Jim Jeffords

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. I point out that we have never cut the school budgets of the city. The city has recommended reductions, some of which were accepted. We have never imposed cuts. So, again, let us get the facts straight. In addition to that, this $5 million is the only thing at risk here. All of that can be used if the city council and the scholarship corporation agree. It can all be used for the kind of vouchers that no one opposes, for remedial instruction. Local control is total here.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. I would prefer--if the Senator would like to proceed at this point, I will allow him to do so.

Mr. JEFFORDS. On Tuesday the Senator from Wisconsin and I had a colloquy to clarify the status of the board. Yes, there are other new boards that are created for the purposes of educational reform. That is correct. May I inquire how much time I have?

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I want to close here. I hope this is very clear to my colleagues, and I will make sure they know what we are voting upon today. I hope you would concentrate on what the actual situation is as to the tuition scholarships. There may be not a single penny spent unless the city council agrees to it. Keep that in mind. It is all local control. The Mayor says it is fine with him because it is all local control. So I urge my colleagues to support cloture. I yield the remainder of my time.

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, once again we are here debating the District of Columbia appropriations bill for the current fiscal year, which is now fully 5 months old. The city began the year strapped for cash and it has not received $254 million of Federal funds that will be available once this bill is enacted. The kids in the public schools are still faced with a community and system that has not made them a priority. The Committee on Public Education, known as COPE, is a group of local civic and business leaders who have spent nearly 6 years studying the D.C. public schools. In its report a year ago is stated that too many remain too invested in the status quo. COPE also found that the District has not really tried reform. The kids in many District public schools continue to attempt to prepare for life in the next century in school buildings that were built in the first half of this century, and are in deplorable physical condition. Many schools lack the infrastructure to accommodate the same technology that the neighborhood grocery store employs. If we do not begin the process of educational reform and fiscal recovery by passing this conference agreement we can never hope to achieve the goals we, the Congress, set for ourselves last year. A financially fit and economically stable Nation's Capital that is able to attract businesses, jobs, and people to support a tax base that will enable a public education system that prepares our kids for the future is an absolute necessity for this community and for our Nation. If we cannot do it in the District, where can you? Mr. President, we have a limited amount of time for debate and I do not intend to restate the arguments that were made on Tuesday. But it is important to restate that this scholarship program, limited, in both time and scope, is not the occasion for a national debate on the question of private school vouchers. We have an appropriations bill that should have been enacted months ago. We resolved most of the issues, some of which were controversial and the subject of intense discussion, including the other education reform initiatives, in relatively short order. But we had great difficulty finding common ground on a scholarship program, which had to be a part of this conference agreement with respect to the interests of the House. Mr. President, I hope that Senators will consider the financial plight of the District government and the educational future of D.C. kids when they cast their vote today and not the fears of a few who are invested in the status quo. I ask Senators to vote for cloture and allow the city to get on with its important rebuilding work. Mr. President, I will briefly mention again two other issues. We have gone over the abortion issue many times, and about what was reached as a compromise between what the Bush and Clinton administrations did. I talked to you yesterday and, hopefully, removed from your mind any concerns about Davis-Bacon problems. If there are concerns under the interpretation, we are ready to take care of that before this goes into law. So I urge Senators, please, review what was said yesterday and please pass this conference report by allowing us to have cloture. Mr. President, I yield the floor and reserve the remainder of my time. Mr. KOHL addressed the Chair.

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from Connecticut.

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, how much time is left?

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I will proceed, then.

