Tom Harkin

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. I will yield the floor back to the Senator.

Mr. HARKIN. Just 5 minutes.

Mr. HARKIN. The time limit is what?

Mr. HARKIN. I assume I have some of my 5 minutes left--I hope?

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, first, I say I thank the Senator from Pennsylvania. He is a true gentleman, I think, in the spirit of comity on the Senate floor, to recognize the unanimous consent request that was proffered earlier was not acceptable to this side. I bear some responsibility for that. I was engaged in a conversation with my staff and did not even hear the unanimous consent request propounded, so I bear some responsibility for that. As I said, in the spirit of comity and the smooth functioning of the Senate, my friend from Pennsylvania, the chairman of the appropriations subcommittee, came back on the floor and said he would move to vitiate that unanimous consent agreement, which he did, I think, again, in the true spirit of comity and smooth functioning of the Senate. That then was objected to, I guess, by the Senator from Arkansas?

Mr. HARKIN. If I can have another 5 minutes to talk about the amendment itself?

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, the amendment propounded by the distinguished Senator from Arkansas really would harm the NLRB drastically. The Senator from Arkansas said the caseload had gone down. That is true, the caseload did go down, I assume because we increased some of the funding and they were able to, then, hire some more staff and decrease the caseload. If now, however, we cut the funding, they are going to have to release those people and fire people who were hired; therefore we will be right back where we started from. We keep hearing about the backlog. What is the backlog? The NLRB, at the end of last fiscal year, had 6,198 cases pending at the end of the last fiscal year. I understand some of those were reduced last year, but we are still in the neighborhood of about a 5,500-case backlog. So I do not know how the Senator from Arkansas can argue we are making great progress. We are making a little bit of progress. But to take the $25 million out of the NLRB would put us right back where we were before, and you would see the backlog start going back up again. That may not be his intention, but that is exactly what would happen. At this funding level, the staffing, I am told, would have to be reduced by at least 100 people below the current level. That would be about a 5-percent reduction. Again, that would mean the backlogs would continue to go up. The time to process the claims would grow significantly, and that would hurt not just the employees but also the employers. Both sides are harmed when they get this kind of backlog at the NLRB. Again, they are most effective when they can get at this in a hurry. Workers who are fired for union organizing must sometimes wait weeks or months for cases to be processed. Then when the remedy does come through it is too late. People have to move on with their lives. They have found other jobs, they get the remedy, but it is too late to make any kind of difference at all. Employers are hurt because a delay causes back pay to add up until the case is resolved. This creates uncertainty. It destabilizes the workplace. I have had employers who have contacted my office and said: Can't you do something about NLRB? There is a case pending. It is causing us a lot of headaches. So it is not just labor, but it is also management that is hurt when you have this kind of backlog. If this amendment goes through the funding level right now would put us, as I understand it, below the 1993 inflation-adjusted level for the NLRB. During that period of time, the number of cases has gone up. So you can see the number of cases has gone up. We took a little bit out last year because of some additional staffing we gave them. This budget cut would put us back where we were in 1993. Of course, not only would the present backlog of cases take more time, we could see actually more cases piling up behind the ones that are there. Again, there is some thought that the NLRB is a kind of a prolabor organization. The NLRB is effective because it is a nonmanagement, nonlabor, independent board. It promotes stable and productive labor relations. If they are not able to do their job, our whole society breaks down. Let me get to the point. The Senator from Arkansas wants to take $25 million out of this and put it into community health centers. I take a back seat to no one in supporting community health centers--consolidated health centers I guess they are now called--and have worked over the years with Senator Specter, as a matter of fact, to increase funding for our community health centers. They do a great job. In many cases, they are really the only source for a lot of low-income people who have no health care insurance. We worked very hard--Senator Specter, I, and our staffs--to get a $100 million increase. We are up to slightly over $1 billion now for community health centers, and they need the money. But I do not think they need the money at the expense of taking it out of the NLRB. We gave them a $100 million increase. I believe this will be more than sufficient to help get new community health centers started next year and to adequately fund the ones in existence. While I support community health centers, this is not the way to get money for them, by taking it out of the NLRB and taking it out of the more rapid resolution of the backlog of cases. Many times, the workers who are waiting to get a case heard are the same ones who are low income and need to have their cases resolved so they can get on with their jobs and their lives. I yield back whatever remaining time I have. Several Senators addressed the Chair.

