Tim Hutchinson

Mr. HUTCHINSON

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, I call up my amendment No. 550.

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

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, I know we have had a healthy debate on education and on the need for our educational infrastructure around the country. What we can all agree on is that many schools in the country are in desperate need of repair and improvement. Just because we can agree on a problem, however, doesn't mean we agree on the appropriate solution. I think the proposal of the distinguished Senator from Iowa to create a new school construction program provides an illustration of this point. We have a big difference on how we ought to approach the solution. The bill before us maximizes the impact of limited Federal dollars by focusing them on programs for which there is a clear and historical Federal role. Creating a new facilities grant program in the Department of Education, I believe, will raise false hopes and divert our energy away from the urgent task of securing more funding for programs such as IDEA for which there is a clear and unequivocal established Federal responsibility. The Finance Committee earlier--a few weeks ago--agreed to some measures to provide relief in the area of school construction in the Affordable Education Act. This was bipartisan. This came from the Finance Committee with broad support. It addresses this issue of school construction in a far more constructive and advantageous way. I want to offer, in my amendment, the provisions of that Affordable Education Act dealing with school construction to S. 1. The first provision is directed at innovative financing for school districts. It expands the tax-exempt bond rules for public-private scholarships set up for construction, renovation, or restoration of public school facilities in these districts. In general, it allows States to issue tax-exempt bonds equal to $10 per State resident. Each State would be guaranteed, under this provision, a minimum allocation of at least $5 million of these tax-exempt bonds. In total, up to $600 million per year in new tax-exempt bonds would be issued for these innovative school construction projects. This provision is important because it retains State and local flexibility. It does not impose a new bureaucracy on the States, and it does not force the Federal Government to micromanage school construction. I cannot think of a more counterproductive step for us to take than for the Federal Government to get into the business of school construction and to assume an unprecedented role in that which has been historically, traditionally left to States and local governments. The provision also is important because it promotes the use of public-private partnerships. Many high-growth school districts may be too poor or too overwhelmed to take on a school construction project themselves. With these bonds, those districts can partner with a private entity and still enjoy the benefits of tax-exempt financing. It is worth noting that there already is a significant Federal subsidy for school construction. Under current law, States and localities can issue debt that is exempt from Federal taxation. This benefit allows them to finance school construction by issuing long-term bonds at a lower cost than they otherwise could. Moreover, the evidence shows that States and localities are taking advantage of this provision, this benefit, in the current tax law. In the first 6 months of 1996, voters approved $13.3 billion in school bonds, an increase of more than $4 billion over the first 6 months of 1995. The bottom line is that many States and localities are doing their homework, passing bonds, building and renovating schools, and enjoying favorable treatment under the existing Tax Code. They are doing all this without significant Federal involvement. I do not have to remind my colleagues that school construction has always been the province of State and local governments. It is important that we preserve that prerogative. It is important that we ensure that the Federal Government not preempt this traditional role of State and local government. President Clinton stated in 1994, ``The construction and renovation of school facilities has traditionally been the responsibility of State and local governments financed primarily by local taxpayers.'' In that respect, at least, I agree with former President Clinton. There is a second bond provision in this bill. That provision is designed to simplify the issuance of bonds for school construction. Under current law, arbitrage profits earned on investments unrelated to the purpose of borrowing must be rebated to the Federal Government. However, there is an exception generally referred to as the small issuer exception which allows governments to issue up to $5 million of bonds without being subject to the arbitrage rebate requirement. We recently increased this limit to $10 million for governments that issue at least $5 million of public school bonds during the year. The provision in the Finance Committee bill which I offer now as an amendment increases the small issuer exception to $15 million provided that at least $10 million of the bonds are issued to finance public schools. This measure will assist localities in meeting school construction needs by simplifying their use of tax-exempt financing. At the same time, it will not create incentives to issue such debt earlier or in larger amounts than is necessary. It is a type of targeted provision that makes good sense. I reaffirm there is consensus that there is a problem in the area of dilapidated schools, but there is a huge diversion on how we ought to address that problem. There are those who want to start a new categorical Federal grant program involving the Federal Government in a role that has always been left to State and local governments, a program that will, as all Federal programs, mushroom in the years ahead, a path we need not nor should we go down. The provision I am offering is a better way. It addresses the issue of school construction in an appropriate way for the Federal Government and a provision that has broad bipartisan support in that it passed the Finance Committee on March 13 by a 20-0 vote. This is a better approach as we seek to assist local schools and State governments in their traditional role of building school facilities. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to lay this amendment aside at this time.

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Wyoming for yielding time. I will only take a minute to briefly explain why I ask my colleagues to support the amendment I have offered. There are, frankly, three amendments that deal with the issue of school construction. I believe Senator Harkin and Senator Enzi are sincere. They have worked very hard. They understand there is a severe problem out there. In fact, there is one area of agreement that we all have, and that is that there is a serious need in this country for resources for school construction. There is a different approach. There are three votes. There are three amendments. There is only one that does not create a new Federal program addressing school construction. So while there are merits and demerits to the various approaches, the other two amendments create a new program--both create new programs--for school construction. I believe that is wrong. There is only one amendment that preserves the prerogative of State and local governments to control the school construction issue. So my amendment offers a helping hand through the Tax Code for local school districts, low-income, poor school districts to better be able to address the school construction needs they have. This is an approach that passed 20-0 out of the Finance Committee and has been supported previously in this body. I believe it is the right approach and expresses our concern about this issue and gives help to the local governing bodies who need the assistance but preserves that very important prerogative of the local school districts to control school construction issues. So this preserves the whole principle of this bill; that is, local flexibility and local control, and does not take us down the road of a new Federal program involving us in a brand new area of building schools across this country. So I ask my colleagues to support my amendment. I believe it is consistent with what we are trying to do in this bill with greater flexibility and greater local control. I thank the Chair.

Mr. HUTCHINSON

Mr. HUTCHINSON. I ask unanimous consent to set aside the pending business and call up amendment No. 555.

Mr. HUTCHINSON. I ask unanimous consent the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, I ask that the modifications to amendment No. 555 that are at the desk be accepted.

