Jim Jeffords

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, for the past few days, the Senate has been considering the conference report to accompany the Department of Defense authorization bill for fiscal year 1998. While there are several areas of controversy, I would like to highlight one area that I believe has not been given sufficient consideration: funding for the National Guard. This bill contains a couple of disturbing provisions, not so much for their immediate impact, but for their long-term consequences. First, the proposal to add a representative for the Guard and Reserves on the Joint Chiefs of Staff, which I strongly support, has been watered down to call for two two-star advisors to the Chairman of the JCS. Mr. President, this is essentially the same role that the head of the National Guard Bureau has today. I do not see this as an enhancement of the Guard's status in the highest circles of decisionmaking. And I'm told that in the Pentagon, two two-stars don't equal a four. I am afraid that the current pattern of decisionmaking is responsible for the shortfall in resources for the National Guard that we see in the legislation before us, and if it is not altered in a significant manner, the National Guard is likely to have greater problems in the future. The other provision that I would like to draw my colleagues attention to is the cut in Army National Guard personnel endstrength of 5,000. Mr. President, we all understand that over the next few years, endstrengths will come down for all the services. But what this bill does is to pick out one component of the military and require it to make a significant cut without calling on other components to begin their agreed-upon reductions. In fact, this bill forces reductions in the only part of the U.S. Army to actually meet its endstrength requirements. I am not sure that all my colleagues realize that because the Army National Guard is actually over its required endstrength by about 2,000 people, the legislation will force the layoff of more than 5,000 young men and women who are currently serving their country. Whereas if similar cuts were to come in the active component, the cuts would be implemented in large part by eliminating unfilled positions. This does not seem to me to be the way to maintain a dedicated cadre of military professionals. Finally, I speak out today because I am concerned that this legislation may be taken as a sign by some as a change in Congress' attitude toward the National Guard. I very strongly believe that the future of the U.S. Armed Forces must include a greater role for the Guard and Reserves, not a diminished one. As defense resources shrink, as the nature of our employment structures change, and as we develop better tools for keeping our weekend warriors up to speed as top quality practioners of their military arts, we must put more of our faith in that part of the U.S. military that is closest to the people-- the National Guard. For too long, Congress has been seen as the primary bastion of support for the Guard and Reserves--not the Pentagon. An example of this is the administration's request for no new procurement funds for fiscal year 1998 for the Army Guard and Air Guard, out of a total procurement budget request of $42,883,000,000. This is not only unrealistic--it is dangerous. And until the administration sends up a more balanced request, Congress will have to continue its vigilance on behalf of the Guard. But this is not the way it should be, Mr. President, and I am disappointed that the bill before us today did not take advantage of the opportunity to change this situation. It is my impression that a great debate continues to rage on the future structure of our military forces. I trust that this bill will not be taken as Congress' comments on that discussion, and that renewed energy will go into finding a better solution to these dilemmas in the coming years.

Mr. JEFFORDS

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

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, Department of Education officials have been working diligently to resolve the problems with the consolidation program and have indicated that it will reopen by December 1. I believe we would all welcome seeing the program back on its feet. In the meantime, we need to give students another option right now. We also need to help alleviate the pressure on the direct consolidation loan program which will inevitably occur when it reopens--only to face the pent-up demand built up over a 3-month period. Prior to the shutdown, applications were running approximately 12,000 per month. This legislation is intended to provide immediate relief to students and is designed specifically for that purpose. It modifies the current FFELP consolidation program to assure that loan subsidies are maintained, to provide for the same interest rate in effect for FDLP consolidation loans, and to protect borrowers against discrimination. The bill does not, nor is it intended to, address every issue which has been raised with respect to the loan consolidation provisions of the Higher Education Act. In anticipation that these issues would be fully debated and addressed in next year's reauthorization of the act, the consolidation provisions of this legislation will expire on October 1, 1998. Finally, this legislation also includes important provisions dealing with the calculation of student aid under the Higher Education Act. The Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997 contained two educational tax credits designed to help students and their families pay for the rising cost of higher education. Under current law, the need analysis formula will consider students and their parents who receive the tax credit as having greater resources to pay for college, thereby reducing their eligibility for student financial aid. As a result, students and their families will find their financial aid reduced and that the amount they expended for higher education remained relatively unchanged by the educational tax credits. If the change in the need analysis formula included in this legislation is not made, approximately 69,000 individuals will lose an estimated $120 million in student financial aid. I do not believe that this needed relief for students should be further delayed, and I urge my colleagues to withdraw their objections so we can get this measure to the President. Mr. President, I want to just please urge those who are opposing the consideration of this bill to at least take the time to