Mr. HARKIN. How much time does the Senator from Pennsylvania have left?

Mr. HARKIN. If I could have 3 minutes.

Mr. HARKIN. I appreciate the Senator yielding. I hope I can have the attention of Senators and the Senator from Arkansas, the proponent of the amendment. I just spoke with the National Association of Community Health Centers on the phone. They said to me that I could say the following things publicly: No. 1, they did not ask for nor seek this amendment. No. 2, they are quite happy with the Specter-Harkin increases that came in the appropriations bill and hope that we can keep it in conference--which I publicly assure them and others that we will do everything we can to keep the $100 million increase. And, No. 3, while they appreciate the intention of the Senator from Arkansas to get more funding for community health centers, they do not want it to happen at the expense of the NLRB. So I just spoke with the National Association of Community Health Centers. I wanted to make that point; that they would not want this to happen at the expense of the NLRB. I yield back my time, I guess. Mr. HUTCHINSON addressed the Chair.

Mr. HARKIN. That is right.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I would like to add a few thoughts for today's debate regarding consideration of the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty. I strongly believe that the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty--or C-T-B- T--is in our Nation's national security interests. But before I discuss my reasons for supporting the treaty, let me first say why the Senate-- even those who are unsure of the treaty-should support its consideration by the Senate. The Senate should hold hearings and consider and debate the treaty. The Senate should vote on the treaty by March of next year. Let me now mention some history of this issue and mention some of the major milestone along the road to ending nuclear weapons testing. In fact, next month, the month of October, is the anniversary of many important events. On October 11, 1963, the Limited Test Ban Treaty entered into force after being ratified by the Senate in an overwhelming, bipartisan vote of 80-14 just a few weeks earlier. This treaty paved the way for future nuclear weapons testing agreements by prohibiting tests in the atmosphere, in outer space, and underwater. It was signed by 108 countries. Our nation's agreement to the Limited Test Ban Treaty marked the end of our above ground testing of nuclear weapons, including those at the U.S. test site in Nevada. We now know, all too well, the terrible impact of exploding nuclear weapons over the Nevada desert. Among other consequences, these tests in the 1950's exposed millions of Americans to large amounts of radioactive Iodine-131, which accumulates in the thyroid gland and has been linked to thyroid cancer. ``Hot Sports,'' where the Iodine-131 fallout was the greatest, were identified by a National Cancer Institute report as receiving 5-16 rads of Iodine-131. The ``Hot Spots'' included many areas far away from Nevada, including New York, Massachusetts and Iowa. Outside reviewers have shown that the 5-16 rad level is only an average, with many people having been exposed to much higher levels, especially those who were children at the time. To put that in perspective Federal standards for nuclear power plants require that protective action be taken for 15 rads. To further understand the enormity of the potential exposure, consider this: 150 million curies of Iodine-131 were released by the above ground nuclear weapons testing in the United States, above three times more than from the Chernobyl nuclear power plants disaster in the former Soviet Union. Mr. President, it is all too clear that outlawing above-ground tests were in the interest of our nation. I strongly believe that banning all nuclear test is also in our interests. October also marked some key steps for the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. On October 2, 1992, President Bush signed into law the U.S. moratorium on all nuclear tests. The moratorium was internationalized when, just a few years later, on September 24, 1996, a second step was taken--the CTBT, was opened for signature. The United States was the first to sign this landmark treaty. President Clinton took a third important step in abolishing nuclear weapons tests by transmitting the CTBT to the Senate for ratification. Unfortunately, the Senate has yet to take the additional step of ratifying the CTBT. I am hopeful that we in the Senate will debate and vote on ratification of the Treaty, and continue the momentum toward the important goals of a worldwide ban on nuclear weapons testing. Many believed we had conquered the dangerous specter of nuclear was after the Cold War came to an end and many former Soviet states became our allies Unfortunately, recent developments in South Asia remind us that we need to be vigilant in our cooperative international efforts to reduce the dangers of nuclear weapons. The CTBT is a major milestone in the effort to prevent the proliferation of nuclear weapons. It would establish a permanent ban on all nuclear explosions in all environments for any purpose. Its ``zero--yield'' prohibition on nuclear tests would help to halt the development amd development of new nuclear weapons. The treaty would also establish a far reaching verification regime that includes a global network of sophisticated seismic, hydro-acoustic and radionuclide monitoring stations, as well as on-site inspection of test sites to deter and detect violations. It is vital to our national security for the nuclear arms race to come to an end, and the American people recognize this. In a recent poll, more than 80% percent of voters supported the CTBT. It is heartening to know that the American people understand the risks of a world with nuclear weapons. It is now time for policymakers to recognize this as well. There is no better way to honor the hard work and dedication of those who developed the LTBT and the CTBT than for the Senate to immediately ratify the CTBT.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Whatever it takes.