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Since I became chairman of the Armed Services Personnel Subcommittee last year, the subcommittee has conducted two hearings on recruiting. This has been a real eye opener to me, to listen to these front-line military recruiters about the obstacles they face in doing a very important job for the U.S. military. At both hearings, uniformed recruiters complained that denial of access to high school students or student directory information was the No. 1 obstacle they face in their efforts to recruit high-quality men and women needed to man today's military. It is a bigger problem than the health care of the military, a bigger problem than educational benefits, a bigger problem than image. Bigger than anything else was the problem of actually getting access to the students to be able to tell their story about the career opportunities they might have serving in the U.S. military. I was stunned to discover that more than 4,000 high schools across the Nation, which routinely allow colleges, employers, and class ring companies access to students, are denying access to recruiters from one or more of our military services. In 1999, the last year in which accurate figures are available, the Army was denied access by 4,515 schools; the Navy was denied access by 4,364 schools; the Marine Corps was denied access by 4,884 schools; and the Air Force was denied access by 5,465 high schools in the United States. This, I suggest, is a national disgrace. Our Armed Forces protect America's freedoms, and uniformed recruiters should not be denied access to almost a quarter of America's young people because, many times, of the arbitrary decision of a high school principal or a high school superintendent. Denial of access undermines our national defense by making it even more difficult to recruit high-quality young Americans in numbers sufficient to maintain the readiness of our All-Volunteer Force. Denying recruiters direct access to students and student directory information also unfairly hurts America's youth. It prevents students from receiving important information on the educational and training benefits offered by the Armed Forces and impairs students' decisionmaking by hiding the career opportunities available to them. When I became aware, that our recruiters whom we ask to do one of the most difficult jobs in the military, to go out and recruit young men and women to go into our military at pay that is disparate from what they could get in the private sector, in an almost full-employment economy, we were asking them to do that with one hand tied behind their backs because they weren't given access to almost one-quarter of the students, I offered a provision in last year's defense authorization bill which would, effective July 1, 2001, require high schools to provide recruiters for the armed services both physical and directory access equal to that provided to colleges and prospective employers. If the high school wants to have an across-the-board policy of no access to their students--no employers, no colleges--then certainly they could apply that to military recruiters. But if they are going to say class ring companies can come on, colleges and institutions of higher learning can come on to the campus and recruit, industries can come on and recruit for careers, then we said that military recruiters should have access on the same basis. If such access is not granted, a recruiter must report the denial to his or her respective service. This report will trigger, then, a series of visits and written notifications by the Department of Defense personnel culminating in the Secretary of Defense contacting the relevant Governor and asking for help in restoring access to the offending high school. Any school district in America would have the opportunity to opt out of the law if the local school board voted publicly to discriminate against recruiters from the Armed Forces. But no more simply shall a superintendent or a principal making a determination on their own for whatever reason, because of a bad experience or whatever they might have had, that might motivate them to prevent these recruiters from access. It would have to go to a public vote of the elected representatives, elected school board, before they could opt out of the law. Any high school that continued to discriminate against recruiters from the Armed Forces without the support of such a vote would open itself to lawsuits in Federal court. We are rapidly approaching July 1, 2001, which will mark 1 year until the new law becomes effective. We have already heard from many recruiters that they are finding that high schools are not aware of the public law that changed Federal policy and the fact it is going to go into effect in just a little over a year. So as thousands of high schools, yet ignorant of the pending change in the law, continue to discriminate against uniformed recruiters, I think now is the time for a national wake-up call concerning this denial of access that continues to this day. My amendment states that: It is the sense of the Senate that the Secretary of Education, in consultation with the Secretary of Defense, should. . .establish a year-long campaign to educate principals, school administrators, and other educators regarding career opportunities in the Armed Forces and the access standard [that is required under this new law]. I think it is very important that recruiters as they go across this country have the support of the Congress in the sense that these principals, these superintendents, and school administrators are aware that we have changed the public policy. There will be a new law in effect. There will be a new law in effect, and the only way they can deny that access is when they go before the elected school board members and have a public vote to that effect. I hope my colleagues will unanimously support a very commonsense and patriotic amendment. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. HUTCHINSON

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, I am pleased today to be joined by Senator Cleland of Georgia in introducing the Area Wage and Base Payment Improvement Act, which seeks to address Medicare payment inequities for rural and small hospitals so they may pay competitive wages to attract and retain health care personnel and provide quality health care. We all know that the health care workforce is shrinking, both in its own right and relative to the growing patient population. This is illustrated by the nursing profession. The average age of nurses today is 43.3 years, and less than 10 percent of the current nurse workforce is below age 30. Unfortunately, many nurses are leaving the occupation because of low pay, excessive paperwork burdens, a lack of respect, and other consequences of being short-staffed, such as overly long shifts, mandatory overtime, and the stress of having too many patients under their care. The result is that very few new nurses are getting into the pipeline to replace those who have retired or left the profession. The nursing shortage is being felt in virtually every part of the country, but especially in rural areas, where it is hard for hospitals to recruit and retain qualified personnel. In my home State of Arkansas, where nearly every county is considered a medically underserved area, hospitals are reporting over 750 nurse vacancies, this says nothing of the other personnel shortages they are experiencing as well. Such severe shortages in qualified health care personnel have ``nationalized'' the market for health care professionals, and historically low labor costs in rural and small urban areas have disappeared. Hospitals in these areas must compete with large urban hospitals for qualified workers and pay higher wages as a result. In some cases, rural hospitals are being forced to pay health care personnel even more than urban hospitals. For example, a nurse practitioner in rural Arkansas is paid $29.04 per hours on average, while the same nurse practitioner would be paid $28.22 per hour in an urban hospital. The Area Wage and Base Payment Improvement Act would address this issue by establishing an area wage index floor of 0.925 in order to bring payments in areas with the lowest wage indexes up to just below the national average of 1.00. The wage index is intended to adjust Medicare hospital inpatient and outpatient payments to account for varying wage rates paid by hospitals for workers in different market areas across the country, but it has not been updated since 1997. In Arkansas, the area wage index for rural hospitals is as low as .7445. By creating an area wage index floor of .925, as many as 72 hospitals in Arkansas and 2,100 hospitals nationwide will see an increase in their Medicare payments and their ability to provide competitive wages for hospital labor. The legislation we are introducing also makes an important change to the Medicare payment formula by increasing the Medicare inpatient prospective payment system, PPS, base amount for rural and small urban hospitals. This base payment is primarily intended to cover labor costs. Today, there are two different base payment amounts for hospitals paid under the Medicare PPS, hospitals in large urban areas receive a base payment of $4,197, while hospitals located in all other areas receive a lower amount of $4,130. This legislation will eliminate this disparity and create one base payment of $4,197 for all hospitals. Nationwide, 2,600 hospitals will benefit from this payment increase. The Area Wage and Base Payment Improvement Act will provide critical payments to small and rural hospitals striving to provide quality health care and put them on an equal footing with large urban hospitals in terms of competing for health care personnel. I urge my colleagues in the Senate to support this important, bipartisan legislation. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. HUTCHINSON

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, I am pleased today to be joined by Senator Cleland of Georgia in introducing the Area Wage and Base Payment Improvement Act, which seeks to address Medicare payment inequities for rural and small hospitals so they may pay competitive wages to attract and retain health care personnel and provide quality health care. We all know that the health care workforce is shrinking, both in its own right and relative to the growing patient population. This is illustrated by the nursing profession. The average age of nurses today is 43.3 years, and less than 10 percent of the current nurse workforce is below age 30. Unfortunately, many nurses are leaving the occupation because of low pay, excessive paperwork burdens, a lack of respect, and other consequences of being short-staffed, such as overly long shifts, mandatory overtime, and the stress of having too many patients under their care. The result is that very few new nurses are getting into the pipeline to replace those who have retired or left the profession. The nursing shortage is being felt in virtually every part of the country, but especially in rural areas, where it is hard for hospitals to recruit and retain qualified personnel. In my home State of Arkansas, where nearly every county is considered a medically underserved area, hospitals are reporting over 750 nurse vacancies, this says nothing of the other personnel shortages they are experiencing as well. Such severe shortages in qualified health care personnel have ``nationalized'' the market for health care professionals, and historically low labor costs in rural and small urban areas have disappeared. Hospitals in these areas must compete with large urban hospitals for qualified workers and pay higher wages as a result. In some cases, rural hospitals are being forced to pay health care personnel even more than urban hospitals. For example, a nurse practitioner in rural Arkansas is paid $29.04 per hours on average, while the same nurse practitioner would be paid $28.22 per hour in an urban hospital. The Area Wage and Base Payment Improvement Act would address this issue by establishing an area wage index floor of 0.925 in order to bring payments in areas with the lowest wage indexes up to just below the national average of 1.00. The wage index is intended to adjust Medicare hospital inpatient and outpatient payments to account for varying wage rates paid by hospitals for workers in different market areas across the country, but it has not been updated since 1997. In Arkansas, the area wage index for rural hospitals is as low as .7445. By creating an area wage index floor of .925, as many as 72 hospitals in Arkansas and 2,100 hospitals nationwide will see an increase in their Medicare payments and their ability to provide competitive wages for hospital labor. The legislation we are introducing also makes an important change to the Medicare payment formula by increasing the Medicare inpatient prospective payment system, PPS, base amount for rural and small urban hospitals. This base payment is primarily intended to cover labor costs. Today, there are two different base payment amounts for hospitals paid under the Medicare PPS, hospitals in large urban areas receive a base payment of $4,197, while hospitals located in all other areas receive a lower amount of $4,130. This legislation will eliminate this disparity and create one base payment of $4,197 for all hospitals. Nationwide, 2,600 hospitals will benefit from this payment increase. The Area Wage and Base Payment Improvement Act will provide critical payments to small and rural hospitals striving to provide quality health care and put them on an equal footing with large urban hospitals in terms of competing for health care personnel. I urge my colleagues in the Senate to support this important, bipartisan legislation. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. HUTCHINSON

