Tim Hutchinson

Mr. HUTCHINSON

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, I rise today to congratulate the Associated Builders and Contractors (ABC) as they approach their 50th Anniversary. ABC was founded by seven contractors in Baltimore, Maryland on June 1, 1950, and is today a national trade association representing over 22,000 contractors, subcontractors, material suppliers and related firms from across the country and from all specialties in the construction industry. ABC is the construction industry's voice for merit shop (open shop) construction as ABC is the only national association devoted to the merit shop philosophy. Merit shop companies employ approximately 80 percent, or four out of five, of all American construction workers and seek to provide the best management techniques, the finest craftsmanship, and the most competitive bidding and pricing strategies in the industry. ABC believes that union and merit shop contractors and their employees should work together in harmony and that work should be awarded to the lowest responsible bidder regardless of labor affiliation. I greatly appreciate ABC's commitment to developing a safe workplace and high-performance work force through quality education and training with comprehensive safety and health programs. I also appreciate ABC's dedicated efforts to secure free enterprise, fair and open competition, less government, more opportunities for jobs, tax relief, increased training, and the elimination of frivolous complaints and over- regulation. Accordingly, I thank ABC for their efforts and wish them continued success in their efforts to ensure that the American construction industry continues to afford the finest work product and greatest opportunity in the world.

Mr. HUTCHINSON

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, I listened with great interest to my distinguished colleague from North Carolina. I applaud his willingness to look at new and innovative approaches. I think his embrace of the Lieberman amendment is reflective of that desire for change. I note, as I listened to the Senator's comments, he spoke of the North Carolina experience and some of the things they have done in North Carolina--some of the innovative, creative, and constructive programs in North Carolina. I applaud the State of North Carolina. And I think that makes our case for Straight A's. I think the idea of giving those kinds of States which are doing good and innovative things more flexibility in carrying out those programs is exactly the direction we ought to be moving. I believe the Lieberman proposal moves us in that direction, that it is a constructive effort, that it has been a positive effort, that there has been, on the part of the moderate Democrats who have spoken on behalf of the Lieberman amendment, a recognition of the need for change. There has been a candid recognition of the failure of the top- down, one-size-fits-all approach that we have taken for 35 years to the Federal role in education. I must say that I still have a number of concerns and reservations, and have opposition to some of the provisions in the Lieberman proposal. I still think there is too much regulatory effort from Washington. I think there is a failure to embrace the kind of bold steps we need that are in the underlying Educational Opportunities Act and that it would be a shame for us, while recognizing the need for change, recognizing the need for adequate funding, to only take a half step or a baby step in the direction of reform. That is why I believe the underlying bill is far preferable. I am pleased, however, that there have been ongoing discussions among those who believe that we need change on both sides of the aisle, that we need to provide greater flexibility, that we need to consolidate programs, that we need to streamline programs, and that there has been an effort to accomplish that. But I am very concerned that we still centralize too much power in the name of accountability. We still give too much authority to the Department of Education. Members have been talking about the importance of accountability all week and last week. If we are to have accountability for Federal education funds, we must first ensure that accountability is occurring not only at the local level but at the Federal level as well. So when I heard Senator Lieberman earlier say these are billions of American taxpayers' dollars that we are sending back to the States and to the schools; therefore, we have a right and a responsibility to require specifics on how that money is spent, that sounds very good, but I say that we should require the same kind of accountability from the Department of Education which oversees these programs that it administers. For the second year in a row, the U.S. Department of Education has been unable to address its financial management problems. Those management problems are very serious. In its past two audits, the Department was unable to account for parts of its $32 billion program budget and the $175 billion owed in student loans. They were unable to account for parts of that budget. Before we entrust the Department with administering more funds and creating more new programs, we must ensure that they are properly accounting for the funding they already have. The Lieberman amendment, though a step in the right direction, still leaves more power in the hands of the Federal Department of Education and provides a modicum of improvement for State flexibility that, in my opinion, is not enough. The House Education Committee has been holding hearings on the financial problems at the Department of Education and has found instances of duplicate payments to grant winners and an $800 million college loan to a single student. That is rather amazing. In its 1998 audit, the Department blamed its problems on a faulty new accounting system that cost $5.1 million, in addition to the cost of manpower to try to fix the system. A new accounting system will be the third new accounting system in 5 years. The most recent 1999 audit showed the following: The Department's financial stewardship remains in the bottom quartile of all major Federal agencies. If you stack them all up, you find the Department of Education down toward the bottom in the job they are doing in fiscal responsibility. The Department sent duplicate payments to 52 schools in 1999, at a cost of more than $6.5 million. And perhaps most significant, none of the material weaknesses cited in the 1998 audit were corrected when the Department was reaudited in 1999. So they have failed to take the kind of corrective measures that might reestablish confidence and faith in the Department of Education. These problems make the Department vulnerable to fraud, waste, and abuse. I have submitted an amendment to this bill that would require an investigative study by the GAO into the financial records of the Department of Education. No one is suggesting we should eliminate the Department. No one is suggesting that having a voice for education at the Cabinet table is not critically important. But it is equally important that we require high standards of fiscal responsibility for the Department that oversees billions of dollars in taxpayer money. We entrust them with funding. We expect local schools to handle their funds properly. We should have the same kind of demand on the Department of