Jim Jeffords

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Mr. ROCKEFELLER addressed the Chair.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, we have no objection to the amendment. We believe it is a good amendment.

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, the unanimous-consent request that we have allows the Senator to offer her amendment at this time provided that she does not intend to require a vote.

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

Mr. JEFFORDS. I object to suspending the reading.

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I want to commend the senior Senator [[Page S 14122]] from West Virginia for what I think is an excellent suggestion as to how we can help the District of Columbia find some of the answers that have been lacking in our educational system in this country. I think the pilot program to take care of those who get turned out of the school system is an excellent one. One of the greatest problems we have in the city of Washington and the cities throughout the country is kids that are dropping out and those that leave involuntarily. At the same time nationally, we are cutting back on the number of young people that are being brought into the military, and often those young people who have that problem have found that the military has helped them greatly in their ability to straighten their lives out and to get back into the school systems and get an education. I, therefore, am willing to accept both the second-degree amendment and the original amendment on this side of the aisle.

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I know there is a desire to stack votes so that Members will not be interrupted in their committee meetings. I suggest at this time that this amendment be set aside so that the leaders can meet and give us a suggestion as to how we can proceed. I believe there may be one other vote on an amendment. The other amendments, I believe, will be accepted. So, at this time, I ask unanimous consent that the amendment be set aside temporarily.

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

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be set aside for the sole purpose of considering the following amendments: An amendment by Senator Inhofe, an amendment by Senator Dole and myself, an amendment by Senator Bingaman, and Senator Boxer.

Mr. JEFFORDS. After those are taken care of, we would return to the status quo.

