offering an amendment to this supplemental that would have invested substantial moneys in our domestic infrastructure, a plan that would have enhanced the safety, security, and efficiency of our highway, transit, aviation, rail, port, environmental, and public buildings infrastructure. The reality is that there is no money to fund necessary improvements here at home. The reality is, those of us on this side of the aisle have become deficit hawks, whereas a few years ago it was the other side of the aisle. So today we have greatly enhanced spending for preparedness, for homeland security, and for the military. How is it we can be expected to approve this supplemental without asking the most obvious question: How are we going to pay for it? I have joined with Senators Biden, Kerry, Corzine, and others in supporting this legislation because it will provide the necessary financial footing to appropriately execute our obligations in Iraq and Afghanistan as contained in this supplemental. In 1998, following nearly 30 years of deficits and a seventeenfold increase in the Federal debt, from $365.8 billion to $6.4 trillion, bipartisan cooperation brought the budget back into balance again. In 1998, we had the first surplus in a long time. Some of the funds which would have gone to pay interest on the debt were instead spent actually paying down the debt, and we were all delighted. Now deficits and interest costs are growing once again. Net interest payments on Federal debt will increase sharply, from approximately $170 billion in 2003 to more than $300 billion by 2012. And we face a host of new challenges: the war on terror, the war in Iraq, the threat of North Korea. This has necessarily led to a shift in Government spending toward improving our defense and homeland security capabilities. Yet many of the challenges predating September 11 are still with us: improving education, updating infrastructure, preparing for the retirement of the baby boom generation, which will all severely strain the Social Security and Medicare trust funds. The CBO predicts that the Federal deficit for fiscal year 2004 will top $500 billion. We might dispute the actual amount, but let there be no doubt, it is going to happen. We are going to have the largest deficit in our history this year. A portion of every dollar we spend, from this day forward until the end of September 2004, will be borrowed money--money our children and grandchildren will have to repay. It is no secret that if citizens wish to receive services or undertake activities as a Nation, they have the right to levy a tax upon themselves to achieve these ends. We have somehow lost this sense of obligation and we have concluded that providing for our national defense, or for the education of our children, requires no more than charging the costs to a Government credit card. This must stop. In fact, as this supplemental request is currently structured, our children and our grandchildren will pay $3.60 for every dollar we borrow. This supplemental is not a request for $87 billion. It actually totals $313 billion if you include the interest--$313 billion. It is penny wise and pound foolish to do this the way we are doing it, by not paying for it. The President of the United States, in January of this year at his State of the Union, said the following words, and we from both sides of the aisle rose in acclaim to these words: This country has many challenges. We will not deny, we will not ignore, we will not pass along our problems to other Congresses, to other Presidents, and to other generations. We will confront them with focus and clarity and courage. Well, this is one challenge we are passing on to other Congresses and to other generations. We need not do it. This is a well thought out proposal to temporarily rollback a small portion of the accelerated tax cut for the top 1 percent--the wealthiest of all Americans. As has been well stated, everyone who falls within this 1 percent makes more than $310,000 a year in taxable income, which typically means that they are making more than $420,000 a year in gross income. We have more income taxpayers in California than any other State. Thirteen million out of 34 million people are income taxpayers. In California, this amendment will affect less than 250,000 families paying these taxes. These families are all in the top 1 percent they are the wealthiest Californians. Not one of them, at any time, has ever come up to me and said: Senator, we want a tax cut. But I have had several come up to me and say: I didn't realize how much money I would receive from the 2001 tax cut. And they have added that it was not really necessary to do it. We now have an opportunity, by scaling back a small portion of the accelerated cut associated with the May 2003 tax package, to pay for this $87 billion supplemental. It makes good sense. Think of what it saves for the future in terms of interest costs. So what we are proposing generates $87 billion. It is a first step toward putting our fiscal house in order. It pays for the President's supplemental spending request. It doesn't revoke the 2001 reduction in the top income tax rate, nor would it affect any other element of the 2001 tax package. It would merely temporarily raise the marginal income tax rate of the richest in our society. These people could take pride in knowing that this supplemental would not create debt that would be passed on to their grandchildren, to your grandchildren, or to my grandchildren. I thank the Chair and yield the floor.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Reserving the right to object, I ask that this be amended, since I have been waiting, so that I follow Senator Kerry for my time.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I am thinking about it.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I beg your pardon?