Education. In addition, I have an amendment to provide increased flexibility among Federal formula grant programs for States and local school districts. It is identical to language included in legislation in the House to reauthorize ESEA. One of my concerns about the Lieberman amendment, although I do believe it is a step in the right direction and will provide expanded flexibility, is that it does not provide the kind of flexibility the States and local school districts are crying out for. This amendment would give States and local school districts the authority to transfer funds among selected ESEA programs to address local needs as they see fit. Covered programs would include professional development for teachers, education technology, safe and drug-free schools, title VI innovative education block grants, and the Emergency Immigrant Education Program. In addition, States may transfer funds into, but not away from, title I funding for disadvantaged students. So they would have the ability to take funds from these other programs and move them into title I for the benefit of disadvantaged students, but not the other way around. It would not be only money flowing into the title I but would provide greater flexibility for the local school district to move money between programs--transferability. States may transfer all of the program funds for which they have authority, except for the administrative funds. Local school districts may transfer up to 35 percent of the funds they receive without obtaining State permission, and all other funds under these programs, if their State approves. So this would provide for all of those States that are not fortunate enough to be included in the Straight A's Program, which the Presiding Officer has authored and expended so much energy and resources in promoting, but we still know that we have only 15 States in the underlying bill that are going to be able to participate in that program. So for those States not fortunate to be in the Straight A's Program, this would give them the ability to have some increased flexibility in devoting funds to arising needs in their schools. Local school boards know that needs often change from year to year. This gives them the authority to flexibly use their Federal funds to address those changing needs. As we all know, these local school boards are elected by the people just as we are in the Senate. I trust them to know the specific needs of their schools from year to year. I believe that the debate for now more than a week has been very illuminating to the American people. The course of the debate has moved us a long way toward reaching, if not consensus, at least a strong majority of this body recognizes what we sought to do in the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee in producing the Educational Opportunities Act, which is supported by the American people and what we need to do--greater flexibility, greater local control, more child centered in our effort, high-performance expectations, a determination to see the achievement gap close between advantaged and disadvantaged students. And while initially we heard many on the other side simply defend the status quo in very plain terms, saying that we had to stick with the tried, true, and tested programs that have ``worked so well'' during the past 35 years, though with the expenditure of $120 billion, we cannot show that the achievement gap is closed. I believe the debate has moved a long way, and I look forward to seeing the opportunity to pass the Educational Opportunities Act, including the Straight A's provision.

Mr. HUTCHINSON

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, as we continue to debate the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, and the Educational Opportunities Act, there are fundamental fault lines and differences between the Democrats and the Republicans on this very critical and very important issue for this country and for our children. I noticed when Senator Wellstone spoke that he said the Republicans just keep saying change, change, change. I plead guilty to that. We are saying change. That is one of the very clear lines in this debate between those who are defending the status quo--defending the old system, defending the old model, who are saying create more programs, who are saying pour more money into the old programs and the same models--and those of us who say, yes, let's fund education adequately. Yes, let's increase our appropriations for education. But let's make certain that we are using that money efficiently and effectively. If the old model isn't working, it is time that we try something new. That is the fundamental fault line in the debate that has gone on in the Senate for the last week and will continue for the next few days. I have to say that I believe there has been a lot of misinformation about the Educational Opportunities Act that has been put forth on the floor of the Senate. I understand that change is difficult and change is discomforting. There are those who are going to recoil at the thought that we might try something different. But there have been, in the arguments put forward by the other side, several themes that have recurred. They said title I has enhanced academic achievement. That has been one of the things they have argued consistently. They said the status quo somehow guarantees student achievement. They said parental control is something to be feared. They said the contents of the Educational Opportunities Act contain no accountability safeguards. I would like to, in their own words, go through those arguments and rebut them one by one in the few minutes that I have on the floor. First of all, Senator Kennedy made, I think, one of the clear statements last week when he said, ``We want to support tried and tested programs that have worked.'' The question that I have raised over and over again is, How has title I worked? How has title I been so successful that we want to continue it as it has been, and as Senator Kennedy suggests we should continue it? After 35 years and $120 billion has been expended, we have seen no closing of the achievement gap. The original purpose of title I was that we would see those disadvantaged students improve, we would see their academic performance elevated, and we would see the gap between the advantaged and the disadvantaged closed. After 35 years, any objective assessment of what we have done would have to say we have failed. That is why it is so amazing to me to hear my colleagues and friends on the other side of the aisle stand and say: We want to support tried and tested programs that have worked. If they had worked, this debate wouldn't be going on. We would be delighted to be supporting the status quo. But the status quo has failed America's children. Instead of letting States have flexibility under Straight A's, requiring improvements in student achievement, the Democrats would rather leave disadvantaged children the same programs they have had for the last 35 years. Senator Kennedy speaks movingly, and I know sincerely, about the homeless, the migrant children, and the immigrant children, saying that they are the ones who are going to be hurt most under the Educational Opportunities Act--the homeless, the migrants, and the immigrant children are the big losers. I would suggest just the opposite is the case; that they have been the