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, all I can say is, I wish they could put Senator Specter and me in a room. I think we would come up with a good bipartisan bill. We have already. Because of some outside influences, we are going to have some real problems. That is a shame. I believe my colleague, Senator Murray, will be offering an amendment to authorize and fund the program as we did last year to reduce class size. This amendment will ensure that school districts across the country will not have to lay off almost 30,000 new teachers hired this fall. I urge my colleagues to support Senator Murray's amendment. Again, before I close, I thank Senator Specter and his staff for all their work and their willingness to work together in a truly bipartisan fashion to get this bill to the floor. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. HARKIN. Who is controlling the time? I don't know who is controlling the time. If I am on my side, I will yield myself a couple minutes. Parliamentary inquiry. Is there time on this side remaining?

Mr. HARKIN. Then are we under a time constraint right now? The Senator from Pennsylvania has some time left on this amendment. I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to speak as in morning business for up to 5 minutes.

Mr. HARKIN. I want to make it clear, do I support the goal of getting up to 40 percent of the national per pupil expenditure up to $2,750 per student? I do. But I don't believe we ought to do it at the expense of afterschool programs or out of Head Start or anything else. That is what I dislike about the Gregg amendment. If he wants to come up with more money for IDEA, fine. I will be glad to support him. But to take it away from other kids who have needs, I think, is not the way that we ought to proceed. Quite frankly, I don't know anyone in the disability community who would say, yes, take it away from those kids and give it to ours. They would say, look, fund the disability programs, fund IDEA, but fund afterschool programs, fund breakfast programs, fund Head Start programs, because these are all our kids and they all have needs. We ought to appropriately fund all of education. If this Congress gave the same priority to education as it does for the Pentagon, we wouldn't have to make these types of choices. There would be enough for both. We added $4 billion to the Pentagon's budget over what they asked for. When will we ever see the day when we would add $4 billion over what the Department of Education requested? Those were the basic points I wanted to make. IDEA is not a funding mandate. We need afterschool programs. We need IDEA also. I don't agree with stripping funds from one important program to fund another. That is why I believe Senator Gregg's amendment has deficiencies. With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that two of Senator Inouye's staff, Andrew Peters and Patricia Boyle, be given floor privileges during the consideration of the bill now before us.

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, before beginning my comments, I ask unanimous consent that Jane Daye, a member of my staff on detail from HHS, be afforded floor privileges during consideration of this bill.