fully understand the ramifications of their failure to allow this bill to come up. I am sure that when they do so, they will recognize that this is not something which should be left undone before we leave here this fall. Exhibit 1 American Council on Education, Office of the President, Washington, DC, October 28, 1997. Dear Senator: I write on behalf of the undersigned to express our strong support for S. 1294, the ``Emergency Student Loan Consolidation Act of 1997.'' This urgent legislation contains two important provisions, each of which provides significant benefits for students. First, the bill amends the student aid need analysis section of Title IV to exclude from parental or student income the amount of any tax credit claimed under the ``Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997.'' This is an essential conforming change that is necessary to fulfill the intent of framers of the tax bill regarding the Hope Scholarship and Lifetime tax credits. Second, the bill provides temporary, but much-needed, relief for tens of thousands of borrowers whose access to Direct Consolidation loans has been limited due to the problems experienced by the Department of Education in implementing the Consolidation program. While we hope the Department will soon eliminate the massive backlog of applications, and that it will be able to accept and process applications soon, it is important to provide additional consolidation options for borrowers who desperately need help now. S. 1294 will provide several significant borrower benefits: The bill allows borrowers to consolidate their student loans not only through the Direct Consolidation program, but also through the lender of their choice in the Federal Family Education Loan Program (FFELP). It lowers the interest rate on FFEL Consolidation loans, and sets a maximum cap on interest at the same rate as is currently in effect for Direct Consolidation loans. It equalizes the treatment of certain interest exemption benefits for all borrowers by extending the Direct Consolidation program's treatment of these exemptions to the FFEL Consolidation program. The bill provides adequate non-discrimination provisions that go beyond current law in FFELP in limiting lender discretion. We respectfully request that you join us in supporting this important legislation, which provides a broad array of much- needed student benefits. Sincerely, Stanley O. Ikenberry, President. On behalf of the following: American Council on Education. American Association of Community Colleges. American Association of State Colleges and Universities. Association of American Universities. National Association of Graduate and Professional Students. National Association of Independent Colleges and Universities. National Association of State Universities and Land-Grant Colleges. United States Public Interest Research Group. United States Student Association.

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, the House measure is now being held at the desk and is available for immediate action by the Senate. It has been cleared on the Republican side of the aisle. Unfortunately, due to objections from the other side of the aisle, we are unable to consider it. I want to take this opportunity to discuss the provisions of this legislation and the need to move expeditiously on it. This legislation does two things: First, it permits individuals to consolidate all their student loans--both Federal Direct Loan Program [FDLP] loans and Federal Family Education Loan Program [FFELP] loans--into a FFELP consolidation loan. Under current law, students who have both direct and guaranteed loans may only consolidate them into an FDLP consolidation loan administered by the Department of Education. The problem is that FDLP consolidation is not an option right now. Since August 26, the Department has suspended its consolidation program in an effort to deal with the backlog of 84,000 applications which had piled up prior to that time. Second, it assures that students and their parents will enjoy the full benefits of the educational tax credits contained within the Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997 by excluding these tax credits from consideration when student financial need is being assessed. Let me talk for a moment about why it is important to offer a loan consolidation option to those students who, right now, have nowhere to turn. The student loan consolidation program allows students to consolidate multiple student loans into a single loan that has several repayment options. The benefits of consolidation include the convenience of making a single monthly loan payment. In addition, the repayment options can reduce monthly payments. For many young families, these loans reduce their monthly payments enough to allow them to qualify for a mortgage for their first home. In my view, we need to make every possible effort to assure that consolidation is a benefit to students--not just another obstacle course. A New York Times article about the series of problems which has plagued the FDLP consolidation program operated by the Department of Education under contract with Electronic Data Systems Corp. brings to life the individuals whom this legislation is trying to help. Consider the following account regarding Shannan Elmore: It seemed like a simple enough thing to do: consolidate 10 different Government-sponsored college loans due over 10 years into one jumbo loan payable over 25, slashing the monthly payment to $350 from $448. That was one of the last things standing between Shannan Elmore and mortgage approval for the house--the one whose concrete foundation her husband had proposed in front of--that she wanted to build near Boulder, CO. But Mrs. Elmore, a 30-year-old chemist who graduated in May 1996 with a master's degree and $43,000 of debt, said it took eight months for the Electronic Data Systems Corporation to do the paperwork--far too long to satisfy the mortgage lender. During those months, Mrs. Elmore said, she called frequently only to be put on hold--for as long as 45 minutes--and received one promissory note missing the very page her lender needed to see. She said she was still trying to clear up a loan that E.D.S. thinks it paid off twice and for which it is double-billing her. The Elmores eventually qualified for a mortgage, but for a different house. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the full text of the article, which appeared in the New York Times on October 1, 1997, appear in the Record following my remarks.