big losers in a system that continues to fund a broken system, a broken program; that for the first time under Straight A's we will require test scores to be disaggregated and broken down on the basis of those who are disadvantaged and those who are advantaged based upon their backgrounds and economic backgrounds so that we will be able to see clearly whether or not the educational curriculum, the textbooks, and the programs being utilized in a local school district are working for the least advantaged and the most vulnerable in our society. These homeless children, migrants, and immigrant children, to whom all of our hearts go out, are the ones who have been left behind under the status quo. Of course, Senator Kennedy said, ``We want to support tried and tested programs that have worked,'' even though 35 years of these programs has demonstrated they have not worked. He said that block grants--he always likes to use that loaded term, ``block grants''--have no accountability. And then he uses the term ``blank check.'' This is a ``blank check.'' I suggest that trying to compare the Educational Opportunities Act with any of the old block grant experiments of the past is as if to compare apples and oranges. It is a total mismatch. It is an unfair comparison. These are exactly and precisely, word for word, the same arguments we heard against welfare reform. Welfare reform was block grants with no accountability. Welfare reform was a blank check to the Governors: You can't trust the Governors--the same rhetoric that we heard for the last week. If you compare block grants, the Educational Opportunities Act has more accountability than any of the existing title I programs or any of the existing Elementary and Secondary Education Act programs because we require the testing. We require the States to say what they are going to do and how they are going to do it and then demonstrate that they, in fact, have done it. That is what has been lacking under the existing program. As Senator Kennedy said, ``We are not prepared, with the scarce resources here, to try to turn that over to the Governors one more time and expect they are going to do the job. No.'' I can't reach his volume level when he said, ``No.'' But he said, ``We are going to insist that there will be incentives and disincentives for performance. That is what we do.'' Throughout this debate we have heard, ``We don't trust the Governors. You can't trust the Governors.'' I remind my distinguished colleagues that the same people who elected us to the Senate elected those Governors to serve the same people. They are every bit as accountable to their constituents as we are accountable to our constituents. Yet it has been a recurring theme: Do not trust the State; Do not trust the Governors; They won't have the most vulnerable in their States in their concerns and in the programs that they put forward. I reject that. Then he said, ``We are going to downsize.'' He said, ``We are going to insist that there will be incentives and disincentives for performance.'' Where in the Democratic proposal are there incentives and disincentives? Their proposals are for new teachers and for school construction and contain no requirements that student achievement must increase--none. If we want to talk about incentives for performance, and if we want to talk about disincentives, look at what the Republicans have proposed in our Straight A's plan and in our performance contracts and agreements because in that you find real requirements concerning student achievements and student elevation in academic performance. Then Senator Kennedy said, ``Under Straight A's, the State could demonstrate statewide overall progress based on progress being made by wealthier communities, while a lack of progress in disadvantaged communities remains statistically hidden.'' The irony of that criticism of the Republican bill is that is what can happen under the current system where the performance of the disadvantaged is hidden by aggregating the scores and concealing those who are supposed to be targeted--those children we are supposed to be helping the most--concealing those in the overall scores. I think this is a very misleading charge against the Republican proposal. Straight A's requires each participating State and local school to report data by each major racial and ethnic group, gender, English proficiency, status, migrant status, and by economically disadvantaged student as compared to students who are not economically disadvantaged. That language in our bill prevents what Senator Kennedy expressed from ever taking place. In fact, we are going to know much more about whether we are really helping the disadvantaged under the Straight A's proposal. Then Senator Kennedy said this last week: ``We are still finding out that of the more than 50,000 teachers who were hired this past year, the majority of those serving in high-poverty areas are not fully qualified.'' I will accept Senator Kennedy's statement as being accurate. But it raises in my mind this question: Why then are Democrats proposing their Class Size Reduction Program if in fact it has led to the hiring of unqualified teachers? The evidence is that as much as we would all like to see school class sizes reduced, and while that is a desirable goal, one of the unintended consequences in Class Size Reduction Programs around the Nation has been that it has resulted in unqualified teachers filling slots that have been opened up, and those who have been harmed the most are those who are in schools with a high percentage of disadvantaged students. That is the tragedy of it. That is acknowledged by Senator Kennedy's statement. He has repeatedly said only 7 percent of the funds come from the Federal Government. Then he suggests, because it is a relatively small portion of the local school districts' funding base and their budget, we cannot expect whatever we do up here will have too much of an impact upon local school policy. If, in fact, our influence over local schools and the States were proportionate to our funding about 7 percent, I would not be too concerned, either. The reality is, though, we provide only 7 percent of the funding; we provide a much higher level of the mandates under which the local schools are laboring. It has been estimated we provide 50 percent of the paperwork that is required of the local schoolteachers for the 7 percent of funding. To diminish the importance of the debate because it is only 7 percent of the funding misses the point. The State of Florida takes six times as many personnel to implement a Federal education dollar as it takes to implement a State education dollar. I suspect that figure is typical across the Nation. Senator Murray made this statement regarding the Abraham teacher testing and merit pay amendment: It requires testing, and there is no money. That money will have to come from somewhere in the districts. The districts will not have the money, and likely they will require the teachers themselves to pay for it. That has been the practice in the past. First, the Abraham amendment only made teacher testing and merit pay an option. They are in no way required to implement it. Speaking of unfunded mandates on the districts, what about the class size reduction mandate? What happens at the end of that program? I have raised that concern. When the authorization for the Class Size