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I am pleased to present the fiscal year 1996 District of Columbia appropriations bill to the Senate. The bill presented is within the subcommittee's allocation and contains a Federal payment of $660 million, which is the authorized amount and the same amount as last year. I should make clear that the Federal payment is not a gift from the Federal Government to the local government, it is a payment in lieu of taxes. More than half of the District's property is untaxable to the local government. Of course all Federal property and buildings are exempt, but so are many other valuable properties in the city. In addition to foreign embassies and offices, also unavailable for tax purposes are facilities owned by entities with congressional charters. Properties such as the National Geographic Society, the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development, the International Monetary Fund, the Inter-American Development Bank, and all of the hospitals and universities in the city are also exempt. The properties I just listed account for more than $1 billion in value that is not taxable to the District. In addition, the Congress restricts the city's taxing power in other ways. The District is prohibited by law from taxing income earned in the city by those who live in the suburbs. This is no small amount. The Census Bureau estimates that of the $33 billion earned annually by individuals in the District, $19 billion is earned by nonresidents-- over half--and therefore completely escapes District taxes. This past year many of the District's financial problems came to a head. Fiscal year 1994 ended with a record deficit of $335 million. In an unusually cooperative endeavor Members of the House and Senate worked together, along with the Office of Management and Budget, to craft legislation which established a five-member unpaid financial control board for the District. The board, formally known as the Financial Responsibility and Management Assistance Authority, has been working since June 1, and has made a significant contribution to the bill we are recommending to the Senate today. The bill before us represents the recommendations of the authority of the District's fiscal year 1996 budget. The authority is a powerful new player in the District's budget process. This authority must approve annual budgets and multiyear financial plans developed by the Mayor. This authority is designed to provide the kind of day-to-day and month-to-month oversight as well as fiscal expertise that the Congress is neither designed nor inclined to exercise. The authority has the power to require the city to change its budget estimates of both revenues and expenditures. If the estimates are unrealistic and the city does not make the necessary changes, [[Page S 14119]] the authority can implement those changes on its own. Each year between now and fiscal year 1998, the District is permitted to submit and operate with an unbalanced budget, as long as it makes progress toward a balanced budget. This will give time to Congress and the local political leaders to address some of the issues concerning our relationship to the local government. On July 15, the authority made recommendations to the city council for changes in the budget that the District had adopted in May. On August 1, the council responded by adopting an amendment in their budget. Finally, on August 15, the authority submitted to Congress the District's response to their recommendations. The committee's bill is based upon these recommendations. The District has a long way to go to be a well-run, efficient, and financially stable city. With the control board in place, we have made important first steps. On September 14, the chairman of the authority, Dr. Andrew Brimmer, testified before our subcommittee that the authority is developing a positive, working relationship with city officials based on cooperation. At a recent budget summit, where authority representing the city officials questioned various agencies about their budget, Dr. Brimmer testified that the discussion focused on improving the city's services, accountability, and getting the information necessary for managers and decisionmakers. Those inquiries came from both the authority and the senior district officials. Of course, the proof will be in the doing, but the start is good. I am really pleased with the way they have been working. While the control board will be charged with overseeing the restoration of the District's financial health and improving its management effectiveness, the Congress must review the complete relationship with the local government. Its fiscal problems are not caused by lack of revenue. The city elects and spends more than $3 billion of local revenue each year. That ought to be enough to operate this city. In order for the city to maintain its long-term financial health, we, the Congress and the Federal Government, must reevaluate our relationship with the city in a dispassionate discussion with the District residents and their elected representatives. When we began drafting the control board legislation, we asked the General Accounting Office to talk to people in other cities that have had similar financial difficulties and established similar boards about their experiences. One factor that everyone volunteered in our interviews was that the poor quality of public schools had exacerbated the middle-class flight from that city and was a major impediment in economic development. This is not just an economic development issue. Nationally, we are creating a generation of kids that cannot read or write properly. This is not just bad educational policy; it is a devastating implication for unemployment, welfare, and crime policy in the near future, and especially in our cities like Washington. Each kid that we do not teach to read is a lost asset to this Nation, and we cannot afford to let our national assets decay. The District is no exception. We do not need to recite all the statistics. Washington, DC, spends more per student than any other school district yet has the poorest student outcomes on standardized tests of any school district. We have old, high maintenance school buildings and too many of them. The problems of the District schools have been studied over and over and proposal after proposal has been made, but something happens between the commitment to reform and the implementation of a plan. It is time that we stop studying, analyzing, and strategizing, and start implementing and holding accountable those who are responsible for realizing set goals. Mr. President, the committee is recommending establishment of a commission to hold consensus around public school reform in the District. I emphasize consensus. The seven-member commission will be made up entirely of local citizens charged with working with the school board and the superintendent to develop and implement a reform plan. I emphasize working with the school board and the superintendent to develop and implement a reform plan. What we are providing is the structure for effecting reform, not dictating what the details of that reform should be. I want to emphasize that again. It is a structure for effecting reform, not dictating what the details of that reform should be. Some District leaders have reacted to this proposal with charges that it thwarts home rule and circumvents the citizens of the District, charges which I might add were made before having access to the entire proposal. Mr. President, to make these charges is to completely ignore and cast scorn on what Congress has been all about this last 9 months. The District of Columbia is in trouble fiscally, managerially, and I think most important, educationally in public schools. In difficult times, the city of Washington has no one to turn to but the Federal Government. We, the Congress, and the citizens of the District are partners in whatever happens to this city. We are partners in finding solutions to all these difficulties that Congress specifically and the Federal Government generally must be careful not to dictate or impose solutions on the citizens of the city. We need consensus. Another important charge to the commission and the board is to develop a capital investment plan for the needed school buildings and a separate funding mechanism to ensure that the work is done. Mr. President, on August 14, 1995, the superintendent received the report of the task force on education infrastructure for the 21st century. This report is an excellent description of the fiscal state of the public schools and needed steps to remedy the deficiencies. It sets out in plain terms the current condition of the public schools in this city. Mr. President, 62 percent of the District's public schools are over 45 years old but only 8 of the 163 operating schools have ever had total renovations. There is an inability to accommodate educational programs and initiatives and technology in these buildings. Continuing from the report: ``There is no school building able to support a comprehensive vocational or career focus to prepare students for work in the 21st century.'' That is totally intolerable and unacceptable. Based on the current number of schools and administrative buildings, the task force estimates that it will cost $1.2 billion to restore these buildings to a state of good repair and to modernize the schools and provide infrastructure to support for technology that is available and will be available. This price tag is overstated because the first priority is to determine how many school buildings will be needed for the future student enrollment. Once the decision is made on how many and in what locations school buildings are needed, a final cost estimate can be made. I am not just calling for the wholesale closure of school buildings. We must take into consideration the fiscal condition of the current inventory as well as answer questions as, What effect will the success of economic development programs have on enrollment? Or, What effect will the success of drop-out prevention programs have on the number of high schools needed? Currently, with the discussion on a number of needed school buildings, debate must begin on the funding mechanism. It is imperative that this mechanism be under the control of the District of Columbia financial responsibility authority and that any debt issue to outside the District's 14 percent of the local revenue cap on outstanding debt. We are right at that cap right now for all of the other infrastructure aspects of the city. There is no latitude in that, nor should it be used for the purposes of the school improvement program. This latter point is necessary due to the extensive deferred maintenance that exists in the system because the school fiscal infrastructure has not been maintained routinely. The schools' normal capital program cannot be expected to handle the high annual expenditures that will be needed over the next 10 years. In order for this new funding mechanism to be viable, it will require a separate revenue stream for debt service. [[Page S 14120]] All potential sources will be considered, including a small dedicated short-term reciprocal income tax to provide a stable and reliable source for debt service funds. Another obvious source is the cash flow generated by the sale to the surplus school property. These options should be explored by the control board, the board of education, District council, and the Mayor along with all other regional and District groups of interest. Local or Federal legislation should be developed that would facilitate creation of an appropriate funding mechanism and source of income. The bill also contains language that establishes a charter schools initiative for District public schools to improve and encourage community involvement. The subcommittee developed this initiative in cooperation with Senator Specter, who is very interested in this subject and his help was important to its inclusion. Charter schools offer great promise in reforming public education because they link the important factors of school-site autonomy, parental choice, regulatory flexibility, private sector initiative, accountability for student outcomes, and community participation. The committee believes that the autonomy of individual charter schools from external controls, such as those of the school district and union requirements, is essential for their success. To ensure charter schools' autonomy, the committee has defined them as public schools that operate with independence from the District of Columbia public schools as local education agencies. This definition in no way removes charter schools from the oversight of the District of Columbia public schools or other charter granting authorities. Unlike traditional public schools, these schools must meet the terms of their charters, including specified student outcomes. If not, their charters can be revoked or not renewed. I want to note the efforts of the current superintendent who has established schools-within-schools charters and enterprise schools within the public schools. These schools-within-schools share some of the same attributes of our proposed charter schools but are chosen by only one entity and are not as independent as they ought to be. It is our intention to build upon this good start, not reinvent the wheel. In closing, Mr. President, I thank my other colleagues on the subcommittee, our able ranking member, Senator Kohl, and my colleague on our side of the aisle, Senator Bennett, who have attended our hearings and taken a genuine interest in the work of the subcommittee. Finally, I thank the chairman of the Committee on Appropriations, the Senator from Oregon, Senator Hatfield, and our distinguished ranking member, the Senator from West Virginia, Senator Byrd, for the leadership and guidance we have received in bringing this bill before the Senate today. Mr. President, that concludes my formal presentation, I will be happy to answer any questions or consider any amendments that Senators may have. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. JEFFORDS. I am prepared to accept the amendment for this side.