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I appreciate the comments of the Senator from Massachusetts. All those comments and dire remarks he made would have been perfectly appropriate if we had been talking about the original House provisions that were in the bill. But that was before the conference report. We are not dealing with the problems that have been referred to by my friend from Massachusetts. Let me go through this. There is no jamming it down anybody's throat. That comment was made. The District council can refuse to spend a single penny on tuition scholarships--not a penny. If they do, the money may be lost if there is no agreement with the scholarship corporation, but there does not need to be a cent spent unless the city agrees to spend it. There is a corporation set up which, must agree with the city council. The corporation will approve all applications for scholarships. In other words, it is not a helter-skelter, ``Here is a tuition payment and you can go anywhere you want.'' It has to be approved by the scholarship corporation, which must also be reviewed by the District council. Under the conference agreement, not the House version, schools enrolling scholarship students must conform to all of the constitutional protections. The disbursal of the funds must be balanced economically. The disbursal of the funds must be balanced educationally, so we do not get a disparate amount of money being spent towards those who are better off, even among those who are eligible for scholarships--it is all low income--just that they are the economically relatively well-situated. Second, there are two sets of scholarships in the bill. All of the money can be spent on remedial scholarships, which everybody agrees to. The worst problem the city has right now is we have 20,000 or 30,000 young people going through the system who are going to either graduate functionally illiterate or drop out. Those are the ones we are focusing on in all of the educational reform. The city council priority, I am sure, and the pressure of the city, I am sure, will be to spend all of that money or almost all of it on the scholarships which are for remedial use, after-school use, or other programs so these kids can be brought up to the status where they can be functionally literate. Also, we must consider what may happen, and I hope does not happen, on the House side. We have been told that if this loses here, this very scaled-down proposal that we are voting on here, not the one that has been described--if this fails, if this modicum of tuition scholarship fails, then we may lose the whole educational package. That would be a travesty; hopefully that will not be the case if we do fail here today.

Mr. JEFFORDS. I will suspend at this point for the Senator from Massachusetts.

Mr. JEFFORDS. No, the Senator is not correct. This was not the intention of the bill, and that will be rectified. But, because the District council reduced the budget for the board's staff and operations, after the conferees had agreed to this provision, that is the way it could be interpreted. We are willing to reprogram some of money in this bill for purposes of the board.

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 move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I know some of my colleagues here wish to make a few remarks. I hope that everyone over the coming days, before we face this issue again, whether it is on another vote to invoke cloture or whether it is on another vote --I think it is wise for all of us to take a look at what must be done if we are going to reach a consensus on many issues in this body. As I have tried to let my colleagues know, we worked long and hard, 90 days, on reaching a compromise with the House. The House is very dug in on this issue. We had to make incredibly difficult changes that they would agree to to bring us to a position where I thought we had a bill that could pass the Congress and win support in a highly Democratic city, a highly unionized city, with a very Democratic mayor. I thought that they would agree with the compromise that we reached. It seems difficult for me to perceive or understand as to why this body would disagree with that compromise. If we cannot find a consensus on this issue, what is going to happen when we get to the three major appropriations bills that we still have not dealt with? Are we somehow going to be able to reach a consensus among the House and this body and the White House? We also have other issues with respect to welfare, Medicaid, and all the other issues that are in addition to the appropriations bills, which to me are so much more difficult. If we cannot reach a consensus on this bill, I do not know what the hope is for the future. I have been in the Congress now for 22 years. During that length of time, I have been on many committees under many different circumstances with respect to which party controls the committees. Many, many difficult issues have been faced during that period of time, and just by virtue of the committees I have been on, I have been in the center of those. I mentioned ``in the center'', for instance, because if one takes a look at the recent ratings, I am the most liberal Republican Senator but I am more conservative than many Democratic Senators. So where does that put me? It puts me right in the middle. Over the course of time I have found myself in that position and have been able to assist in working out the compromises by my ability to see both sides of the issue. In fact, Mr. President, I will reminisce for just a moment. I remember at a critical moment during the Reagan administration we were dealing with a controversial bill, an employment training bill. I was serving in the House, and I got a call from one of the Members of this body who said, ``Jim, we know how hard you worked on this bill, but when we go to the White House, would you tell them how bad it is, because if you tell them how bad it is, I think they will accept it?'' So I went down to the White House and I made a pitch by saying, ``Oh, my God, it goes too far this way and goes too far that way.'' I got a phone call back from that Senator commending me and offering me an Academy Award for my performance. And we reached a consensus. That is how far I would go. Yes, I would have liked to have seen it different, but I was willing to make the compromises that were important to get that bill through. We have to learn how to do that here. I hope in the interim, before we take another vote, that everyone will take a look at what the real issues are here. So many of the statements that were made would be true if this was a national proposal to deal with vouchers or even if it was a D.C. proposal to have a mandated voucher program for the city. But it is not that. So I urge my colleagues in this interim time, if we cannot reach consensus here, where will we ever do it? If we do not do it with the House, which has come a long way, in my mind, in reaching consensus here--they had dug their heels in--we run the risk of losing all the educational reform that is in the bill, all of which is incredibly necessary for the District. We may even lose the ability to provide them with the $254 million in additional Federal funds which they are entitled to under this agreement. So I urge my colleagues to take a close look before we vote again, whenever that may be. Mr. President, I yield the floor. Mr. LOTT addressed the Chair.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I understand the will of the Senate. The Senate has spoken. They did not desire to pass the bill in its present form. I want to make all of my colleagues aware of the serious situation that we are facing with respect to our Capital City, a city for which we have taken responsibility. As I mentioned earlier to my colleagues, we have been for some 90 days or more trying to reach a resolution of this problem. We have two areas of different concerns. One is the fiscal health of the city. That is in a precarious position right now. I want to make sure all of my colleagues are aware of that. If we do not pass an appropriations bill for the city of Washington in the next few days, they will be essentially bankrupt. That bankruptcy will be on our heads because we have not passed the appropriations bill, which was scheduled to be passed by October 1 of last year. I want to assure my colleagues that I am going to take every legislative opportunity to make sure that the city receives the remaining $254 million in Federal funds that were contained in the conference agreement as soon as it is possible. At the same time, I also believe that it is imperative that we maintain as much of the school reform that is contained in this conference report as we can. I will be immediately reaching out to the House Members to see what we can agree to and also be talking, probably more importantly, to the other side of the aisle here who have seen that it was important to them to prevent the passage of this bill at this time in the form that it is in. I want to make sure that we do what we can to help the kids here in Washington. By encouraging individual assessments in the other matters in this bill, which I will go through again briefly, we provide a way of helping both students and teachers make sure that no child falls through the cracks. We have a responsibility to see that that happens. We have thousands of young people in this city, because of the problems we have with the school system, that are in danger of either dropping out or graduating--if they do graduate--in a situation where they will not be ready to enter the work force. We must do all we can to make sure that we take care of these kids. We should also insist upon the independent charter schools as a way of providing competition, which certainly a majority of this body believes is necessary, for the public schools and to give them an incentive to change. This approach provides the chance to improve the education of all D.C. students. The requirement of a long-term plan and the Consensus Commission to ensure its implementation would, for the first time, bring rational criteria to the District's educational policy and goals. The criteria will give the community a measure for the success of these and other initiatives. Greater coordination and cooperation between business and educators is essential as provided for in our conference agreement. We will bring forth more technology with resources to the public school classrooms. This is imperative if we are to prepare our students for competition in the workplace for the next century. Mr. President, I will discuss with the distinguished chairman of the Appropriations Committee our next move, but I want to, again, ensure you I will do everything I can to make sure we pass it in a timely manner and we do provide what is necessary to make sure that the young people of this city have every opportunity--and we have accepted that responsibility--to be able to enter life with an education that they deserve and they need. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, may we have order, please.