Reduction Program ends, don't the schools then have to pick up the tab for a program that they did not start? Senator Dodd made this comment last week about the Abraham teacher testing merit pay amendment which added teacher testing and merit pay to the list of optional uses of funds. Senator Dodd said: What works best is a decision that ought to be left to the local communities. For the Senate to go on record to decide what will work best in the 50 States is in direct contradiction to the arguments I hear being made in support of the underlying bill, and that is: We do not know what we are doing here; we ought to leave this up to the local governments. Now we are going to decide, apparently, that teachers ought to get a pay increase rather than leaving that decision to the local level. It seems they have it backwards. Those decisions are best left at the local level. It takes my breath away. Amazing. Since the Democrats' proposal for teachers mandates separate funding streams, they mandate separate funding streams for professional development, alternative certification, teacher recruitment, and mentoring, separate funding for all of those, school districts must do each of these or they don't get any of their funding. Our proposal only adds teacher testing and merit pay to a list of allowable uses of funds. It is absolutely consistent with our belief in local control. It is an option. If we ought to leave this up to the local government, as Senator Dodd says, then why does the Democratic proposal provide repeated mandates on how to spend the money? Senator Kennedy also said in the debate last week in his continual theme that the Republican bill lacks accountability: We asked our good friends on the other side how their bill is going to solve the issue of accountability. They cannot do it. We have been challenging them since the beginning of the debate. They cannot do it. We can. I remind my colleagues of the one single example I left before the Senate that I think is illustrative of the problem and the current system and lack of accountability in the current system: Holly Grove. Or think in your mind's eye of the pictures of treadmills, Nautilus equipment, StairMasters, and $239,000 in a Federal grant that could not be spent for computers, for textbooks, for renovating a falling down building, a dilapidated school building, could not be spent in those ways, but could be spent on expensive exercise equipment when what was needed was improving the school facility. Senator Kennedy would dare to say that the current system provides accountability. I suggest when we tell the Governors they have to sign a contract with the Federal Department of Education to state what they are going to do, how they are going to do it, how they will accomplish it, when they will achieve it, require testing the students, require breaking down the test scores and show how every subgroup is performing and whether, in fact, the gap is being closed, I suggest that is far greater accountability than the current system of categorical agreements that can be misused and used in inappropriate ways. Senator Kennedy said last week: I hope our friends on the other side of the aisle are going to spare us a lot of discussion about local control and parental involvement because it just isn't there, it just isn't there. We are not going to spare you; we are going to continue to talk about local control. We will continue to talk about parental involvement. That is the key to education in the country and the key to making significant and meaningful education reforms. When Senator Kennedy says it just isn't there, first of all, there have been a number of speakers, and I will allude to their statements later, who acknowledged parental control is at the core of the Republican bill. Aside from that, I simply point out two things. The portability provisions provide the ultimate in parental control. If parents are unhappy with the services the school is providing their child with Federal money, they can use that Federal money to improve their child's education in the way they best see fit. That is very consistent with parental control. I also point out the provisional public school choice where a failing school that has been deemed failing, failing and failing, given years of opportunity to improve and they still don't improve, there is an exit, a way out. No disadvantaged child ought to be locked to a failing school and consigned forever throughout their educational experience to a school that is failing them. They shouldn't be required to do that. We show them a way out. I quote Senator Murray from last week: I am looking at language of the bill. It says . . . that a parent directs that the services be provided through a tutorial assistance provider. It is not directed by the school but is directed by the parent. I think that is one of the underlying flaws and concerns that we have . . . frankly, the parent is in control. I wish I had another chart showing Senator Kennedy saying that the parental involvement is not there. Senator Murray said, ``. . . frankly, the parent is in control,'' under the Republican plan. Senator Murray is right. That is not bad. That is not something to fear, the fact that we increase parental involvement. Since when did parental control become a bad thing? It is part of the problem, that parents have too few choices when their child is forced to remain in a failing school. I have heard repeatedly, and I am paraphrasing, but this has been the message from the other side: We don't trust the Governors; we don't trust the local educators; we don't trust the parents. We just trust ourselves. We can make the decisions. We are the 100 Members of Senate, the super school board for America. Let us make the decisions; let us prescribe the formulas. That is what we have done for 35 years. If we want to stick with that formula, that failed formula, then the status quo is the way to go on and the Democratic counterproposal is the way to go. I think America says no. Our children deserve better, American families deserve better, and we can do better by American education under the Educational Opportunities Act. I commend Senator Reid last week with one last quote from the other side of the aisle. Senator Reid, the assistant minority leader, said: One of the things I have tried to do following the direction of the minority leader, in consultation with the majority leader, is to keep this debate on this education bill on education. We have worked very hard to keep other matters off this bill, Patient's Bill of Rights, prescription drug and minimum wage. I commend Senator Reid. I think that is the right approach. I am pleased we went through the first week of this debate without having extraneous amendments, nongermane amendments. I hope that will continue to be the case as we go through this second week of the most important debate we will have in the Senate during this Congress. Rather than kill the pending education bill by offering irrelevant amendments, I ask my colleagues to complete the work we have been so successful debating for the past week. We have the chance to help millions of American students overcome illiteracy, to cite U.S. history, to master basic mathematical skills. Let's do our jobs and not fail these kids. Let's not put politics above American education and student achievement. I yield the floor.

