For public schools. But for independent schools.

I mean, what I'm getting at--let me go over to Ms. Rhee.

I hope you would--I was trying to do such a good job in encouraging accountability that I forgot to say...

This is to enable me to attend, the school of their choice.

I think we want choice so that children can opt into better situations that ensure their learning is going on.

the D.C. voucher program has proven to be the most effective education policy evaluated by the Federal Government's official education research arm, so far.

This is a very interesting testimony.

Chancellor Rhee, who says she'd like to continue this three-pronged approach for 5 years.

I think the intent, here, is--I hope--is simply to say, 'We want to make sure that the charter schools are working.'

I don't think President Obama's made a better appointment than Arne Duncan, the Secretary of Education.

I know your deep interest in this, and strong feelings about it.

I appreciate the way you conducted the last hearing, you and Senator Collins.

I am asking you about a mandate. We have a mandate for wind and solar, really, mainly wind is the practical effect.

Why don't we have a clean energy standard? Why do we leave out, for example, nuclear power, which produces 70 percent of our carbon-free electricity today?

I believe that anyone who is very fervently for nuclear power should be for this type of global warming legislation.

Maybe what we need is a base-load clean energy standard and a renewable clean energy standard.

He said what we believe, that it is safe, that we have ways to deal with the waste, and he wants to get it going.

Well, we wouldn't want to destroy the environment in the name of saving the environment.

So why don't we have a clean energy standard or why don't we have a base-load clean energy standard and a renewable energy standard?

I believe we can electrify half our cars and trucks--I learned that from one of the witnesses here today--during the next 20 years.

But it excludes nuclear power.

There would be more under building 100 nuclear power plants, a lot more, than there would be under building even 180,000 wind turbines.

The biggest subsidies by far go to wind, which is 19 times per kilowatt hour times the subsidy for nuclear.

By my computations, if all that were fully implemented, we would reach the Kyoto goals by 2030 without a cap-and-trade, and do it in a low cost way.

the relative cost of building a comparable amount of nuclear and wind would be about the same.