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. JEFFORDS. This amendment is acceptable to us on this side.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I understand the desires of the Senator from North Dakota, and this obviously is a very important amendment. However, we are dealing with the appropriations bill for the District of Columbia. It is my intention--after a brief period of time for the leader to debate--to move to table the Senator's amendment. Mr. President, I yield the floor. Mr. DOLE addressed the Chair.

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senator from North Dakota be allowed to debate his amendment for an additional 4 minutes, and that the majority leader be given 1 minute, and after that I will move to table the amendment and ask for the yeas and nays on the motion.

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which the motion was agreed to.

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the yeas and nays be vitiated on amendment No. 2769.

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I urge adoption of amendment No. 2769.

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that, immediately following the vote on the legislative branch appropriations conference report, there be 4 minutes of debate [[Page S 14127]] equally divided in the usual form, to be followed by a vote on the Byrd amendment No. 2768, as amended.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent on behalf of the Governmental Affairs Committee to meet on Friday, September 22 at 10 a.m. for a markup on reconciliation.

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Labor and Human Resources be authorized to meet for an executive session, until the close of business during the session of the Senate on Friday, September 22, 1995.

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on the Constitution, Federalism, and Property Rights of the Committee on the Judiciary, be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Friday, September 22, 1995 at 10 a.m., in the Senate Dirksen Building, room 226 to hold a hearing on ``Adarand versus Pena: a Review of Affirmative Action in Contracting.''

Mr. JEFFORDS

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