Mr. HUTCHINSON

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Thank you, Mr. President. I thank Senator Jeffords. I say to Senator Kennedy that I never shared the enthusiasm that some did. But, fortunately, there is a better way for class size reduction. It is in this underlying bill. Earlier in my remarks, I made a reference to an example in Arkansas in which a class size reduction grant was given. The title I supervisor said to the principal that against her wishes the hired teacher would have to be rotated among classes for 90 minutes in each class, even though the principal thought that was not the best use. She wanted to use that person for a point of time for remediation to help these who needed remediation in their school work. After I spoke, Senator Murray and Senator Harkin both said that it sounded to them as if my beef was with local control. I simply want to clarify that my beef is not with local control. My beef is title I police. My beef is with a rigid, inflexible Federal program that overrules what is best for the children so as to comply with the prescriptions of the Federal U.S. Department of Education. That is why we have a better way. I want to clarify for Senator Murray and Senator Harkin. It was not the principal's decision, not the superintendent's decision, not the classroom teacher's decision. It was the decision of the title I supervisor in what she said was compliance with the Class Size Reduction Program. My beef is not with local control. My beef is with the program that has that kind of rigidity built into it. I thank the chairman for yielding me 2 minutes of the remaining time. I yield the floor.

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, I have listened with great interest to the debate over the days and the hours of this week. It has been particularly interesting to me to listen to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle who have, in glowing terms, defended the status quo and have spoken in very rosy descriptions of the status of American education. I will not recite once again all the very gloomy statistics and the very real statistics and the very undeniable reality of where we stand in American education and how we compare internationally with our competing young people around the world. I believe one statement from the Vice President of the United States, Al Gore. His plans for education basically say enough about the status of American education. Vice President Gore, in unveiling his education plans, said: I am proposing a major national investment to bring revolutionary improvements to our schools. I am proposing a national revolution in education. Now, the question I ask is, If you have to propose a ``revolution'' in education, does that not imply that there is a problem? If the status quo is as good as the Democratic side has said during the debate this week, then why is it necessary to say we are going to have a revolution in education? The reality is that it is not good. The picture is not good, and that ``a nation in crisis,'' as it was called a few years ago, is still the truth when you look at American education, and a defense of the status quo is not satisfactory. The American people deserve more and deserve better. Now, what we have from time to time are fads in education. We have the fad of the day or the fad of the year. That is what we are facing right now with the whole idea of class size reduction. Let me clarify. I think class size reduction is a wonderful thing. I think if teachers have fewer papers to grade and smaller classes, they have a lot of advantages. My sister is a fourth grade teacher. I know she would love fewer students at times in that classroom. But I want to challenge the basic premise of what the Senator from Washington laid out before us in this amendment. I don't question her sentiment, her goals, her objectives, or her sincerity. But I think the research that is out there is far less conclusive than what we have been led to believe. Class-size reduction is not the magic elixir that its proponents would like us to believe. The fact is pupil-teacher ratios have been shrinking for half a century in this country. In 1955, pupil-teacher ratios in public elementary and secondary schools were: Elementary, 30.2; secondary, 20.9 to 1 respectively. In 1998, they were 18.9 in elementary, and 14.6 in secondary. That is a dramatic drop in the size of classes in this country. Yet the fact is test scores went down for many years, and have leveled over to some extent. But they have leveled off at an absolutely unacceptable level. Eric Hanushek of the University of Rochester has been one of the outstanding scholars in looking at the effects of class-size reduction. He concluded--and I think we should conclude that: A wave of enthusiasm for reducing class size is sweeping across the country. This move appears misguided. Existing evidence indicates that achievement for the typical student will be unaffected by instituting the types of class size reductions that have been recently proposed or undertaken. The most noticeable feature of policies to reduce overall class sizes will be a dramatic increase in the costs of schooling, an increase unaccompanied by achievement gains. That is the sad reality. Between 1950 and 1995, pupil-teacher ratios fell by a dramatic 35 percent. We are trying to cure a problem with this amendment. That is being cured already in the States. We have seen a dramatic 35-percent decrease. While we don't have all of the information for the last 50 years that we would like to have on student achievement, we have enough to conclude that the performance has been at best stagnant. According to the National Assessment of Education Progress, our 17- year-olds are performing roughly the same in 1996 as they did in 1970. While we have seen this dramatic drop in class size, we continue to see a stagnant student performance. The article ``The Elixir of Class Size'' concludes: There's no credible evidence that across-the-board reductions in class size boost pupil achievement. On this central point, the conventional wisdom is simply wrong. Look at the Asian nations today that trounce us on international assessments. Those Asian countries have, on average, vastly larger classes with many times 40 and 50 youngsters per teacher. Yet in every evaluation, they are leading us on international comparisons of scores. If lowering class size were the elixir that its proponents claim, we would be seeing a dramatic increase. We would be seeing an improvement in these academic scores. If this were health care, and if this were a new tonic being brought before the Food and Drug Administration, I assure you additional experiments would be warranted; additional experiments would be required. But no scientist would say that efficacy has been proven. It simply has not. There is a simple reason why smaller classes rarely learn more than big classes. Their teachers don't really do anything much different. The same lessons, textbooks, and instructional methods are typically