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I again thank Senator Specter and his staff for all of their hard work in putting this bill together. Senator Specter has done, indeed, a commendable job. He has done so in a professional and bipartisan fashion under very difficult and trying circumstances. We all owe him a debt of gratitude for his patience, his good work, and, above all, his persistence. Again, my good friend, Senator Specter, spoke of the bipartisan effort on this, and that he is hoping the President will sign this bill. I will have something to say about that in a moment. But I want to make it clear that in no way do we want to delay this bill. We ought to get it up and get it through. I am just sorry that we didn't get it up earlier this year. I still feel compelled to say that of the 13 appropriations bills, this is the last one. That should not be our priority. Education and Health and Human Services should not be the last priority. It should not be the last bill up for the fiscal year. It should have been the first bill and not the last bill. But we are here. The fiscal year is drawing to a close, and hopefully we can get this through. But I want to point out that in my role as ranking member, while I will be supportive of Senator Specter in his efforts to get this bill through, I want to make sure that I protect the rights of Senators on this side of the aisle to offer amendments and to debate them in a timely fashion. Before I say a few more words about the contents of the bill, I think it is important that I briefly talk about the funding of the bill and how it plays into the overall budget situation. First, let me repeat what I said yesterday in our committee markup. I am very pleased that the chairman of the full Appropriations Committee has worked to restore a more reasonable level of funding for this bill. Investments in education and health, labor, and other areas are key to our Nation's quality of life, our future, and our next generation of children. I am concerned, however, that it now seems that the Republican leadership intends to simply shift the funds for the census and the Pentagon to our bill as emergency spending when clearly they are not emergencies. In other words, it looks as if the leadership is going to declare the funds for the census and the Pentagon--which have been shifted to fund our bill--as emergency spending--emergency for the census and emergency for the Pentagon. They are not emergencies. Even Thomas Jefferson could have told us there would be a census in the year 2000. That is no emergency. The Republican leadership is playing a shell game, and the loser may be Social Security. Money is being moved from one bill to another to make it look as if we can fund all 13 appropriations bills with all their priorities and still stay within the budget caps. According to CBO, the Republican leadership has already spent the projected on-budget surplus for next year. About $14 billion of the non-Social Security budget surplus has already been spent. In addition, it looks as though there has already been about another $19 billion dig into Social Security. Declaring the census and the Pentagon--which are clearly nonemergency items--emergency spending doesn't mean anything. It means the Republican leadership will dig that much further into the Social Security surplus in fiscal year 2000. Stay tuned for the next chapter because it looks as though Social Security is going to have a big bite taken out. It shouldn't be that way. I have drafted legislation that imposes penalties on tobacco companies that fail to reduce teen smoking. CBO has scored my amendment as raising approximately $6 billion in fiscal year 2000. I think that is better than taking it out of Social Security. Before the whole process is completed--I don't mean this bill; I mean the whole process this year--we will be looking for new sources of revenue to offset the costs of appropriations without tapping into Social Security. I believe getting this money from the tobacco companies that have already set their targets for reducing teen smoking and having them pay penalties is a much fairer and better way of meeting our goals in our appropriations bills than tapping Social Security. Having said that, there are many excellent items in this bill. In particular, I commend the chairman for the $2 billion increase in NIH. Yesterday, as Senator Specter said, there was a hearing held on Parkinson's disease. This is a disease that causes untold human suffering, a disease that scientists believe may be cured within the next 10 years or drastically reduced and alleviated. Under Senator Specter's leadership, we are taking another step to realize that result. The morning shows today were talking about the hearing yesterday. Michael J. Fox, the famous movie actor who testified, showed his trembling hands and how Parkinson's disease was affecting him. It was quite a poignant representation of the ravages of Parkinson's disease. Of course, those who had the privilege of serving with Congressman Mo Udall from Arizona know how that affected him and the suffering it caused him in his later years. Most scientists believe one of the major steps that can be taken in finding the pathways to interventions and cures for Parkinson's disease is through adequate funding of stem cell research. We had it in this bill until it was taken out in committee yesterday on a split vote. I think it won by two votes, if I am not mistaken. It was a close vote. The provisions on stem cell research were removed. That is a shame. People suffering from Parkinson's disease or