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I don't know whether I want to yield to the Senator or not.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. You might not find the ``i'' dotted or the ``t'' crossed exactly the way you would like to have the ``i'' dotted or the ``t'' crossed. This isn't a program that is national. It is not a program that is going to exist for 50 years. It is a program that is going to be tried for 5 years. Either poor children will do better or they won't. And the test is going to be--

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. May I finish? Any parent applying for this scholarship must agree that their child will take the Stanford 9 test for all 5 years regardless of whether they receive a scholarship or not. Let me tell you what this is all about. I recognize the Senator doesn't like it. That is fine. He doesn't have to vote for it. But what this is all about is that 76 percent of DC fourth graders performed below basic in math, and only 10 percent read proficiently. Only 12 percent of eighth graders read proficiently. That is what this is all about--to see if, by learning some of the basics, these children have a better start in education in a different model, in a different setting, with a different structure than currently exists in public education. It may work. It may not work. But these are all poor children. They are all in failing schools. Why not give them a chance? I suppose you could fault it by saying, well, everyone who instructs one of these children in these schools should have more than a college degree. Sure. I would like to do it. I don't know that we can condition the requirement in every private secular school or every private parochial school that may accept one of these children. I took high school classes from nuns who didn't have college degrees. And guess what. I got into Stanford based on what I learned in high school. So I came to realize that these absolute requirements may be right if we are going into this on a permanent basis, but we are not; we are going into it on a temporary basis. This pilot gives us an opportunity to see whether these children progress better in different settings. What is the difference if those different settings happen to be private parochial, or they happen to be private secular school settings? I cannot tell you how many parents write to me and ask: Can you help me get my child into a private school? Please help me. These are parents who have funds. What about the parents who do not have funds? They don't have a chance at this. All this does is give them that opportunity. If you do not like it, don't vote for it. That is easy. But some of us want to see what works and what doesn't work. They said the same thing to Oakland Mayor Jerry Brown about his idea to start a military school in Oakland. A public military school? Horrors. The school board voted it down. Fortunately, the Mayor of Oakland is a persistent personality. He went to the State and got a special charter to open a military school so that youngsters from the deeply troubled socioeconomic areas in the city of Oakland would have a shot of going to college. Now they have 350 kids who are 3 years into the program, and they are testing as the second best middle school in Oakland. That is discipline. It is amazing. Different models work for different youngsters. That is why I am supporting this approach.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Thank you very much, Mr. President. I very much disagree with the position of the Senator from Illinois. I understand this is something that is new. I understand it is something being tried. I understand it turns counter to a lot of what has been done in the educational establishment today. But that doesn't mean it shouldn't be tried. I wish to correct one point. I asked the Mayor if he believed he got a Faustian bargain. He said no, he didn't. He said: As a matter of fact, I proposed the three-pronged asset portion of this. In other words, one-third of the money would be new money to the schools, one- third of the money would be new money to charter schools, and one-third of the money would be new money to try this special scholarship program for poor children. I would like the Record to reflect the rationale for the language in my amendment on the testing. In order to guarantee a valid and statistically reliable evaluation, we are told it is vital that we have the scholarship student and those students who applied for the scholarship but didn't get it take the same test for all 5 years. If the District should switch tests at some point in the 5-year duration of the program, we need to continue giving the test to start with, which today in the District is the Stanford 9 test. That is a norm- referenced test which is given all over the country, and it would preserve the evaluation. The use of the same exact test for all 5 years is critical to be able to compare apples to apples. If the District changes tests during these 5 years, you have a false comparison; you have apples to oranges. That is the reason the language is as it is.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Thank you very much, Mr. President. Just to continue on for a moment, I think what's going to happen in America is that more mayors of big cities will get more control over the schools, whether it is by appointing the school board or whether it is by having a separate entity involved in it. In the case of Chicago, I remember the Mayor appointed his chief of staff as head of the school board and his budget person, Paul G. Vallas, as superintendent of public instruction. So they had a working team to really turn the public school system around. I would like to welcome the Mayor of the District of Columbia to the floor of the Senate. Welcome, Mr. Mayor. Thank you very much. I want everybody to know this is your request and your program. I don't know how many votes on our side of the aisle we will have for it, but I think it is a very important program to try. I think it is very important. I think because of the testing we have built into it, the same tests, the evaluation component, the fact is that your feet are going to be to the fire because this is your program and it is going to succeed or fail based on your energy, your staying power, your drive, your motivation. And I know it is there. To the Presiding Officer, and to the manager of the bill, I have made my arguments. I am happy to answer any questions there may be, but I am hopeful this amendment will be agreed to and we will have an opportunity to try this pilot program. I yield the floor.