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. I yield the remainder of my time to the Senator from Connecticut.

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, the Senator from Wisconsin has raised a problem that came to my attention only after the conference had concluded, and in fact after the House of Representatives had acted on the conference report. When this provision was agreed to, and it was included in the draft of the education title of the bill that was shared with conferees and others on December 14, 1995, the budget for the board of education was more than $1.8 million. However, I am now informed that at the end of December 1995 the board proposed reductions in its own budget and that the council reduced the budget and staffing of the board of education that will be recommended to the control board and then to the Congress. I did not know of these actions until February 1, 1996, the day after the House adopted. It is not this Senator's intention to shut down the board of education. It is my intention, and I believe of the other conferees, that the board ensure that the management and financial information systems of the public school system be modernized and upgraded so that the implementation of the reforms we propose can be monitored, both by the board and by others. If we do not have accurate and timely information we will not be able to achieve the results the kids need. Mr. President, I would suggest to the Senator that since this will become a part of the statute, that I will seek a legislative remedy at our earliest opportunity. Alternatively, I would suggest to city officials that, since it is not our intent that the board cease operation, a reprogramming from other sources could be effected so that the operations of the board can continue. Such reprogramming should be at levels approved by the council and control authority. I hope that this explanation clarifies that our conferees are intent on this matter.