spinal cord injuries, neurological problems, neurological diseases, and neurological accidents could have hope. For example, I think of Christopher Reeves, who has been so diligent and energetic in his efforts to push for more research in finding how to repair damaged spinal cords. Here is an avenue of research that could collapse the timeframe and lead to major breakthroughs on repairing neurological damage through stem cell research. Yet because of a handful of people in the Senate or the House--I don't know where, but it comes from the Republican leadership--we couldn't bring this bill out with that stem cell research provision. That is a shame. I was talking to some Senators yesterday who started talking about partial-birth abortion and all that kind of stuff. I said, wait a minute. What does that have to do with stem cell research? Absolutely nothing. Again, as I stated in committee, and I will state again for the Record on the floor, we approve in this country--and I think all the major religions and ethicists all agree--in vitro fertilization is not only permissible and acceptable but a very good way for a woman who may have problems getting pregnant and bearing a child to do so. In vitro fertilization is a widely accepted practice where the egg is removed from the mother and mated to a sperm. These eggs are then frozen in nitrogen and one is implanted. If it takes, a baby results, a child results, and we have some very happy parents. However, there are a lot of fertilized eggs still frozen in liquid nitrogen. That is what we are talking about. That is where they want to get the stem cells. It has nothing to do with partial-birth abortion or anything else. The Cell Biology Association says there are probably about 100,000 frozen fertilized eggs in the country. That is where the scientists get the stem cells. These fertilized eggs will be destroyed anyway. They are not going to keep them forever in liquid nitrogen; they will be destroyed. Scientists say, why not let scientists take the stem cells out to do the kind of stem cell research we need to find the cures for Parkinson's and spinal cord injury. That is what was in our bill. Here are the restrictions we have placed in our bill. First, we say the stem cell research had to be conducted under ethical guidelines. Second, to use any of the fertilized eggs to extract the stem cells, scientists must have the informed consent of the donor. Third, we could only use stem cells from fertilized eggs that are the result of in vitro fertilization. We had all of these restrictions. Why would we want to take that out of the bill? I understand the leadership says they want to take it out because it couldn't pass with it. Why? Because there are two or three people who have some hangup about this. Perhaps they don't understand. If we could debate it and fully flesh it out and get it out, perhaps then people would understand what we are trying to do. I think there is a lot of information being promoted and bandied about on stem cell research that is totally false. It prohibits Congress from doing what I think is in the best interests of morality, ethics, and science. So we do not have it in the bill. Now I hear the leadership says they are going to have hearings next year and bring up a separate bill in February. I will believe it when I see it because we cannot get it on this bill, and this is where it logically belongs. This is the bill with all biomedical research funded by the Federal Government, with a couple of exceptions in the Department of Defense. This is the proper place for it. I cannot see why it is going to take a long time. We have had hearings on it. Senator Specter has had hearings on it. We have had hearings on it in other committees. How many more hearings do we need? How many more people have to come down with Parkinson's, die of Parkinson's? How many more people have to linger with spinal cord injuries and other neurological problems before we have the guts to do what is right around here and give the scientists the tools they need to do the research in stem cells? So I am very upset that this was taken out--and taken out, I might add, at the behest of the leadership, not the chairman of the subcommittee nor the chairman of the full committee, as I understand it, but of the leadership of the Senate. I think it is wrong to do that, coming on the heels of this very powerful hearing yesterday, with all the national publicity coming out, even yet today, on Parkinson's disease, to say: Yes, but I am sorry, we are not going to permit nor fund the kind of research that would lead to a possible cure. I want to make it clear, there is some stem cell research that will be conducted by NIH but only from two stem cell lines from the University of Wisconsin and Johns Hopkins. These are just from two sources. When you have 100,000 in the United States, you can get stem cell lines from a lot of different sources. I am trying to think of an analogy here. This is akin to doing research on cancer but saying: But you can only do research on pancreatic cancer. You cannot do research on prostate or breast cancer or thyroid cancer or anything else, but you can do it on pancreatic. That is all. That is all we are going to allow. That is basically what we are saying on stem cell research: You can do this little bit of research, but you can't do the kind of broad research with which you open the doors and find some of the answers. Again, I wanted to go on a bit on this because I think it is that vitally important. I think it is wrongheaded--I might even have stronger words than that but not appropriate