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Fair enough.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, the Mayor has asked for a 5-year pilot. He said it would be for the less affluent. They are defined by families of 4 at 185 percent of poverty. This is a family of 4 that earns $34,000 a year, or below, and these children would be given priority by lottery to have an opportunity to go to another school. It is like a golden key. It gives them an opportunity to try something else. It is voluntary. Nobody is forced to do it. Why is everybody so threatened by it? No one is forced to do it. If a family wants to try it, this provides them with that opportunity. Again, these are schools identified for improvement, corrective action, or restructuring. That is the language from the bill. And priority is given to students and families who lack financial resources to take advantage of educational opportunities. That is the language in the bill. So for $7,500 a child, 2,000 youngsters will have an opportunity to try this, to see if it makes a difference. It might offer some smaller classes, or uniforms; it might offer more attention; it might offer an easier learning environment; it may offer better discipline. Certainly, there will be some curriculum changes. There will certainly be more emphasis on reading, writing, and arithmetic--the basics, if you will. Now we have in the Appropriations Committee, thanks to the accommodation of Senator DeWine and Senator Judd Gregg, made several changes in the original bill. It was brought to my attention to take a look at the Zelman Supreme Court case. Senator Voinovich mentioned that to us. I believe he was Governor of Ohio when Cleveland put forward this program, and it went up to the Supreme Court in a case called Zelman v. Simmons-Harris. So we took that case and this bill and we tried to bring them together so that we added religion to the general nondiscrimination clause, which also covers race, color, national origin, and sex, and extend the nondiscrimination clause to both schools and the entity operating the voucher program. We added language clarifying that the bill does not override title VII to ensure that we don't change title VII's provisions permitting religious discrimination under certain circumstances. We deleted certain other language which we thought might impact the establishment clause. We increased the role of the Mayor to make the Mayor responsible for the details and functioning and accountability of this program, and to ensure the proper use of public funds by the schools participating in this voucher program. The amendment I have sent to the desk is an additional strengthening of the testing and evaluation components of the bill to try to ensure that scholarship students are taught by quality teachers. Essentially what this bill says is every voucher child must be taught by a teacher that at least has a college education. Additionally, we have changed the testing requirements. I have had a conversation with Cardinal McCarrick. Since about one-third of the private schools in the Districts are Catholic schools, I talked to the Cardinal about the advisability of having the same tests given to a student on a voucher in a parochial, or secular school, as would be given to a student in the public school. He agreed that would be a very significant thing to do. I would like to read into the Record a portion of the letter from Cardinal McCarrick. . . . I want to assure you that we are not only open to being accountable for any public funds which the families of our students receive, but anxious to be able to prove the value of our education. This would mean being willing to administer the same set of examinations that are given in the public school system. I was happy to be able to tell you that in the District of Columbia 47% of our students are non-Catholic-- Forty-seven percent of the students in the DC Catholic schools are non-Catholic-- and in the heavily impacted inner city areas it goes up to 67% or higher. My great predecessor, Cardinal Hickey, used to say that we don't educate them because they are Catholic, but because we are Catholic and we accept this as a responsibility for being good neighbors and committed to serving the community. I ask unanimous consent that the full text of the letter be printed in the Record.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. First of all, again, I thank the Senator. It has been a great pleasure for me to work with him. I really appreciate it. I have just been alerted that the Mayor is here. I understand the Mayor of the District of Columbia can come on the floor of the Senate. I believe very strongly, because mayors run their cities, they are responsible. Yet, in education, it is very often so frustrating because they do not have control. This is the Mayor who wants to leave a legacy of an improved education system for the District. Those of us who read the Washington Post this morning, and the Mayor's comments addressed, I guess, to the editorial board of the Washington Post, understand the frustration. I have always been one who had a great appreciation for Dick Daley, of Chicago, who went to the State legislature and said: Give me control of appointment of the school board. And they did. He appointed some of his people to the school board and turned around the Chicago public schools. I think in a way that has set a real pattern for public education in America. I had the privilege of visiting those schools and spending a day in Chicago. I ask consent that the Mayor be allowed to come on the floor of the Senate?