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the Murray amendment and to put a little different focus on the debate. The issue, as I see it, on this amendment is not classroom reduction. The issue is not the virtue of having smaller classrooms. The issue is not whether that is valuable or whether that is desirable. Most would say, of course, a smaller class is better than a bigger class. The issue is whether or not those choices and those decisions ought to be made at the local level. The Senator from Washington, who is always very passionate on this issue, used Houston as an example. I will use Houston as an example. Yes, classroom reduction was part of the program. It was part of seven points, a package of seven reforms they emphasized as local reform that helped turn around the Houston school district. I emphasize that classroom reduction was only one part of the whole package. The decisions were made locally, and in addition to class size reduction you also had tutors, planning assistance, and staff development. Those decisions were made locally. The issue is not, do we want smaller classes? Of course, we do. The issue is, do we want to continue the Washington-knows-best, top-down approach to education, when the whole thrust of this bill is to move the other direction? The thrust of this legislation, supported on both sides of the aisle, negotiated by leaders on both sides of the aisle, is that the plethora of Federal programs has not been a productive approach and that we should consolidate those Federal streams of funding. And now along comes an amendment that says: Let's go back to the old way. Let's go back in the old direction. Instead of consolidation, let's pull this out and let's have this program prescriptive from the Federal level where we know best, where we are going to tell local educators what they should do. The Senator from Washington said they should not be forced to choose and that we should fund both. In fact, in this legislation we do fund both. The Teacher Quality Program is authorized at $3 billion, which is an increase over at what the programs are currently funded. So many people argue that when we create larger, more flexible grants, we are trying to decrease funding for these programs. That is just not true. The Professional Development Program received $485 million last year, and the Class Size Reduction Program received $1.6 billion. If my addition is correct, that is $2.05 billion in these two programs. We consolidate them. We combine them and increase the funding to $3 billion. Furthermore, the Kennedy amendment, which just passed and which I supported, reaffirmed not only the $3 billion number but then increases $1/2 billion a year each year. So it is not a matter of only giving limited resources and you must choose: Do you want class size reduction or do you want professional development? We are saying: Here is both, but you decide your priorities locally. Here is the funding for both, an increase by 30 percent over what the previous administration put into class size reduction and professional development. The President and this Congress have increased that authorized level by 30 percent to $3 billion, ensuring an additional $\1/2\ billion each year in the future. We said: Let the local schools, let the States decide the priority. It is not always going to be class size reduction as the highest priority. Sometimes it will be professional development. Sometimes it will be mentoring. Sometimes it will be merit pay. Sometimes it will be tenure reform. Many times it will be class size reduction. We ensure they will always have the option of spending that money as they see best. The issue is not do you want class size reduction. The issue is, do you want real local control? Do you really want them to have the choice or do you think we know best? There has been a growing consensus that what we have done for the last 35 years, with Washington creating more programs and making more prescriptions, has not been the right approach. There has been a growing consensus on both sides of the aisle that we need to consolidate. This is a move in the wrong direction, the opposite direction, to pull this out and say: In this area, we know best; you must do class size reduction if you want these funds. Studies by Eric Hanushek, a professor at the University of Rochester, show that teacher quality is the most important factor in a child's instruction. So while class size is very important, even more important than class size is the quality of the teacher in that classroom. Oftentimes professional development is going to be even more valuable than ensuring there are fewer children in the classroom, and we should not make the determination of what is needed locally. This new flexible grant, the Teacher Quality Program, allows States and school districts to continue class size reduction if they choose. They are not mandated to do so. The National Commission on Teaching & America's Future found that class size reduction has the least impact on increasing student achievement and that teacher education and teacher quality had the most impact on increasing achievement. One other point: For rural States such as Arkansas, we have many school districts, many times very small school districts. This kind of Federal program simply doesn't work. If you calculate what local schools in Arkansas get, it is about a third of a teacher per school district. For many small school districts, this kind of a program just doesn't work. It is far better to put additional funding in a program with greater flexibility so local school districts will have enough resources so they can actually make a difference. While I agree many school districts and many States are going to put as priority No. 1 cutting the size of classes, in some areas that is not going to be priority No. 1. We should not make that decision for them and say: The only way you can access these funds is if you spend it in this way. I reluctantly oppose the Murray amendment. We are putting considerable new resources, a 30-percent increase, into this Teacher Quality Program, and that will ensure that schools are going to be able to make the right kind of choice and the right kind of investment to get the best return in academic achievement. The Teacher Quality Program in this bill recognizes that mandates from Washington aren't the way to improve teacher quality. This legislation gives more flexibility to States and school districts but holds them accountable for teacher quality and, most importantly, student achievement. I underscore again that this amendment is counter to the entire thrust of this education reform legislation. We should not make the mistake of returning to the past and reducing again the very important flexibility and decisionmaking authority that should reside at the local level. So while I know this amendment is well intended, it is really counter to the kind of reform that will result in greater student achievement and improved education across this country, and I hope my colleagues will join me in opposing the Murray amendment and staying consistent with a desire to consolidate and provide greater flexibility, with meaningful accountability, and thus keep our focus upon the children and their educational future. I yield the floor.

Mr. HUTCHINSON

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, I rise today to recognize Miss Heather Eagleston of Mountain Home, AR. Heather recently won the Arkansas 2001 ``RespecTeen Speak for Yourself'' Contest. In her entry letter, Heather passionately described her personal experience with her brother's tragic accident and resulting paralysis and the problems he now faces everyday with disabilities discrimination. It was for families like this one that we passed the Americans with Disabilities Act just over 10 years ago and, during the 106th Congress, the Ticket to Work and Work Incentives improvement Act of 1999. However, as President Roosevelt once said, ``the credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena . . . who does actually strive to do the deeds.'' In this case, that credit belongs to a thirteen-year-old girl, who has pledged herself in an effort to combat discrimination against the disabled, and who has already taken a notable step in that direction. I salute Heather for her dedication and congratulate her on this achievement. Mr. President, I ask that Heather Eagleston's letter and a short biography be printed in the Record. The material follows: Mountain Home, AR, January 16, 2001. Hon. Asa Hutchinson, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Representative Asa Hutchinson: Eliminating discrimination against disabled people should be a national priority. Even though legislation has been passed addressing their problems, enforcement of existing laws still leaves the disabled individual without even the most basic resources necessary to pursue a normal life. Access into public buildings, and equal employment opportunities are essential to every citizen of our country. More than half of the population believes that the disabled are being discriminated against in the workforce. The Rehabilitation Act, of 1973, requires all federal agencies to take an affirmative action in hiring qualified employees with disabilities. Currently, federal government hires only 209,284 people with disabilities. That is only seven percent of the entire work force. In 1993 my brother was paralyzed in a car accident. His medical bills were about one million dollars, and at that time we had no insurance. My mother had to go to the hospital administrative board and beg them to give my brother the spinal surgery he needed to function. Fortunately, after a long tedious process he did qualify for government assistance. We have come a long way. The government is making progress but only in small parts. Since 1973 we have had about 20 laws passed on disability rights. The current laws are not being enforced. In 1990 the Americans with Disabilities Act was signed into a law. This included provisions to access all public accommodations. However in 1994, when my brother went to get his senior portrait taken there was no wheelchair access ramp for him to get in, nor in the school sanction. This is only one example of a minor problem that illustrates a major issue. Initiate stricter penalties for those who will not abide by the laws. Inform the public concerning the law the consequences of ignoring the law. I will set a standard in my life that focuses on the fact that no United States citizen, despite whatever limitation they might have, feels that their rights are limited due to public ignorance or support from our government. I will speak out for the right of all individuals. Sincerely, Heather Eagleston.