Mr. JEFFORDS. Thank you, Mr. President. What has happened today is what I had hoped would not happen. It has taken us some 90 days to get here to bring forward a proposition to this body which would keep us out of the national debate over the use of the voucher system. This is not the time or place for that. We have a city which needs help, and we have to give it help. So what, in my mind, might have started out as a torpedo aimed at the midsection of public education in the District of Columbia or the country, now has turned into a small shot across the bow, and there is even an opportunity to divert all the powder resulting from firing that shot. That is where we are right now. So let us not make this into a big national issue. Let us wait for that some other day, but let us take care of the District of Columbia school system. Let me clarify some statements here that are confusing. First of all, there are no D.C. public school funds being used at all. This is a separately appropriated fund. Also, the District of Columbia sits in an unusual situation, so it is hard for us to do anything as a demonstration project in the District of Columbia without giving it some Federal implications. We have to keep that in mind. What I wanted to see done, and what we have done in this bill, is to make sure that this is a locally controlled option. There is a nonprofit corporation set up to receive the funds. There will be two different types of vouchers that will be allowed, or scholarships, if you want to call them that. One is for remedial help and one is for tuition scholarships. So we do not know how much is going to be spent on each. There is only $5 million, and there could be private funds to help even more. Also, the private board that is set up will be awarding each scholarship, and under the mandate of this bill, they must ensure, to the best they can, that there is a diversity of academic achievement levels represented among the students that receive the scholarships. So the scholarship board will have control over that. The other issue that was brought up is about the ability to discriminate. The schools cannot discriminate and, again, the board is required to make sure that does not happen. The bill specifically requires that the civil rights laws be carried out and that they will make sure, with respect to the handicapped, that section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act is not violated. Finally, I believe, and believe strongly, that when the final analysis is made, there will be vouchers, but the pressures will not be for the tuition vouchers--hopefully, there will be private funds to satisfy that demand--but there will be so much need for vouchers for remedial help for these kids. We have some 20,000 young people in this city who are in need of remedial help. My belief is there will be such a strong demand on the District Council to see that after-school vouchers are distributed to those in need, and, hopefully, there will be private funds for tuition scholarships so that almost all of the Federal funds will be used for remedial help. Let us not make this into something it is not. It is not an attempt to try and establish a mandated Federal program. This is a local option for the city. I have no problem with sending a message to the public school system that they better get going or else they may see a larger program. It has been 90 days. We have gone through option after option. We have had two agreements that fell apart, and we finally reached this one, which no one who is familiar with it is happy with, which is probably a pretty good solution. The scholarship program is not as far as some would like to go toward trying to establish a voucher system, and it is too far, obviously, some say, because it is a nose under the tent. So I urge my colleagues to take a look at this. Do not get swallowed up in trying to make this into an argument about a national mandate. Let us take care of the kids in Washington, DC. Let us worry about the school system here and the wonderful things that this bill will help us do to make sure we can change this city's educational system from one which is an embarrassment to one which we can be proud of again, proud as we were in the past. That is my goal, and I am sure the goal of all here. Let us not scuttle this bill, because if we do not pass it, then we have to start all over again in the process of trying to see what we can come up with as a compromise. I urge my colleagues to vote for cloture, and let us go on and take care of the city, which is in desperate need of funds right now. They are about ready to go bankrupt. I cannot see us taking another 30, 60, or 90 days trying to find an answer. Let us accept this one for what it is, not for what you fear it may be or for what you may want it to be.

Mr. JEFFORDS. I yield myself 6 minutes and 21 seconds.

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I yield the Senator from Virginia 2 minutes.

Mr. JEFFORDS. I yield myself such time as I may consume. I want to take a moment to straighten out the Davis-Bacon problem so that Members will not, I think, be concerned about something that was inadvertently done in the bill, and I am not sure is even there at all. The basic law upon which all contracts are considered with respect to the Davis-Bacon and the District of Columbia, and that is the Davis-Bacon law says every contract in excess of $2,000 to which the United States or the District of Columbia is a party for construction, alteration, and or repair, et cetera, is included under Davis-Bacon. Now, some of you may remember that Congressman Cass Ballenger on the House side has this dream, and I hope it comes true, that thousands if not millions of dollars will come in from private business and corporations to assist in altering and helping schools. There is a provision with respect to the head of the GSA that says that in the event that he provides technical assistance to these private firms, that if that technical assistance exceeds $2,000 that should not trigger Davis-Bacon for those kinds of donated services. That is the intention. Some say it can be generalized. I do not see how. Because of that concern, we will take care of that when it comes to the final bill. I just want to let everybody know that really there is no Davis-Bacon argument in here. I yield 10 minutes to the Senator from Indiana.

Mr. JEFFORDS. I yield the Senator from Connecticut such time as he may want to use.