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. May I say one more thing? Will the Senator yield to me for a moment?

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. We have a provision in this bill that a scholarship recipient would essentially be tested against a control group with the same test given in the public school setting as in the private school setting. The first component of my amendment requires that the managing entity that will run the voucher program give voucher students--not every student in private school--the same assessments they took in public schools. It also requires that the Secretary of Education, in conjunction with the Mayor, appoint an independent evaluator to study all aspects of the voucher program, with a strong focus on the academic progress of the students in the program. The independent evaluator, which could be a think tank, could be an independent entity, will be required to evaluate the test scores of voucher students over the 5-year period, as well as the scores of a randomly selected group of comparable students who applied for vouchers but did not get them. The test scores of the control group for which no voucher is available will be studied and measured against the scores of the voucher students. The evaluator will be required to report back to the Congress every year on the progress, for the duration of the 5-year pilot. This amendment also requires that the test scores of both recipients and the student control group, as I said, would be studied, obviously, against one another. I think we have a very practical, very doable trial proposal. I know on this side of the aisle there are a lot of objections to it, and I must say I am deeply puzzled by them because I do not understand what the fear is. Traditionally, the argument against vouchers always has been it takes money away from the public school. This does not. It adds money to the public school. Another argument always has been, how do we really know the students will do better? We have the testing and evaluation component in place. Finally, the program is restricted to those most in need. These will be the poorest families in DC who will participate. They will all be families of four, earning under $34,000 a year. So for 5 years, a child who is not making it, whose parent may be at wit's end, will have an opportunity to say, aha, I might be able to get one of those vouchers. Let's see if John, Sam, Gloria, or Betty can make it in another setting. In other words, let's try another model for our child. Affluent people do this all the time. Affluent people have that opportunity. If their child does not do well in one setting, they can place their child in another setting. Why shouldn't the poor person have that same opportunity? This is the weight of our argument. This is the candor of our argument. I hope this is the caring point of our argument, because if this passes, 2,000 children will be able to take that pilot and 5 years from now we will know a lot more than we know today. I have gotten a lot of flak because I am supporting it. And guess what. I do not care. I have finally reached the stage in my career, I do not care. I am going to do what I sincerely believe is right. I have spent the time. I have gone to the schools, I have seen what works, I have seen what does not work. Believe it or not, I have always been sort of a political figure for the streets as opposed to the policy wonks. I know different things work on the streets that often do not work on the bookshelves. So we will see. It is kind of interesting. I have a member of my own staff who I do not think was very much in favor of me trying this, but at one point she came up to me and said: I must tell you something. I grew up in Anacostia. My parents could afford to send me to a Catholic school, and I went to that school. I saw so many of my peers get into such trouble and it conditioned the whole remainder of their life. Now today, she is a distinguished attorney with a solid career and a solid job. My concern in education has always been K-6. It has always been teaching the basic fundamentals to kids so they could go on and learn, because if they do not have the basic fundamentals, it is so humiliating. As mayor, I used to go out to Bayview Hunter's Point every Monday. I spent the afternoon with children. I talked to children. It took me 6 months to get them to look me in the eye, to be able to pronounce their names, to be able to talk directly to another human being. It took the time, the energy, and the effort. Through no fault of their own, in many cases our public institutions are so overburdened, with so many different issues, that it is difficult to provide everything for every child. Obviously, some children need more than they are getting. I hope there will be others on my side of the aisle who will give this program a chance. I believe it will meet the test of constitutionality. I believe it is a bona fide pilot. I intend to stay with it and see what happens and see that the evaluation and the testing is adequate and carried out correctly and see what we learn for the future for our children. Once again, I thank Senator DeWine for his courtesy in working with me. He really has been terrific and I appreciate it very much. I yield the floor.