Mr. HUTCHINSON

Mr. HUTCHINSON. I thank the Chair and thank the distinguished Senator from Wyoming for his leadership in this debate. Madam President, I will just take a few moments to again speak on the very important issue of education and the legislation we have pending before us, and to urge my colleagues to support the motion to proceed. I believe we have spent close to a week--perhaps more than a week-- talking about education without having yet taken a single vote on an amendment. I believe this issue is of such great importance that while we do not want to shortchange the amount of time we spend on this issue, and while we do not want to short circuit the process, we also do not want to become victims of the process. I saw last year where we spent weeks on the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, and where we had other items of important business that would interrupt the education debate, and where we would return to the education debate, and while there was never a formal filibuster, the effect last year was to have a filibuster by amendment and by process, so that extraneous amendments prevented us from ever getting a final vote on the Elementary and Secondary Education Act and the reauthorization of this important bill. The losers, as always, are the American people and, more critically, the children of this country. I urge my colleagues to allow us to proceed with the bill. I know there are good-faith negotiations occurring on important subjects. I have been involved in those. I think they are in good faith. I applaud the efforts that are ongoing. But we have spent a long time on this issue. The differences now are fairly small, whether it be in funding or whether it be in policy. It is critically important that we go ahead and proceed to consider the bill and begin the process of offering amendments and debating this issue. The process of what occurred in the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee and the bill that was voted out of that committee, as well as the bipartisan policy agreements that have been reached through negotiations, have produced, I suspect, 95-percent agreement now on policy. In both of these instances--both the committee and the negotiated agreement--we have taken a tremendous step forward in education in this country and have made a tremendous move toward real educational reform. Let me mention a few of the areas. Let's reiterate them again. We must have accountability in educational reform. To pour billions of dollars more into the Federal contribution to educate our children without requiring real accountability would not only be foolhardy but would be a waste of taxpayers' dollars. So we must have accountability. The bill that is before us--the negotiations and what has resulted from those negotiations--brings us real accountability, and it transforms the way we have thought about accountability for the last 35 years. What it has been in the past has been asking the local schools, local education authorities: Are you spending the money the way we prescribed that you spend it? That is what we have defined as accountability. Did you fill out the paperwork correctly? Did you cross the t's correctly? Did you dot the i's correctly? Did you spend it the way we prescribed you to spend it? Whether it made good sense locally or not, whether it was in the best interest of the children or not, if it conformed with what we in Washington believed was the right way to spend it, we said, then that is accountability. You have met the accountability requirements. We have changed that and gone in a whole new direction. We have said every child ought to be tested every year. We ought to know whether or not children are learning. We are taking a giant step away from how old are you, what grade should you be in, have we shuffled you through the system, to what do you know. I have heard the critics of testing and the testing proposals. Testing is by no means perfect, but I ask my colleagues, is there a better way to measure what children know? The answer is, of course, no. That is the best tool we have to know whether or not children are progressing academically, whether or not they should be moved ahead and promoted. That is very important. If you are going to have real accountability, you must not only measure through testing; there must be consequences to those schools that are not teaching, that are not succeeding, that are not preparing their students to go out into the workplace and compete in this global economy. Under this bill, there are real consequences for those schools that will not teach and will not change. Yes, additional resources; yes, additional help, but in the end, if a school will not change and it will not teach and the children are being trapped in a school that is handicapping their future, then we say, in this legislation, there should be consequences to those schools. The best consequence, the best way you hold schools accountable is to ensure that parents have greater choices. Yes, after schools are given an opportunity to improve and to address the shortcomings of failing schools, and still they do not make the changes, then we would say parents should have the right to take those children and move them to the public school of their choice. I would prefer that the choices be expanded, but in the bill before us at least there is the expansion of parental choice in the sense that they can go to another public school. Competition is good in any sector in our economy. It is good in business and in education. The public schools will be better when that element of competition is injected. The evidence is overwhelming, whether you look at Milwaukee, WI, or whether you look at the State of Florida, that where you have competition, you have improvement in the public schools. We recently heard from the Milwaukee superintendent of schools, the longest choice program in the Nation. His testimony was that the public schools in Milwaukee are better today because of the choice element, because parents of low-income children have the right to take those children and move them into a private, public, parochial, or charter school where they have a whole range of options; that choice has made the public school system better. We suggest in this legislation that real consequences mean greater parental choice. We also say that where a school will not change and will not teach, those parents should be able to find supplemental services to assist in the education of their children. Parents should not be forced to sacrifice the future of their children because they happen to be in a school that will not make the academic investment in those children. We say, yes, if a parent has children who are in a school that after years does not improve and is still not doing the job, is still a failing school, the parents ought to be able to take those children to a Sylvan Learning Center or they should be able, with their title I dollars, to hire a tutor. They ought to be able to take that portion of the Federal contribution to local education and ensure that their children are not sacrificed in a failing system. Accountability is a huge part of the legislation that is before the Senate and that I hope we will begin voting on soon. A second aspect of this legislation is the consolidation that occurs. One of the frustrations of local educators for many years has been the plethora of programs that we have created at the Federal level, oftentimes well intended, oftentimes with a very good purpose in mind, and frequently never funded by the Federal Government, just authorized without any funding. Sometimes when we question officials at the Department of Education about how many programs they have, it is very difficult to get a clear, unequivocal answer. They simply don't know how many programs are under their jurisdiction that have been created through the years, since the department was established, authorized, some funded, some not funded, some having wilted away but still on the books. They don't know how many programs there are. We know that while it has been repeated frequently during the debate on education that we contribute between 7 and 9 percent of the local school's budget from the Federal Government, we contribute about 50 percent of the paperwork with which local educators are required to comply. That is probably the best gauge of how many Federal mandates accompany that 7 to 9 percent of the funding at the local level. What the President has suggested and what the committee has produced in the committee deliberations is a bill that consolidates this plethora of Federal programs into a more manageable, more simple stream of funding for the local schools. The funding is still there but, as a result, there is far greater flexibility than there has been in the past because we have consolidated these many programs. That is something that needs to be done. Local educators acknowledge that. Yes, every program has a constituency. When we try to consolidate, to eliminate, we hear from those constituencies. But let the educators of this country realize, there is no reduction in funding. In fact, the funding is dramatically increased in this legislation. The flexibility for local educators to use those resources in the area they feel is most essential for local educational reform is enhanced under this legislation. Whether that is class size reduction, hiring more teachers, whether it is tutors, school nurses, whether it would be a form of merit pay, paying the best teachers more, enhanced flexibility would be there for these local educators under this legislation. So consolidation is a very important part of what we are doing in this education reform. Then what I hope comes out of the ongoing negotiations is a form of the President's proposal regarding charter States. This was a bold initiative that President Bush campaigned on and spoke eloquently about and that has been whittled down and whittled down and diminished and deluded, but there is a form of it still remaining. We are talking about perhaps seven States as a demonstration project with perhaps 25 local educational authorities or school districts that would be given the option of applying for this new status created called charter States. In last year's deliberations, we called it the Straight A's Program. The concept is we will give States broad new flexibility to consolidate streams of funding and to make local education reforms in exchange for strict accountability standards. The concept of charter schools has for years been used successfully across the country. That is why they are increasing in number. We say to a charter school: You have a waiver in effect from local and State education requirements in exchange for results we expect from what you are doing in that charter school. If it works at the local school, why shouldn't it work if we give States, the laboratories of democracy, that kind of flexibility. So States would be given a new element of freedom and flexibility in exchange for a performance agreement with the Department of Education and the Secretary of Education as to what they intend to accomplish and how they intend to accomplish it and ensuring that there is going to be increased annual yearly progress. That is a good deal for schools; it is a good deal for States; and it is a good deal for the American people. There will be a little bit of that proposal that survives so that a few States can apply, and a few States will be willing to try it, to break out of the old mold. The result will be an example that a lot of other States will want to try in the future. I commend the President for his strong emphasis upon early childhood education and particularly his emphasis upon reading programs, his willingness to triple funding for reading programs. So often the tragedy of shuffling children through the system all begins in kindergarten and first grade and second grade, where the foundation is not adequately laid. The President's emphasis upon reading is to be commended and is an important part of this legislation as well. One aspect that I and my staff have been involved in, that will not get a lot of attention but is going to be a very significant step, is the change that is made in the bilingual education program. Historically, that has been a competitive grant program. Many States that have had growing minority populations--particularly--in the State of Arkansas, with a growing population have received almost nil under the current system. Because of the changes made in the legislation, we will not only have increased funding nationwide, but we will have a formula that will benefit many of these States such as Arkansas and Alabama, and many of the rural States that have fared so poorly under the past approach on bilingual education. In addition, there will be emphasis--in fact, a requirement--on teaching English in these programs. This is a huge step in the proper direction of reform. I know my colleague, Senator Bond, is on the floor. I am anxious to hear what he has to say on this subject. Senator Bond has been involved in education for years. I will conclude by addressing an issue that we have heard repeatedly on the floor, and we are going to hear a lot more about it in the next couple weeks, and that is the issue of spending. For those who say this is an unfunded mandate upon the States, for those who say it is unconscionable to do education reform without fully funding the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, I just say: Where have you been? This is the first time that the Republican Senate, with a Republican Congress and with a Republican President, has had an opportunity to reauthorize the ESEA. Historically, with a Democrat President and Democrat Congress, the funding increases when ESEA has been reauthorized, have been between 5 and 6 percent. So to demand that the only way you will support education reform is if there is a full commitment to funding ESEA for the next so many years is really disingenuous. The President has made a strong commitment to dramatic increases in education funding--in fact, more than in any other Cabinet department-- and has been willing to move even higher on those numbers in the negotiation process across the aisle. So I just plead with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle that we not allow a bogus debate on funding to distract us from the very important task of giving the children of this country and the families of this country the kind of education reform they deserve, and that will truly put meaning behind what has become a very popular phrase-- ``leaving no child behind.'' We are leaving them behind today. We have an opportunity to leave far fewer behind. Every child can learn if given the opportunity and the expectations. This legislation, through accountability and flexibility, testing requirements, through increased funding, does many good things in moving us in the right direction toward greater educational opportunity for every child in America. I hope that we get on with it, get on the bill, and pass the bill and send it to the President, who has been a dynamic leader on education reform in this country. I yield the floor.