employed, whether the class size is in the teens or whether the class size is 25. It is just that the teacher has fewer papers to grade and fewer parents with whom to confer, but getting any real achievement bounce from class shrinking hinges on teachers who know their stuff and use proven methods of instruction. Of course, knowledgeable and highly effective teachers would also fare well with classes of 30 or 35. Jaime Escalante, renowned worldwide as the ``best teacher in America,'' packs his classroom every year with 30-plus ``disadvantaged'' teenagers and consistently produces scholars who pass the tough advanced placement calculus exam. But such teaching is not the norm in U.S. schools, and adding more teachers to the rolls won't cause it to be. Much of the current enthusiasm for reduction in class size is supported by references to the experimental program in the State of Tennessee that Senator Murray made reference to in her comments. The common reference to this program, Project STAR, is an assertion that the positive results there justify a variety of overall reductions in class size. By the way, this report is cited so frequently because there are so few studies on the academic impacts of smaller classes. The study is conceptually simple, even if some questions about its actual implementation remain. Students in the STAR experiment were randomly assigned to small classes of 13 to 17 students, or large classes of 21 to 25 students with or without aides. They were kept in these small or large classes from kindergarten through third grade. Their achievement was measured at the end of each year. If smaller classes were valuable in each grade, the achievement gap would widen. But that was not the fact in the STAR study. In fact, the gap remains essentially unchanged through the sixth grade. While there may be some evidence that in kindergarten the smaller class sizes improved academic performance, as you go through grades 2, 3, 4, 5, or 6, the gap between the advantaged and disadvantaged students did not narrow. It remained the same. Apart from all of that, I think we should be concerned about the Murray amendment because of the unintended consequences. I know what Senator Murray wants to accomplish. She wants to see improved schooling. She wants to see improved academic performance. She believes smaller classes will inevitably result in that, and that her amendment will achieve that. So often is the case as we pass amendments for legislation in the Senate that they end up being consequences that we never imagined. I want to share with you four of them which I believe will occur if the Murray amendment is adopted. Teachers will leave the worst schools in the State to fill the newly created affluent slots. That is what happened in many States where they have implemented these kind of programs. There will be the unintended consequence of exacerbating the problem of less-qualified teachers being hired. In California, Governor Wilson shrank California's primary classes. What happened was the veteran teachers fled the inner-city schools in droves lured by the higher paid, cushier working conditions of suburban systems that suddenly had openings. This exodus forced city schools to hire less qualified teachers, threatening the one ingredient that researchers agree is the most important to good education-- teacher quality. In fact, in California they sacrificed teacher quality in hiring more teachers, and the schools that were hurt the most were those with disadvantaged students. The West Education Policy Brief is the regional education lab for Arizona, California, Nevada, and Utah. This is what they said about class-size reduction. This is funded by the U.S. Department of Education. A fundamental condition for the success of the Class Size Reduction is good teaching. Class size reduction can exacerbate teaching shortages and lead to the hiring of unqualified teachers. In California, for example, since the implementation of the state's class size reduction program, the percentage of teachers without full credentials has jumped from 1% to over 12%, while the proportion of teachers with three or fewer years of experience rose by 9% and the proportion of teachers who had the least education, a bachelor's or no degree, increased by nearly 6% statewide. Those are unintended consequence. A second unintended consequence is driving us, if we adopt such an amendment, toward nationalizing education. I didn't want to interrupt Senator Murray when she was making her presentation. But what I wanted to ask is, What does she anticipate happening when this authorization expires? I am not sure whether it is 5 years or 7 years. Originally it was a 7-year proposal. At some point the authorization ended. Does the Senator anticipate the Federal Government will reauthorize and make this a permanent entitlement that the Federal Government will be funding teachers at the local level? Or does Senator Murray anticipate that the States, the local governments, and the local school districts will be required to pick up the tab for the teachers hired during this 7-year authorization? It is one or the other. We will continue to fund them or they have to pick up the tab. We had an experiment in the COPS Program, which has done a lot of good, by the way. When we funded the 100,000 policemen on the street, we funded it from Washington, DC. The State police and local law enforcement were calling me saying the money had run out on the COPS Program, the Government had to fund it again. We can't pay for the policemen we hired under the COPS Program. My friends, that is exactly what will happen on the Federal teaching program. When the authorization ends, when the spending ends, somebody has to pick up the tab or we will exacerbate the condition we have now in the schools. I think this is an unintended consequence and a very serious consequence. I have a serious problem with the idea of handing this over to the U.S. Department of Education. I see Senator Kennedy on the floor. I am not among those who want to eliminate the Department of Education. I believe we are going to talk about accountability, making certain the Department of Education is accountable. The most recent 1999 audit of the Department of Education showed the following: The Department's financial stewardship remains in the bottom quarter of all major Federal agencies. The Department sent duplicate payments to 52 schools in 1999 at a cost of more than $6.5 million. None of the material weaknesses cited in the 1998 audit had been corrected in the 1999 audit. Yet we want to turn over to the Department of Education the hiring of thousands of teachers? That ought to be done and funded at the local level. A 1,150-student district in East Helena, MT, hired 2 teachers with the $33,000 Federal grant. The educators make about $16,000. The superintendent said: We have tremendous fear about whether this is going to be funded on an annual basis. But we have learned if you don't take advantage of whatever is available at the time, somebody