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. There is no problem. I merely wanted to thank everybody. We heard about this through my Judiciary counsel, who follows the courts, and we came to the floor and indicated we were going to put this together and we got a number of cosponsors. It was really Senator Dorgan who worked out all of the protocols involved. I thank the Commerce Committee, Senator McCain, and Senator Hollings, for their work on this issue. I didn't realize the depth of involvement that had existed. I find the court's decision so out of whack with what has happened. So I am very pleased and I thank the Senator from Montana for his courtesy. I am glad to see that so many of our fellow colleagues, from both sides of the aisle, have joined us in this important and urgent effort, and that we were able to take up this legislation so quickly, in record time. It was only about 24 hours ago that I first raised this issue on the Senate floor. Our bill is identical in language to the bill introduced in the House of Representatives, and we expect one or both of the bills to pass today. The bill simply confirms what we all already thought was true, that the Federal Trade Commission has the authority to implement a ``Do-Not- Call'' Registry. We in Congress must act quickly, because this registry is due to go into effect in just 1 week on October 1. Literally tens of millions of Americans have registered their phone numbers not to be called by telemarketers. I have rarely seen an issue where so many millions of Americans have made their strong preferences known. Are we going to simply tell them that this was all a myth? Or is Congress going to act to honor our earlier commitments and to protect this important right to privacy? These citizens expect us to act--and I believe that the momentum is clearly on our side. If allowed to stand, the decision made by an Oklahoma district court judge that the National Do-Not-Call-Registry would strike a powerful blow against the basic private interests of millions of Americans. Right now, these people are subjected to unwanted and annoying marketing calls to their homes at all times of the day, including the dinner hour. According to industry estimates, about 60 million telemarketing calls are made daily. With advances in technology and declining telephone costs, consumers would face the prospect of an unprecedented barrage of calls. And this is why the registry is so important. The FTC's registry will give Americans who want to avoid these unsolicited sales pitches a chance to stop annoying intrusions into their home. As we know, tens of millions of Americans have registered more than 50 million phone numbers for this program. In the end, the Federal Trade Commission expects 60 percent of the Nation's households with approximately 60 million home phone lines to sign on to the registry. This registry is crucial because it puts consumers in charge of the number of telemarketing calls they receive. Telemarketers who disregard the registry could be fined up to $11,000 per call. The Oklahoma district court yesterday ruled that the Do Not Call Registry is ``invalid''--that is the word the judge used in his decision--because it was created without congressional authority. I find this conclusion surprising since Congress passed H.R. 395, the Do-Not-Call Implementation Act on February 13 of this year. The legislation clearly authorizes the Federal Trade Commission and the Federal Communications Commission to collect fees sufficient to implement the registry. And the Appropriations Committee granted $18 million for the program. I also note that the FTC's rule came after an exhaustive comment period. The FTC announced its plan to proceed with the registry on December 18, 2002, after receiving 64,000 comments. The overwhelming majority of these comments favored the creation of the registry. Millions of Americans were promised protection from annoying, unwanted telemarketing calls starting October 1. They are outraged--and so are we--by this setback. Congress must move now and unanimously adopt and pass legislation which grants the authority to the FTC, clearly and unequivocally--so that no Federal judge can misunderstand it. Many of us were taken by surprise yesterday, but by putting this legislation to a vote now, we are doing the right thing. On October 1, let's make sure that the millions of Americans who want their privacy protected from these telemarketers are not disappointed. I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this legislation.