for the Senate floor--for the Republican leadership to demand this be taken out of our bill. I believe the votes would be here if the Republican leadership would stand up for it. Oh, we would probably have a few people, misinformed, not understanding the situation, who might vote against it. But I believe the provisions we had in this bill, carefully crafted to provide all the protections, would have garnered an overwhelming vote in the Senate--were it not for the leadership's position. Again, I might add, as I said, there are a lot of good things in this bill for which Senator Specter has fought: A billion dollars for community health centers, a $100 million increase of vital importance for low-income people who do not have insurance coverage. In fact, it is probably the best bulwark we have for preventive health care, keeping healthy low-income people who do not have health care insurance. We have $400 million for afterschool programs; that is a $200 million increase. Again, I compliment Senator Specter for the anti-school-violence bill he has put together, of which I am a cosponsor. As we pointed out, there is a lot of talk about school violence these days. The fact is, schools are the safest places for our kids. Less than 1 percent of the violence committed by or against kids is done in school--less than 1 percent. Most of the violence happens after school. That is why we need strong afterschool programs. We have all these school buildings around this country, we have put a lot of money in them, and at 3 o'clock in the afternoon they lock the doors. What is inside? There are gymnasiums, there are swimming pools, there are art rooms, there are computer rooms, basketball courts, weight rooms, music rooms--all behind locked doors at 3 o'clock in the afternoon. You have these kids on the street looking for something to do, and that is when the violence happens; that is when the drugs happen. What Senator Specter and I and others have done is increased by $200 million last year, up to $400 million, afterschool programs. Obviously, if you are going to leave the doors of the school open, you have to pay. It costs money for heating, air conditioning; it costs money for supervision, for people to run the programs. If you have a music room, maybe kids want to take up music after school; maybe they want to take up theater. Maybe these young people would like to act a little bit, get into theater. You are going to have to have somebody there working with them. Better we pay the cost of an art teacher, a music teacher, a phys ed instructor or whatever for the 3 hours or 4 hours from after school until the time for dinner at home--better we pay that than we pay for the violence and the drugs and stuff that is happening on the streets. I hope this marks a steady increase this year, next year, and the year after that in afterschool programs. We have $5.3 billion for Head Start, an increase of $608 million, again moving toward the target of making sure that, in America, every 4-year-old who is eligible is covered for Head Start. I am told that with this increase we are getting close to 80-percent coverage of all eligible 4-year-olds, so hopefully next year we can close that gap and get 100-percent coverage. We have increased the maximum Pell grants to $3,325, a $200 increase for low-income students to go to college. So there are some good things. But there are some big holes in this bill that need to be filled. One of those, perhaps one of the most important--and it is critically important--is the provision the Senator from Washington State, Mrs. Murray, I am sure will shortly be talking about. That is the issue of class size reduction. Last year, we put in money for class size reduction. We put in $1.2 billion last year, and we hired 30,000 teachers around the country to reduce class size. This was a high priority of everyone. When you talk about bipartisanship, let me read what former Speaker Newt Gingrich said of the class size reduction program: A great victory for the American people. There will be more teachers, and that is good for all Americans. The former Speaker, Newt Gingrich--not a Democrat. House Majority Leader Dick Armey last year, on class size reduction, said: Good for America and good for the schoolchildren. Finally, Bill Goodling, chairman of the House Education Committee, said, referring, again, to the class size reduction program: It is a huge win for local educators and parents. This year, the Republican leadership is saying we have to cancel the program, cancel it--$1.2 billion. We hired 30,000 teachers, and they are saying this year: Fire them all. Oh, yes, they are going to say: We are going to put the $1.2 billion into some kind of block grant program, and then they can use it for this, use it for that, and all that stuff. The priority we have heard from teachers, principals, superintendents, and from parents around the country is that we need to reduce class size. I have heard, on the Republican side, talk that we need teacher qualification, teacher upgrading. I am all for that, but I do not care; you can give me the best qualified, best trained teacher in the world, and if he or she is teaching a second grade class that has 35 or 40 kids in it, I am sorry, they cannot handle it; I don't care how well trained they are. We had a priority last year on the course of hiring an additional 100,000 teachers to reduce class size in this country, a goal that was shared by the former Speaker of the House, the House majority leader, and the Republican chairman of the House Education Committee. This year, the Republican leadership