Mr. HUTCHINSON

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, I rise today to say thank you to Sue Hensley for all of her efforts on my behalf to serve the people and the State of Arkansas during the past six years. In those six years, I found her counsel to be invaluable and of great aid, and I am proud to say that she is not only a former employee but also a good friend. She worked long hours and did whatever was required to competently fulfill her duties as my Communications Director. I am indebted to Sue for her service and I wish her the best of luck in her new position as Director of Communications of the Department of Labor and continued success in her career.

Mr. HUTCHINSON

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of Full Social Security Benefits Guarantee Act be printed in the Record.

Mr. HUTCHINSON

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of Full Social Security Benefits Guarantee Act be printed in the Record.

Mr. HUTCHINSON

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to follow Senator Wellstone.

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Senator Wellstone may have made the greatest understatement in the Senate, when he said we may not always agree. I have the utmost respect for my friend. It is always a challenge following the Senator from Minnesota. He is passionate and articulate. I have the utmost respect for his convictions, though I think in this instance he is misguided. I rise to speak in favor of the education bill from the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions, the Better Education for Students and Teachers Act. I look forward to engaging in what I think will be a healthy and vigorous debate throughout this week and perhaps next week. Certainly Senator Wellstone and I agree that this issue is important. I think all colleagues on both sides of the aisle agree this is an issue that deserves the time we have reserved on the floor; it deserves the debate that has begun. I am confident we will be able to pass the reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act and we will pass a bill under the direction of our President, under his leadership, that will reform the American educational system and the Federal role in public education, and we will turn away from those who simply would endorse the status quo and continue down the path of the past. While the legislation before the Senate makes significant reforms, we have been working with colleagues on both sides of the aisle to make several needed improvements to the bill that came from the committee. It is essential this legislation not merely rubberstamp the policies the Federal Government has encouraged for many years. During 35 years of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, Washington created a lot of programs; in fact, one study in the House of Representatives shows over 700 Federal education programs. We have a burgeoning education bureaucracy. The Federal Government has spent 35 years and over $120 billion on title I funding to increase the achievement of disadvantaged students, and that was the reason the NAEP was originally authorized. That is why we started a Federal role in education. We wanted to help disadvantaged students. If there is a proper Federal role, it is to target scarce resources toward the most disadvantaged and to narrow the learning gap between the advantaged and disadvantaged students. After 35 years and the $120 billion on title I funding for disadvantaged students, we have little, if anything, to show for that investment. Let's recount the facts. First, as a prelude to what I will say, I emphasize there are many quality teachers in public schools. There are some incredibly dedicated teachers who are doing a tremendous job in public schools. I agree with one thing Senator Wellstone said. I would not last an hour trying to fill their shoes in the difficult job they have. My sister is such a person. I admire her immensely. She will never have her name in any headlines, but, day in and day out for 20 years, she has been in the classroom, teaching and instructing and brightening the lives of young people. She deserves, as thousands of public educators across this country, our praise. We have made their job more difficult. We have left children behind. That is what we need to remedy. The most recent NAEP reading results for 2000 remain the same--not for 1999, the same as for 1992. The worst news in the scores for 2000 was that higher performing students made gains while lower performing students did even worse. In other words, what we were supposed to try to cure with our Federal prescription for education when we created the Elementary and Secondary Education Act 35 years ago we have only made worse. The situation has only been exacerbated. Instead of narrowing that learning gap, we have seen the learning gap between the advantaged and disadvantaged only increase. American 12th graders rank 19th out of 21 industrial countries in mathematics. Only Cyprus and South Africa fare worse than the United States. I say to my colleagues who want to spend more money, let's not spend more money unless we bring reform. That is unacceptable. For the greatest nation in the world, the freeest nation in the world, and, without risk of being contradicted, the Nation that has the best higher education program in the world, to have those statistics for our elementary and secondary education system is unacceptable. Since 1983, 10 million American kids reached 12th grade without having learned to read at the basic level; 20 million seniors could not do basic math; 25 million seniors are illiterate on the subject of American history. How long can a free society survive, how long can a democracy survive, when our young people do not have a basic understanding of our Nation's roots, our Nation's history? What about the middle school grades? Two-thirds of American eighth graders perform below proficiency level in reading. It is not just the high schools; it is not just in the middle schools; it is also in our elementary schools that our children have been shortchanged by a Washington-based, cubicle-oriented system. Over three-quarters of fourth grade children in urban high-poverty schools read below basic on the National Assessment of Education Progress, the NAEP test. Those kids in particular title I was intended to help the most--the disadvantaged children, those in urban schools, those in high-poverty schools--and they are the children who are suffering most under the current system. Those statistics are shameful. Two years ago when the Children's Scholarship Foundation, a private scholarship fund, offered 40,000 scholarships for tuition, privately funded--they offered 40,000 scholarships across the Nation--1.25 million applications were received. Even though families were required under this program to make a matching contribution of $1,000 from their own pockets, they still had one and a quarter million applicants. Talk about a poll. That is perhaps the best poll on the failure of the current system. In many urban districts, the demand for these scholarships was so high that a staggering 44 percent of eligible parents in Baltimore applied for these scholarships and 33 percent of the parents in Washington, DC, applied for these scholarships. There are only 40,000; one and a quarter million applicants. In the most poor communities, parents are just not satisfied with their schools. When you look at the past, you look at what the Federal Government has tried, you can only say we have been weighed in the balance and we have been found wanting. We have a golden opportunity to change that story this year. Child-based education is the focus, I believe, of the pending legislation. We have a bill for consideration that is about educating America's children, not keeping a failing and dilapidated education infrastructure on life support. The bill before us pioneers a new direction for the Federal Government's role in education. Is it not time for a new direction? The package that some of my colleagues and I have been working on, which includes several initiatives such as what we called Straight A's, what President Bush calls Charter States, will be offered as an amendment if not negotiated in the talks that are ongoing. Supplemental services for children in failing schools: No, it is not a full parental choice provision, as the President suggested, but it is a step toward giving parents with children in failing schools--where the schools have been given an opportunity and have been given resources, and the schools will not teach and the schools will not change--to give those parents an opportunity to not sacrifice their children in that failing school but to have some other option, some supplemental services, some Sylvan Learning Centers, tutorial help, to ensure that their children are not lost in a failing school system. But I hear from the other side of the aisle that these reforms are not enough; that what is really needed is more money. I suggest that will be the mantra we will hear over and over and over again this week in response to the President's leadership and in response to real education reform. We are going to hear over and over again: No, what we really need is more money. Let's talk about that. Even though over $120 billion has been spent on title I over the past 35 years, even though we have seen no measurable gain in student achievement over those 35 years, the argument is still the real solution is to spend more money. Even though the President in his budget has included an 11-percent increase for education, more than any other Department in the entire Federal Government, and even though he has suggested tripling funding for reading programs in those lower grades, we will still hear over and over again: The real issue is not reform. The real issue is we need to spend more money. Let's continue to talk about that funding issue. I suggest while more money is desirable, it is not desirable if we do not yoke it with real education reform. This chart from the National Center for Education Statistics reveals what is happening. On NAEP reading scores since 1971, you can see that while we have more than doubled spending--the red line--more than doubled spending on education on a per-pupil basis, over $8,000 per pupil, these lines reveal the real story. It is that 12th grade NAEP reading, since 1971, has remained basically static; 8th grade NAEP reading--the green line--since 1971 has remained stationary; and on the 4th grade NAEP reading, we have essentially a flat line as well. So while, since 1971, we have more than doubled, in inflation- adjusted dollars, what we are spending per pupil, the result has been no significant progress. Let's go from reading to the math scores. The NAEP math scores tell