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I want to bring to the attention of my colleagues an important matter, which I hope can receive consideration before we leave this fall. Last week, the Senate Committee on Labor and Human Resources unanimously reported out a bill, S. 1294, the Emergency Student Loan Consolidation Act of 1997. This measure is a modest, but extremely important, effort designed to assist students attempting to finance their higher education. The measure enjoys broad bipartisan support. The House companion bill, H.R. 2335, was approved by a vote of 43 to 0 by the House Committee on Education and the Workforce. This measure, with language identical to S. 1294, as reported by the Labor Committee, was subsequently approved by the full House under suspension by voice vote. It has also been endorsed by national associations representing students and institutions of higher education. I ask unanimous consent that a letter from Dr. Stanley O. Ikenberry, president of the American Council on Education, be printed in the Record following my remarks.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I rise today to continue a discussion that my colleague, Senator Leahy, began earlier, with regard to the Federal Communications Commission proposed rulemaking on regulations for wireless and digital broadcast facilities. University of Vermont instructor and landscape designer Jean Veissering recently stated ``We have a real spiritual connection with hilltops. They tend to be almost sacred ground. Building something jarringly out of character upon them seems almost like a sacrilege.'' Mr. President, I share Jean's sentiments completely. In addition, it is the beautiful views of the majestic mountain ranges that in many ways defines what Vermont is all about. Vermonters take great pride in their heritage as a State committed to the ideals of freedom and unity. That heritage goes hand and hand with a unique quality of life and the desire to grow and develop while maintaining Vermont's beauty and character. Ethan Allan and his Green Mountain Boys and countless other independent minded Vermonters helped shape the Nation's 14th State while making outstanding contributions to the independence of this country. Today, that independence still persists in the hills and valleys of Vermont. Vermonters have worked hard over the years to maintain local control over issues that impact them directly. Throughout my years in Congress, I fought hard to protect the ability of Vermonters to step out of their kitchen doors and see an unobstructed view. Thousands of Americans travel to Vermont each year to take in the splendid nature of the State. However, Vermont could have looked quite different if it were not for some foresight on behalf of several Vermonters. In the 1960's, the State of Vermont was entering into a period of unchecked development. In response, Governor Dean C. Davis created the Commission on Environmental Control in May of 1969. The commission drafted a set of recommendations to help manage the precious resources of the State. As the attorney general for the State at that time, I was one of the primary drafters of an environmental land use law which would later become known as Act 250. Act 250 was specifically written to control development, not to stop development, and in turn, this act has led Vermont to economic prosperity through balanced environmental protection. After reviewing the Commission on Environmental Control's recommendation and the proposed legislation, Governor Davis made one very basic, but important change in the legislation. The proposed legislation had called for a State agency to administer the act. The Governor was adamant in his belief that the control should be as close to the people as possible. It is that control which the FCC's proposed rulemaking is looking to preempt. Governor Davis' recommendation led to placing the permitting process in the hands of local environmental review boards with appeal rights to the Vermont Environmental Board. Thus, the act is administered by men and women who are directly involved in their communities and thoroughly familiar with local concerns. When reviewing an application for new development, the local environmental review boards take into account the economic needs of the State along with regional concerns. The review board's underlying goal is to direct the impact of development toward the positive. The positive approach has led to a high priority on preserving the environment, protecting the natural resources, and maintaining the quality of life of all Vermonters. On October 9, 1997, the State of Vermont Environmental Board filed comments with the Federal Communications Commission that stated: ``Far from being an impediment to personal wireless service deployment, Vermont's Act 250 demonstrates that the path to economic prosperity is through balanced environmental protection, not preemption of such protection.'' I share the board's sentiments and feel that the FCC should take no further steps to preempt Vermont's Act 250 with respect to personal wireless service facilities. Mr. President, the Green Mountain State has unique topography, dominated by rolling valleys and tall mountains. In turn, the citizens of the State have taken many steps to help preserve the beautiful views and pristine environment. The determination of the location of visible transmission towers should remain within the jurisdiction of local control. I feel that the Telecommunication Act of 1996 recognizes and protects the interest of local and State government in the area of land use regulation. As the attorney general of the State of