else gets those dollars. That is the attitude we are promoting. I don't blame that superintendent for wondering what will happen. Will the Federal Government pick this up as an entitlement or will they have to pick up the tab? What will be the long-term and the unintended consequences of such a program? Bringing 100,000 teachers onto direct Federal support creates another permanent program of virtual entitlement. We are going to create a permanent entitlement if we go down this route. The third unintended consequence in passing this amendment is moving education away from flexibility toward rigidity. I know Senator Murray insisted this preserves flexibility at the local level and local decisionmaking. We heard a lot of anecdotes in Senator Murray's presentation, and I will relate an anecdote heard this week. An anonymous principal--I don't want to get her in trouble with the Department of Education or title I police, but she encouraged me to share this--is working on her Ph.D. She is very bright. She made a grant application with the Department of Education. Her title I supervisor suggested it be changed, and the title I supervisor wrote the application to apply for the classroom reduction program. And, as Senator Murray suggested, it was quickly approved. So much for local flexibility. The title I supervisor said: You must take this teacher you have hired and move that teacher from one class to another class to another class to another class--90 minutes in each classroom with about 24 students in each classroom. The teacher who was hired would go into the classroom for 90 minutes. They would divide the class of 24 into 2 classes of 12. The new hire was supposed to keep separate grade books, separate grade reports. Every 90 minutes, they moved on to the next class. The principal said to the title I supervisor: That is not what I need. We have 24 students, which is not a problem for us. Our teachers would prefer to do remediation: Rather than postponing remediation until summer school, have that teacher they hired do the remediation at the point of time the problem developed. The title I supervisor said: You can't do that. We will audit you. You will be turned in and lose your funding and lose that teacher. That is not flexibility. That is the typical kind of prescriptive rigidity you expect from any kind of Federal education program. That is the unintended consequence. We move exactly away from what we intend to do with this legislation, which is to provide greater flexibility. The fourth unintended consequence is to increase the inequality between rich and poor school districts. I will return to the example of California. A one-size-fits-all allotment per student, from the WestEd Policy Brief of January 2000 and a rigid 20:1 ratio cap on class size led to uneven implementation. Early evaluation findings support the concern that the very students who stand to benefit from class size reduction, poor and minority students, are least likely to have the opportunity to do so. Schools serving high concentrations of low-income, minority English language students learned more slowly due to lack of facilities. They get the teacher and there is no place to put the teacher. Teachers are going into poor school districts with poor facilities. They have the classroom reduction personnel. They hire the teacher and they have no place for the teacher. The schools that need the help the most are those least likely to benefit. That is the WestEd Policy Brief conclusion funded by the U.S. Department of Education. Let me reiterate. It will increase the number of less qualified teachers in the classroom. It will drive us toward a national control of education by creating a permanent entity. It will move education away from flexibility, which ought to be exactly the direction we are moving. It will increase the inequities between the wealthy and the poor school district. Our bill allows true classroom reduction by providing flexibility and allowing funds to flow between programs. In so doing, the school can do what is most needed, whether it is classroom reduction, buying computers, hiring tutors, finishing that building if they need to, or whatever that local need is. If there is an elixir, that is a far better elixir than the illusionary classroom reduction magic potion. I yield the floor.

Mr. HUTCHINSON

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, I thank my good friend from Minnesota, for his gracious comity, his willingness to afford me this opportunity on the very limited schedule. We are all fighting the schedule. I appreciate that very much. I thank Senator Coverdell for his continued management of this legislation. I have spoken several times on the Educational Opportunities Act, the legislation that the HELP Committee on which I serve and Senator Wellstone serves has brought to the floor of the Senate. I will take a few moments to respond to the substitute proposal that has been offered by the Democrats under the leadership of Senator Kennedy. Senator Kennedy stressed that what he is offering is a break from the status quo. He is trying to distance himself from this inevitable and unavoidable label that has been attached to the Democratic approach which is, in fact, the defense of the status quo. While you can run from the label of status quo and try to say no, this is not the status quo, you cannot run from your own words. It was Senator Kennedy who said we have to stick with the tried and the tested. That is clearly an identification and defense of the existing model, the existing strategy, the existing approach we have used in this country for the last 35 years and one that has brought us to the current situation in American education and a situation that no one can, with a straight face, truly defend. It is the status quo in the alternative, the option that has been offered. It speaks on behalf of the Washington-based establishment. It throws more money at a broken system rather than focusing upon children. The strategy is to claim the underlying bill is a blank check. It seems pretty clear this strategy is going to bounce. This substitute amendment before us again presents more of the same programs that have been around for 35 years, a plethora of new programs to try to solve some nationally recognized problems, loads of new bureaucracy and paperwork for teachers and principals. Of the more than 60 programs that are in the substitute amendment--60 programs in the substitute amendment--there is no emphasis upon rewarding States and school districts that do well. There is no emphasis upon sanctioning or punishing those that do poorly. The bottom line is that is more of the same. That is more of the same approach we have had where, if you fill out the forms correctly and you receive the funding and you spend it in the way that is prescribed by Washington, that is the end of so-called accountability. That is a defense of the old way. We are suggesting the real accountability is in whether kids are learning, whether the performance gap between the advantaged