essentially the same story. Since 1973, spending has increased from about $5,000, $6,000, to over $8,000. We have a considerable increase over the years on the per-pupil expenditure. Yet you can see in the 4th, 8th, and 12th grades, the scores remain, tragically, a flat line. I suggest the evidence is overwhelming that money is simply not the answer. Last year's Rand Corporation State-by-State comparison of test scores on annual spending per student on education, scores adjusted for demographics and cost-of-living differences across the States, shows that schools do not thrive on money alone. Texas ranked 24th among the States on yearly spending per student, but they were first in test results on the 1990-1996 NAEP test. Iowa was 21st in spending, but they were third in results. On the other hand, Louisiana was 14th in spending per student, but they were 47th in results. There is simply no persuasive correlation between the amount spent and the academic achievement of students. It is time for us to move in a new direction. I say money alone is not the answer to all our problems. I am spending so much time on that because I know that is what we are going to hear all week long. We must take a balanced, responsible approach to education reform. Funding where needed is important, but we can already find plenty of examples of innovative schools that do not have a wealth of funding. The Heritage Foundation published a book entitled ``No Excuses.'' This book tells the story of 21 high-performing high-poverty schools. One of those schools is in Portland, AR; the Portland Elementary School. I will give you an idea of where it is located. This, as the Presiding Officer right now well knows, is the Mississippi Delta. On both sides of the Mississippi River is, I think, unquestionably the poorest regional area on a per-capita-income basis in the entire Nation. More so than even Appalachia is the Mississippi Delta. It is a struggling area in every way, economically and educationally. This school, the Portland Elementary School, is located right here in Portland, AR, in southeast Arkansas. This school is led by a principal by the name of Ernest Smith. The Portland Elementary School, located in the Mississippi Delta, has found high academic results. Oftentimes those are not expected in this region of the country. They have found these results by demanding academic achievement from every child in the school. Portland Elementary has only 150 students in prekindergarten through the 6th grade. Mr. President, 77 percent of the students are from low-income homes. When Ernest Smith came to Portland 5 years ago, half of the students in the fourth, fifth, and sixth grades were scoring 2 years or more below grade level. Today 100 percent of the students in this elementary school are at grade level or above. I want everyone to see this principal. This is Ernest Smith, an engaged principal who has transformed this elementary school in the Mississippi Delta. How did this remarkable turnaround happen? A dedicated principal, a school district willing to try something different, and teachers who were supportive of the approach--not a Federal program telling this principal what he should do. In fact, it had been his experience that the Federal programs oftentimes got in his way. Ernest Smith is 65 years old. He has been a teacher and a principal for 43 years. This is what he did. He convinced the school to implement an instructional model called Direct Instruction, and test scores have risen ever since he did it. Additionally, parents who enrolled their children in private schools in the area started to call Mr. Smith to enroll their children back in the local public school. But Direct Instruction was not the only reason for the improvements in the school. Mr. Smith has increased parental involvement in the school, where 50 percent of the parents attend a monthly parents meeting, and 98 percent of the parents attended the parent-teacher conferences. In addition, more time during the schoolday was dedicated to direct involvement between the students and teachers. Mr. Smith realized when children are at school they should be learning, so recesses and naptimes were shortened or cut out. On their most recent standardized tests from this spring, kindergartners scored at the 88th percentile nationally. It is the poorest region of our Nation and the most educationally challenged region of our Nation. However, the 88th percentile for kindergarten is not good enough for principal Ernest Smith. His goal is the 100th percentile for every student. You can see in kindergarten, grades 1, 2, and 3--in every grade--in this elementary school, they are exceeding the national average, the 50th percentile. Once again, his desire is to see 100. Luke Gordy, chairman of the Arkansas Board of Education, said in an editorial written in the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette in reference to Ernest Smith and Betty McGruder, principal at Whitten Elementary, ``they have accepted no excuses for raising levels of learning for every child under their care.'' They believe they must learn. I suggest to my colleagues that money alone is not the answer. This school doesn't have a lot of money. They have very little money. They are on a very tight budget. Their answer wasn't give us more money, but give us the freedom to make the kinds of reforms in which teachers are going to be allowed to teach. Having served in the State legislature and worked with local school boards, I don't subscribe to the notion that Washington is somehow all- knowing and that we policymakers on the Education and Labor Committee are somehow omniscient. Washington is not omniscient, and we are not perfect in knowing what is going to meet the needs of schools all over this country. This bill that we are debating requires accountability and student performance measures in exchange for flexibility and discretion by States and local schools. That is something the current system just does not have. The current system is a straightjacket for local educators. This system puts these local educators in handcuffs and says: This is the way you must do it--that we must prescribe from Washington, DC. Rather than out-of-touch bureaucrats here in Washington pulling the funding stream, the funding would be allocated under this bill directly to States and school districts. Funds would be consolidated so that schools would have to spend less time filling out grant forms, and so they could spend more time teaching. The Presiding Officer directing our deliberations knows as well on our committee that we had the Secretary of Education come before us on more than one occasion and repeatedly he reminded Members of the Senate that his background is as a hands-on educator, superintendent, principal, someone who has been there, and someone who sees it from a different perspective than what we too often see coming out of the Federal Department of Education. I think that is refreshing. I think that is going to assist us in the path we have before us. I think the facts are so clear and the message is so strong that proponents of the status quo realize that change is coming. People are realizing that President Bush's plan makes sense, that it is going to bring real change, and that it is going to take us in a new direction. I am glad my colleagues have started to embrace the President's positions. I only hope these initiatives become stronger, not weaker, as we go through the debate in the next couple of weeks. With millions of American students struggling to read, with millions of American students struggling to recite basic history facts or exhibit basic mathematical skills, one would hope we could collectively agree that we must try something different and we must collectively put our emphasis on student performance. We can do that by passing the pending legislation. An editorial op-ed piece written by Joel Belz--I don't know Joel Belz, but I thought he had a wonderful analogy of what we are facing, and those who are going to oppose this bill are setting themselves up against change. This is the way he put it. He said: Advocates of statist education are like the older people in the Soviet empire in the early 1990s. This is Joel Belz. I am not impugning anybody's integrity. He said: They're vaguely aware their system isn't working--but they've never known anything else. Even worse, statism has dulled their creative powers, as it always does, and they can't imagine anything other than what they've always known. Their only solution is to multiply their efforts. ``Let's do more of the same--much more,'' they proclaim cheerlessly. ``If only we had more money to buy more of what we've already got, maybe it would work.'' But it's like pushing boulders up the long slope of a mountain. But the forces that resist real change will repeatedly fall back on: We just need to do more of what we have been doing for the last 35 years, if we will just put more money in--while they defend this deteriorating education bureaucracy and infrastructure that impedes reform instead of energizing reform. Flexibility means freedom. Accountability means you have to measure. After you measure and you discover and determine where the failing schools are, there must be consequences. There must be ultimately more parental choice. It has been said that the last seven words of any dying institution are, ``We never did it that way before.'' We will hear that disguised in various ways and in various euphemisms. We will hear that this week: ``We never did it that way before.'' The real solution is, we need more money. The President agrees. Let's put in more resources. But the President has rightly put his finger on the problem: Most basically we need reform. Testing: Yes. Testing, because as fallible as it is, it is the best tool we have of determining if our children are really learning. Flexibility: Yes. Because, as in welfare, the great reform that is occurring in education is happening not in Washington, DC, but in the States--our laboratories all across this country. Parental choice: Ultimately parents are still the first and best educators. They need to have the opportunity to ensure that their children are not shuffled through a system in which their children are the ultimate sacrifice. I believe that ultimately when this debate is brought before the American people, and when it is brought before the Senate, the energy and the impetus for real reform that our President has given us will result in the most dramatic and fundamental change in the Federal role in education since the Elementary and Secondary Education Act was first passed and since the Department of Education was created. That is good news for children all across our country who are being left behind. I thank the Chair. I yield the floor.