Vermont at the time of the enactment of Act 250, I am proud of the role I and many other Vermonters played in the subsequent management of the precious natural resources of the State. I support Act 250 and feel that the placement of communications towers should be left in the hands of the residents of Vermont not by a Federal agency. I have written to the Chairman of the FCC with regard to my concerns about this proposed rulemaking. In addition, yesterday the Senate confirmed William Kennard to be the next Chairman of the FCC. Upon his confirmation, I wrote a letter to Chairman Kennard personally inviting him to the State of Vermont to see first hand how this proposed rulemaking would impact the State. I hope that he will join me on a tour of the State which will demonstrate to him the importance of local control with respect to the placement of broadcast facilities. Further, I look forward to explaining how Act 250 has allowed for the development of wireless communication in the State while protecting the environment. Mr. President, in conclusion, I want to commend Mr. Leahy for introducing this very important legislation for the State of Vermont. I am pleased to be a cosponsor and I look forward to working with him to protect Vermont's interests unique landscape.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I rise today to continue a discussion that my colleague, Senator Leahy, began earlier, with regard to the Federal Communications Commission proposed rulemaking on regulations for wireless and digital broadcast facilities. University of Vermont instructor and landscape designer Jean Veissering recently stated ``We have a real spiritual connection with hilltops. They tend to be almost sacred ground. Building something jarringly out of character upon them seems almost like a sacrilege.'' Mr. President, I share Jean's sentiments completely. In addition, it is the beautiful views of the majestic mountain ranges that in many ways defines what Vermont is all about. Vermonters take great pride in their heritage as a State committed to the ideals of freedom and unity. That heritage goes hand and hand with a unique quality of life and the desire to grow and develop while maintaining Vermont's beauty and character. Ethan Allan and his Green Mountain Boys and countless other independent minded Vermonters helped shape the Nation's 14th State while making outstanding contributions to the independence of this country. Today, that independence still persists in the hills and valleys of Vermont. Vermonters have worked hard over the years to maintain local control over issues that impact them directly. Throughout my years in Congress, I fought hard to protect the ability of Vermonters to step out of their kitchen doors and see an unobstructed view. Thousands of Americans travel to Vermont each year to take in the splendid nature of the State. However, Vermont could have looked quite different if it were not for some foresight on behalf of several Vermonters. In the 1960's, the State of Vermont was entering into a period of unchecked development. In response, Governor Dean C. Davis created the Commission on Environmental Control in May of 1969. The commission drafted a set of recommendations to help manage the precious resources of the State. As the attorney general for the State at that time, I was one of the primary drafters of an environmental land use law which would later become known as Act 250. Act 250 was specifically written to control development, not to stop development, and in turn, this act has led Vermont to economic prosperity through balanced environmental protection. After reviewing the Commission on Environmental Control's recommendation and the proposed legislation, Governor Davis made one very basic, but important change in the legislation. The proposed legislation had called for a State agency to administer the act. The Governor was adamant in his belief that the control should be as close to the people as possible. It is that control which the FCC's proposed rulemaking is looking to preempt. Governor Davis' recommendation led to placing the permitting process in the hands of local environmental review boards with appeal rights to the Vermont Environmental Board. Thus, the act is administered by men and women who are directly involved in their communities and thoroughly familiar with local concerns. When reviewing an application for new development, the local environmental review boards take into account the economic needs of the State along with regional concerns. The review board's underlying goal is to direct the impact of development toward the positive. The positive approach has led to a high priority on preserving the environment, protecting the natural resources, and maintaining the quality of life of all Vermonters. On October 9, 1997, the State of Vermont Environmental Board filed comments with the Federal Communications Commission that stated: ``Far from being an impediment to personal wireless service deployment, Vermont's Act 250 demonstrates that the path to economic prosperity is through balanced environmental protection, not preemption of such protection.'' I share the board's sentiments and feel that the FCC should take no further steps to preempt Vermont's Act 250 with respect to personal wireless service facilities. Mr. President, the Green Mountain State has unique topography, dominated by rolling valleys and tall mountains. In turn, the citizens of the State have taken many steps to help preserve the beautiful views and pristine environment. The determination of the location of visible transmission towers should remain within the jurisdiction of local control. I