says no; because President Clinton wants it, we are going to cut it out. Talk about bipartisanship. This was a bill that had broad-based support. I do not see it as a Republican or Democratic provision at all. I have heard from parents in Iowa about reducing class size, and they did not say I am a Democrat or I am a Republican and here is what I want. They said: I am a parent and my kid is in a class with 30-some kids and it is too big. I hear from teachers. They did not tell me if they were Republican or Democrat. I don't know. I did not ask. They complained to me about what it is like as a young teacher just out of college. They have their teaching certificate, and they are on their way. They want to be a good teacher. They want to make a good profession out of it, and they get stuck in a second-grade class with, I heard one of them say, 38 kids. Talk about teacher burnout. You can handle that for about 2 years and then you are out the door. That is why we are losing so many young bright teachers. They want to teach. They want to get to know their kids and to work with those kids. They cannot do it when they have 30 kids in a classroom. What we have is a bill that basically disinvests the investment we started last year in reducing class size. If this bill were to go through as it is, 30,000 teachers hired last year will have to be let go this year. They say: We are going to put money in block grants if they want to do it. I am sorry, we decided we needed to reduce class sizes. Let's keep our eye on the prize. Let's keep our eye on the goal. Let's at least accomplish one goal for our kids that we set out to do, and that is to reduce class size. They say they are going to provide $1.2 billion for a teacher assistance initiative. There are two problems with this approach. First, I do not know what the teacher assistance initiative is. Maybe someone can explain it. We have not had any hearings on it. We had lots of hearings on reducing class size. I do not know what a teacher assistance initiative is. Some fancy words. Secondly, when is it going to be authorized? I also serve on the authorizing committee, and the bill to reauthorize the Elementary and Secondary Education Act has not even been written. We have had hearings. We are a long way from passing this major legislation. Under the existing law, even though the Elementary and Secondary Education Act expires this fiscal year--tomorrow--under the law, we are given a 1-year extension, a 1-year grace period. You know how the Congress is, Mr. President. If we get an extension, we will fill up the time. Quite frankly, the Elementary and Secondary Education Act is not going to be passed this year; it is going to be passed next year. For some reason, the Republican leadership wants no part of the initiative to reduce class size, I guess because the President wants it. Well, big deal. Last year, the Speaker of the House, the majority leader and the Republican chairman of the Education Committee wanted it, too. Why is it just because President Clinton wants it they do not want to go along with it? I do not understand that. I simply do not understand that. Last night, President Clinton announced his intention to veto this bill if it comes to him in its current form. He will veto the bill because it does not guarantee we can continue the class size reduction program that we initiated last year. I have a statement by the President. I will read it: Today the Senate Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education appropriations committee passed a spending bill that fails to invest in key initiatives to raise student achievement. While its funding levels are better than those of the House version, the Senate bill still falls short of what we need to strengthen America's schools. It does not guarantee a single dollar for our efforts to hire quality teachers and reduce class size in the early grades. It cuts funding for education technology and underfunds such efforts as GEAR UP and after-school programs. And it does not provide funding to turn around failing schools. To develop world-class schools, we need to invest more and demand more in return. We need accountability from our schools--and from our Congress, too. . . . If this bill were to come to me in its current form I would have to veto it. I believe, however, that we can avoid this course. I sent the Congress a budget for the programs covered by this bill that provided for essential investments in America's needs, and that was fully paid for. I look forward to working with Congress on a bipartisan basis to ensure that this bill strengthens public education and other important national priorities. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the President's statement be printed in the Record.

Mr. HARKIN. Reserving the right to object.

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I ask for a couple more minutes, and then I will wrap it up.

Mr. HARKIN. If the Senator is yielding the floor

Mr. HARKIN. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. HARKIN. If the Senator will yield, I support the chairman in that. I understand now because it is late in the day, and evidently it has been hotlined there are no more votes today, Senators have taken off, without knowing that we have a deadline at noon tomorrow. They may not know until tomorrow morning. Now that I understand that, I guess it is reasonable we hold off until tomorrow when we come in. I think tomorrow when we come back, the chairman is right, that would be the time to again make that motion to have a time certain when we will have all the amendments in.