Mr. HUTCHINSON

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, today I am introducing a bill that will provide military personnel the ability to provide for the education of their spouses and children in return for their commitment to continue to serve in the armed forces. The purpose of this bill is to promote retention of members of the armed forces in critical specialties by establishing a bonus savings plan that will provide significant resources for meeting the expenses encountered by service members in providing for the education of members of their families. I met with the Senior Enlisted Advisors of the four armed services and the Coast Guard. These Senior Enlisted Advisors are the top enlisted person in their respective services. Their job is to advise the Service Chief on matters pertaining to enlisted personnel. These experienced senior leaders are among the most significant resources available to the generals and admirals, and those of us here in Congress, as we seek answers to questions on recruiting, retention, and quality of life. These enlisted leaders know first-hand and fully understand the life, the demands on and concerns of enlisted personnel in their services. In my meeting with the Senior Enlisted Advisors, I sought their insight on what factors enlisted service members consider when making that critical decision as to whether to continue their active service or leave the military. I found myself talking to the very people who have faced the stress of these decisions; who have sat with their spouses and families and discussed whether to stay in the military or leave and seek a career outside the military. They were very frank and candid in their discussions. One thing I learned is that, like many of us, enlisted service members share the goal of giving their children better opportunities than they had. To a person, the Senior Enlisted Advisors said that being able to provide educational opportunities for their families is an important goal and would be a powerful retention tool. My bill will provide enlisted service members in critical specialties, who agree to serve a six-year term, resources that can be applied to cover the expenses of higher education for their families. Let me explain how this will work. Service members, officers or enlisted, in critical specialties, who reenlist or extend their service commitment for six years will receive United States Savings Bonds that can be redeemed to cover educational expenses. When these Savings Bonds are redeemed to cover educational costs, the income, under the current tax code, is tax exempt. My bill does not modify the tax code. My proposal will take advantage of current tax law as it pertains to United States Savings Bonds used for educational purposes. Military personnel who have less than three years of service when they reenlist or extend their commitment will receive Savings Bonds with a face value of $5,000. For those service members who have between three and nine years of service when they reenlist or extend their commitment will receive Savings Bonds with a face value of $15,000. Those members with more than nine years of service who reenlist or extend their commitment will receive Savings Bonds with a face value of $30,000. A Service Member who reenlists at the two-year point and receives $5,000 in Savings Bonds subsequently reenlists at the end of his six- year commitment--now with eight years of service--would receive an additional $10,000 in Savings Bonds, for a total of $15,000. This service member could reenlist again at the conclusion of the second six-year term,--now in his 14th year--and would receive an additional $15,000 for a career total of $30,000 in United States Savings Bonds that can be used for educational purposes. All tax free. My bill will provide military personnel the capability to provide for the education of their spouses and children while investing in America. I am introducing this bill today to enhance the benefits President Bush announced at Fort Stewart, Georgia, on Monday. The President announced that his budget will include $5.7 billion in additional benefits for military personnel; $1.4 billion to increase military pay and allowances; $3.9 billion for military health care; and $0.4 billion for improvements to military housing. These increases are much needed and the announcement was enthusiastically received by the men and women at Fort Stewart, Georgia who know the sacrifices they are required to make in service of their country. My bill enhances President Bush's initiatives by providing educational opportunities that are unavailable today to the children of military personnel. I will hold hearings later this year in the Armed Services Committee to further develop each of these initiatives. My bill furthers the educational opportunities for military families, increases military readiness by retaining the highly-trained and experienced military personnel we need to continue to be the preeminent military force in the world, and accomplished these lofty goals by investing in America. I urge my colleagues to examine my bill and join Senator Warner and I as cosponsors of this important initiative. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. HUTCHINSON