feel that the Telecommunication Act of 1996 recognizes and protects the interest of local and State government in the area of land use regulation. As the attorney general of the State of Vermont at the time of the enactment of Act 250, I am proud of the role I and many other Vermonters played in the subsequent management of the precious natural resources of the State. I support Act 250 and feel that the placement of communications towers should be left in the hands of the residents of Vermont not by a Federal agency. I have written to the Chairman of the FCC with regard to my concerns about this proposed rulemaking. In addition, yesterday the Senate confirmed William Kennard to be the next Chairman of the FCC. Upon his confirmation, I wrote a letter to Chairman Kennard personally inviting him to the State of Vermont to see first hand how this proposed rulemaking would impact the State. I hope that he will join me on a tour of the State which will demonstrate to him the importance of local control with respect to the placement of broadcast facilities. Further, I look forward to explaining how Act 250 has allowed for the development of wireless communication in the State while protecting the environment. Mr. President, in conclusion, I want to commend Mr. Leahy for introducing this very important legislation for the State of Vermont. I am pleased to be a cosponsor and I look forward to working with him to protect Vermont's interests unique landscape.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate immediately proceed to executive session to consider the following nominations on the Executive Calendar: Nos. 276, 280, 283, 284 and 285. I further ask unanimous consent that the nominations be confirmed, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, any statements relating to the nominations appear in the Record, and the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action, and the Senate then return to legislative session.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, if there is no further business to come before the Senate, I now ask that the Senate stand in adjournment under the previous order following the remarks of Senator Levin.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, tomorrow, following the 10:30 vote, there will be a period of morning business until 12 noon. The Senate will begin consideration of S. 1292, a bill disapproving the cancellations transmitted by the President on October 6. The measure has a 10-hour statutory time limitation. However, it is the hope of the majority leader that much of that time may be yielded. The Senate may also consider and complete action on any or all of the following items: the District of Columbia appropriations bill, the FDA reform conference report, the Amtrak strike resolution, the intelligence authorization conference report, and any additional legislation or executive items that can be cleared. I also remind all Senators that under rule XXII they have until 1 p.m. on Thursday in order to file timely amendments to H.R. 2646, the A-plus education savings account bill. Needless to say, all Senators should expect rollcall votes throughout Thursday's session of the Senate.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that S. 1173 be placed back on the calendar.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today it stand in adjournment until the hour of 10 a.m. on Thursday, October 30. I further ask that on Thursday, immediately following the prayer, the routine requests through the morning hour be granted. As in executive session, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate immediately proceed to executive session for the consideration of Calendar No. 324, Judge Siragusa, of New York, and the time between then and 10:30 a.m. be equally divided between the chairman and ranking member. I further ask consent that at 10:30 the Senate proceed to vote on the confirmation of the nomination, and immediately following that vote the notification of the President, and upon resumption of legislative session there be a period of morning business until the hour of 12 noon with Senators to speak up to 5 minutes each with the following exceptions: Senator Thomas for up to 30 minutes; Senator Daschle, or his designee, for up to 30 minutes. I further ask unanimous consent that at 12 noon the Senate proceed to the consideration of S. 1292 regarding the line-item veto matter.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that committee substitute be agreed to, the resolution be agreed to, as amended, the preamble be agreed to, the title amendment be agreed to, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and that any statements related to the resolution appear in the Record.

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 200, Senate Concurrent Resolution 37.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the amendment be agreed to, the bill be considered read a third time and passed, as amended, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and that any statements relating to the bill appear in the Record.

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, Senator Lugar has a managers' amendment at the desk, and I ask for its consideration.

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now proceed to the consideration of Calendar No. 154, Senate 1150.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, that the preamble be agreed to, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and that any statements relating to the resolution appear at this point in the Record.

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 172, Senate Resolution 123.