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, today I am introducing a bill that will provide military personnel the ability to provide for the education of their spouses and children in return for their commitment to continue to serve in the armed forces. The purpose of this bill is to promote retention of members of the armed forces in critical specialties by establishing a bonus savings plan that will provide significant resources for meeting the expenses encountered by service members in providing for the education of members of their families. I met with the Senior Enlisted Advisors of the four armed services and the Coast Guard. These Senior Enlisted Advisors are the top enlisted person in their respective services. Their job is to advise the Service Chief on matters pertaining to enlisted personnel. These experienced senior leaders are among the most significant resources available to the generals and admirals, and those of us here in Congress, as we seek answers to questions on recruiting, retention, and quality of life. These enlisted leaders know first-hand and fully understand the life, the demands on and concerns of enlisted personnel in their services. In my meeting with the Senior Enlisted Advisors, I sought their insight on what factors enlisted service members consider when making that critical decision as to whether to continue their active service or leave the military. I found myself talking to the very people who have faced the stress of these decisions; who have sat with their spouses and families and discussed whether to stay in the military or leave and seek a career outside the military. They were very frank and candid in their discussions. One thing I learned is that, like many of us, enlisted service members share the goal of giving their children better opportunities than they had. To a person, the Senior Enlisted Advisors said that being able to provide educational opportunities for their families is an important goal and would be a powerful retention tool. My bill will provide enlisted service members in critical specialties, who agree to serve a six-year term, resources that can be applied to cover the expenses of higher education for their families. Let me explain how this will work. Service members, officers or enlisted, in critical specialties, who reenlist or extend their service commitment for six years will receive United States Savings Bonds that can be redeemed to cover educational expenses. When these Savings Bonds are redeemed to cover educational costs, the income, under the current tax code, is tax exempt. My bill does not modify the tax code. My proposal will take advantage of current tax law as it pertains to United States Savings Bonds used for educational purposes. Military personnel who have less than three years of service when they reenlist or extend their commitment will receive Savings Bonds with a face value of $5,000. For those service members who have between three and nine years of service when they reenlist or extend their commitment will receive Savings Bonds with a face value of $15,000. Those members with more than nine years of service who reenlist or extend their commitment will receive Savings Bonds with a face value of $30,000. A Service Member who reenlists at the two-year point and receives $5,000 in Savings Bonds subsequently reenlists at the end of his six- year commitment--now with eight years of service--would receive an additional $10,000 in Savings Bonds, for a total of $15,000. This service member could reenlist again at the conclusion of the second six-year term,--now in his 14th year--and would receive an additional $15,000 for a career total of $30,000 in United States Savings Bonds that can be used for educational purposes. All tax free. My bill will provide military personnel the capability to provide for the education of their spouses and children while investing in America. I am introducing this bill today to enhance the benefits President Bush announced at Fort Stewart, Georgia, on Monday. The President announced that his budget will include $5.7 billion in additional benefits for military personnel; $1.4 billion to increase military pay and allowances; $3.9 billion for military health care; and $0.4 billion for improvements to military housing. These increases are much needed and the announcement was enthusiastically received by the men and women at Fort Stewart, Georgia who know the sacrifices they are required to make in service of their country. My bill enhances President Bush's initiatives by providing educational opportunities that are unavailable today to the children of military personnel. I will hold hearings later this year in the Armed Services Committee to further develop each of these initiatives. My bill furthers the educational opportunities for military families, increases military readiness by retaining the highly-trained and experienced military personnel we need to continue to be the preeminent military force in the world, and accomplished these lofty goals by investing in America. I urge my colleagues to examine my bill and join Senator Warner and I as cosponsors of this important initiative. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. HUTCHINSON

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, I rise today with Senators Dodd, Crapo, Kennedy, Inhofe, Feinstein, Craig, Murray, Spector, Edwards, Mikulski, Helms, Biden, and Kerry to introduce a Senate Resolution declaring May 13-20, ``National Biotechnology Week.'' There have been phenomenal advancements in science over the last few years that are allowing us to improve health care, increase crop yields, reduce the use of pesticides, and replace costly industrial processes involving harsh chemicals with cheaper, safer, biological processes. These advancements have occurred due to the hard work and diligence of scientists and researchers in United States, and all around the world, who have spent their lives promoting and perfecting the practice of biotechnology. Biotechnology is the use of biological processes to solve problems or make useful products. While the use of biological processes for these purposes is not new, the use of recombinant DNA technology and our greater understanding of the role of genetics in our lives have led to the creation of hundreds of products and therapeutic treatments with a wide variety of health, agricultural, and environmental benefits. Through the analysis of genes and gene products, we will soon be able to forecast disease and create preventative therapies that will drastically reduce the cost of health care by limiting the number of drug treatments necessary and reducing the amount of time patients must be in the hospital. This same technology will enable us to refocus health care on promoting health and preventing disease rather than restoring health in the sick and treating the symptoms and effects of full-blown illness in our nation's health care clinics. With the publication of the human genome sequence, we are now one step closer to understanding the mechanisms of disease. The identification of which genes are activated, how, and the determination of the functional characteristics of their RNA and protein products are frontiers that remain for our next generation of scientists. However, we are quickly moving towards those frontiers, shedding light on the complex functions of our own bodies that have been shrouded in mystery and speculation for centuries. In the area of agriculture, the benefits and potential for biotechnology are no less stunning--allowing us to increase the yield of commodities while reducing the use of pesticides. As the world population continues to balloon and the amount of arable land available decreases, we will increasingly look to biotechnology to meet the needs of people everywhere. Researchers in industry and academia are also exploring the possibilities for genetic traits that will yield maximum production, even in the face of inclement weather. They are also looking for ways to use biotechnology to create novel plants that will provide food that has value added traits such as reduced fat content and increased levels of vitamins and minerals that our diets here in the United States or those in the developing world may be deficient in. The potential for the product known as ``golden rice,'' which could substantially combat blindness and anemia in the third world, is immense. In the next ten to twenty years, we will likely be able to grow vaccines in plants, eliminating the difficulties of distribution in many areas of the world. Industrial biotechnology also shows tremendous potential for reducing the pollution and waste generated through industrial production. Through the use of enzymes and other biological components, industries are able to minimize material and energy inputs while simultaneously maximizing renewable resources. An added benefit of those processes is that they limit the production of hazardous pollutants and wastes while producing recyclables or biodegradable products. Industrial biotechnology has been used to create environmentally friendly laundry detergents with fewer phosphates and paper production treatments that reduce the discharge of chlorine. Industrial enzymes have also been used to create ethanol and other alternative fuels from corn and biomass. Aside from the environmental benefits of both agricultural and industrial biotechnology, researchers have used this technology to actually solve environmental problems and clean up environmental disasters. Through the use of bioremediation, the use of living organisms to degrade toxic waste into harmless byproducts, researchers and environmentalists have been able to clean polluted coastlines and areas where fuels have leaked into the soil. Cities and towns throughout the world are now using microbes to remove pollutants from their sewage systems, and the EPA is now using bioremediation to clean up some of our nation's most serious waste sites. With all of these marvelous benefits, there is no doubt that biotechnology is touching our lives and improving our world. But, along with this technology comes the responsibility to understand and carefully evaluate it. If there is to be a future for this technology, and we are to fully realize its benefits, elected officials and the public must be informed and engaged about the basics of technology itself and its incredible benefits. This is why my colleagues and I are pleased to introduce this resolution declaring May 13-20, 2001, as ``National Biotechnology Week.'' It is our hope that public officials, community leaders, researchers, professors, and school teachers across the country will take this week to actively promote understanding of biotechnology in their communities and their classrooms.

Mr. HUTCHINSON

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the legislation that I am introducing today with Senators Lincoln, Breaux, and DeWine be printed in the Record.

Mr. HUTCHINSON

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill I am introducing today be printed in the Record.