Mr. JEFFORDS. I appreciate the Senator saying that.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. I thank my good friend from North Dakota for his remarks. The subject I will talk about I know the Presiding Officer does not need to hear. He is well aware of what I am talking about and I know agrees with me that we have to take action.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. I yield the floor.

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I rise today to bring to the attention of the Senate the tragic situation we have going on right now in the school system of the Nation's Capital. Nearly every day for the past month an article has appeared in the Washington papers portraying the State of emergency and dysfunction in the District of Columbia's public school system--the shutting down of schools. Here are some of the facts: For the fourth year in a row the schools in this city have opened late by at least 2 weeks. This year they are continuing to be closed by the fact that there are repairs that are essential and necessary to be made. The reason they have opened late is because of an infrastructure emergency--repairs and renovations. These needs are estimated by the GSA to be about $2 billion. And this is almost all for code violations. It has nothing to do with their acceptability from educational function purposes. The Congress of the United States is responsible for the schools of the Nation's Capital, the students who depend on these schools, and the repairs these schools need. What are we doing about this? I, for one, am ashamed of the way we have not done anything that is responsible to this point, other than what the Appropriations Committee has done out of necessity but not the way that it ought to be done to be responsible. I ask my colleagues to take a look at the human result of schools opening late and then closing again. I ask you to take a look at this. This came from the Washington Post. I will read it to you. The sign says, ``Why should students suffer? For adult incompetence.'' Those adults are us. We are the ones that have the primary responsibility for the city. We took it back. We took home rule away basically. This student is from a senior high school and holds a sign. These students were all forced out of their school and forced to be trucked, bused, whatever else, to some other place to be able to receive education until such time as that school is fixed. All this student wants to do is to go to class and start paving the way for her future. Who are the adults that this poster refers to? They are us. We cannot deny that. I hope we begin to understand that. Times have changed. We took back home rule basically. Why is the city in this mess? Why can't they get the revenue stream they need to bond so that they can responsibly repair these schools on some sort of a schedule, to get them all done so they can be done when the school year opens, and to do it not in a piecemeal fashion as the Appropriations Committee has been forced to do by having emergencies to appropriate money to do this? We have to have a plan. If somebody else has a plan to do it, fine. But we cannot let this situation go on where year after year we are going to be doing this, shutting the schools down and trying to find ways to open them. We created this problem. This is another important thing to remember. In 1974, when we gave home rule to Washington, DC, a very, very astute Member of the Virginia delegation--I commend him for his foresight because Lord knows what would have happened if they had all this additional money to spend with what they did have--but he got legislation passed which said that you can't tax the nonresidents that are working in your city. This is the only city in the country under this situation that does not have that authority. Sure, the District could levy an income tax on its own residents, but due to the inability to tax the nonresidents, and especially because of the situation in the city--the workers were fleeing out of town; crime was the No. 1 issue; schools second--people were leaving in droves. A lousy educational system, a lousy police system, and so we went from about 50 percent of the workers being residents down to about 30 percent. As money drained from the District, crime went up, as I said, and the school system deteriorated causing the well-known national phenomenon known as ``urban flight.'' But the urban and middle class population stayed close to the District of Columbia in the suburbs because it is the crown jewel of this metropolitan region. Being the Nation's Capital, the District provides the jobs, the tourism, the prestige and therefore high-earning capacity to an enormously affluent population residing in the surrounding Virginia and Maryland counties. But like a tiger with no teeth, the District, under current law, has no ability to levy any fair recompense from those who benefit daily from its services, its roads, and all else, and, namely, their jobs. Let me point out, every other city in an interstate circumstance like D.C. does have the ability to gain revenues from nonresident workers to support the maintenance of their schools, and whatever else. In the absence of such a dedicated revenue stream, Congress has tried to keep the city afloat through the annual appropriations process. But in some ways that is like giving a man dying of thirst a drop or two of water every year. Eventually, the biological systems just give out from the stress of such bare-bones maintenance. And that is what has happened to the school system here. It is in the process of giving out. Listen to the beginning of the article from yesterday's Washington Post. District schoolchildren lined up somberly in the cold mist early yesterday outside Emery Elementary School in Northeast Washington, waiting to be taken to makeshift classes at a nearby school and a neighboring church. Their school was one of five closed late last week. . . This is dated October 28th, so this is well after school should have begun. where asbestos is being removed during boiler repairs. That is what has been going on. We just cannot blind ourselves to it. And I know when you talk about D.C., most everybody and Members just say, ``Well, that's not our problem.'' But it is. That is the message I want to give them today. In 1995, Congress created the Control Board and later the Emergency School Board of Trustees thereby taking back most of the authority over the management and delivery of education which the Senate previously had. And we therefore took over the responsibility of the schools of this city. This Emergency School Board of Trustees deals specifically with the school infrastructure problem. Earlier, the Control Board asked GSA to estimate the need, and outline a plan for repair and renovation. And the report came out in September of 1995, showing a $2 billion sum, mostly for code violations, in order to make the schools physically safe for the children to be in. The thought of appropriating $2 billion from the Congress, to do this in an orderly fashion, is of course impossible to think of. And why should they when all they have to have is the power that any other city, under the circumstances, has to take really a 1 percent tax on the nonresidents in order to be able to raise enough money on the bonding to fix the schools? Why shouldn't the people that benefit from the jobs in this city take part in helping the city, like those benefiting in every other city under these similar circumstances do? We have on our shoulders the burden of these schools. The average District of Columbia public school facility is 65 years old. We have also taken on our shoulders the fact that 48 more roofs need to be replaced. That is in addition to all of those that have been replaced up to now. We have taken on ourselves the burden that 72 of the school boilers need to be replaced. We are heading into winter right now and already they are blowing up or failing. So we will see these boilers starting to blow up more on the days ahead. The colder it gets the more they will be going, and we will get more articles in the Washington Post and more condemnation for our failure to act. The control board has tried to meet the demands. Under the direction of Gen. Julius Becton, 61 school roofs have been repaired or replaced since January 1997 but that is all from emergency money from the Appropriations Committee--not a sound way to do it. Over the past 2 years, $86 million has been appropriated for such repairs. Also, I have been able to raise a similar amount by being able to find things that were going to raise money within the city like the privatization of Sallie Mae and Connie Lee, so we have put a lot of money into fixing these schools up, but to do it piecemeal one or two schools at a time-- it will be 40 years before we are done at that rate. The District needs a dedicated revenue stream to be able to bond to meet the $2 billion challenge. We need that stream to responsibly meet our responsibilities. I have a plan to do that. If someone else has a better plan, fine, bring it forward, let's take a look at it, but let us not fail to meet our responsibilities. My proposal to meet this challenge is laid out in the legislation S. 1070, which proposes a nonresident income tax to provide that dedicated revenue stream to fix the schools, to provide that $2 billion. Incidentally, I want to reassure, and I don't know how many of my colleagues listen to us when we are here, but I know a number of our staff do because they called up in a panic thinking they would have to pay more taxes. I want to reassure them that that is not the case because already in the law they are required to allow people to take that as a tax credit for either the Virginia or Maryland taxes they pay, so no one is going to pay any more taxes. That will all be able to be taken as a credit against the taxes of Maryland and Virginia. For all of those hard-working residents of northern Virginia and southern Maryland I say you will not have a difference in your tax. I want to emphasize that. My proposal is also to take a reasonable approach to the issue of education and training, to create a reasonable partnership dedicated to fix the 50,000 jobs that are out in this area that are going begging because the region does not provide the necessary skills for them to take these jobs. If we go up to 3 percent we can provide a revenue stream for the District to help them float municipal bonds or to provide money to improve their educational system. I know the Presiding Officer from North Carolina had spectacular results in taking care of regions, and providing the educational skill and training in regions, and I know this will work here if we have the funding to do it. The bill represents a novel and equitable approach. The taxpayer suffers no economic detriment. The taxpayer's community in the Washington metropolitan area will receive substantial additional education training benefit. Workers for the thousands of available jobs will be provided new business which will be attractive and substantial new tax revenues will be raised. This is a win-win win-win. In this process, Congress will live up to its responsibility to meet that $2 billion challenge through the simple act of giving the District of Columbia the ability to act like any other city in a similar interstate situation. By giving up our responsibility we will not have to bear the shame of knowing that those adults the marching students referred to, ``Why should students suffer--for adult incompetence,'' that we would no longer be placed in a position of having to respond to that. I thank my colleagues. I urge them in joining me to make the issue of our Nation's Capital school system a top priority for us. I ask unanimous consent the complete Washington Post article from yesterday be printed in the Record.