and disadvantaged is narrowing. The emphasis in this substitute is on the status quo. I will quote in just a moment from an April 13 editorial that appeared in the Wall Street Journal regarding Al Gore's education agenda because I think it is reflected in this substitute. So what's left in the Gore teaching plan? Hire more teachers. Smaller class sizes (hire more teachers). Pay more teachers more. Sounds like a textbook definition of more of the same . . . One of Democratic liberalism's underlying, decades-old premises of using highly controlled federal funds is that Washington's moral intentions always trump those of the untrustworthy states. After 40 years this theory is fairly shopworn, but the core of the Democratic Party will never let go of it. This substitute is clinging to the shopworn formula of the last 35 years. The idea that Washington's moral intentions trump those of the untrustworthy States is being rejected on this floor and rejected in this country. Democrats keep mentioning that we need to continue our current commitments. This amendment not only will continue to support the status quo, it will continue to add on to the piles of programs created at the Federal level and the piles of paperwork that we require school districts to fill out. That is not the way to help students. Yesterday, Senator Harkin, very dramatically--I was watching it--held up a four-page application for class size reduction funds. He emphasized the point that all of this stuff about paperwork from Washington was blown out of proportion, there was nothing all that burdensome, nothing that onerous being placed upon local school administrators because it was only a four-page grant application on the class size reduction from one of his districts there in Iowa. That might have been what was in the original application. But complying with Federal requirements usually imposes a much larger burden. Lisa Graham Keegan, Superintendent of Public Instruction for the State of Arizona, recently talked about the paperwork burden that Federal programs impose on her State: Their end (meaning the grant application sent by the Federal Government) may be five pages-- That is Washington's end-- but ours certainly isn't. We have to send in a hideous amount of justification. Plus they ask for ``assurances'' that we will align our state laws, policies, procedures, (thoughts, actions, desires . . . ) to the federal program. Home loan applications also start out as one to two pages . . . by the time you are done with justifications, you have killed a forest. Same with federal applications. That is the point. So Senator Harkin may hold up a four-page application. This is the 110-page end result of what the States have to do. This is the 1999 IASA Program Data Checklist. There is, in fact, 110 pages in the application. That is much more typical of what ends up having to come back to Washington. In her home State of Arizona, 45 percent of the staff of her State education department is responsible for managing Federal programs that account for 6 percent of the State's education program. As I pointed out the other day, in Florida, it takes six times as many people to administer Federal education dollars as State dollars--six times as many. So something is wrong. What the substitute before us would do is create more programs, more paperwork, and reinforce more of the same without any of the focus upon children's academic performance and narrowing the gap that is the focus of the underlying bill. I know most Members of the Senate want to do what is right for children. I ask them to consider where the focus really is in this substitute. If every school district in Arkansas--there are over 300 of them--applied for this one grant, the result would be over 30,000 pages of paperwork for those 300 school districts, for just one grant. I know of two teachers in my home State of Arkansas who had to take 1 week out of the classroom to apply for a Federal grant. It is not easy for many small districts in Arkansas to find a person knowledgeable in the intricacies of the Federal grant process to locate funding that originally came out of their own pocketbooks, and there are no requirements in the substitute amendment for improvements in student achievement--no requirements. Instead, they are funding systems, not students, as we have done for 35 years. If we are to change the course of education in this country, it is time to realize that funding must support each and every child, not each and every program. Senator Daschle charged that the underlying bill would replace federal targeting of funds and hand it over to the states to set their own performance criteria. I think this ``blank check'' strategy breeds contradiction. I am reminded of past bills that are now law where we voted to do just what the underlying bill requires. Let me give an example. In August, 1998, the Senate HELP Committee--at that time it was the Senate Labor and Human Resources Committee--passed and sent to the floor the Workforce Investment Act--a bipartisan job training bill. Like our existing education system, the nation's job training programs were top-down, Washington-controlled and funded programs infested with bureaucratic redtape. The WIA gutted the longstanding 1982 Job Training and Partnership Act, JTPA, and handed over years of federally controlled, prescriptive requirements to the states and localities. The States were given the green light by us to create their own plans to administer their own job training--teaching people the skills they need to make a living right on the local level. I did not hear folks make the claims that this was a ``blank check'' 2 years ago. Where were they then? How can we have a bipartisan bill that overwhelmingly passed the Senate and handed the bulk of discretion over to States and local boards for teaching people job skills, but we cannot even think of doing the same for education. I will tell you why. It is because the Washington establishment for job training does not have Congress in a head-lock like the education establishment does. That is why. Theold adage, ``you can't teach an old dog new tricks'' sure has meaning when the Washington establishment weighs in. Sure enough, creativity and innovative means to education get chucked out the window. I will not allow such unfounded charges that mischaracterize the underlying bill to go unchallenged. There can be a legitimate debate, and should be, but my constituents overwhelmingly believe local control and local flexibility is a better course for American education. I am very pleased with the underlying legislation with which the Presiding Officer had so much to do in the drafting, and Chairman Jeffords showed such leadership in the committee. It is a bill on which we can stand with pride. I do not want to trade in or exchange the future for the past. That is what this debate is coming down to. The substitute that is being offered is a return to the past. The underlying bill takes us in a new direction and pioneers new opportunities for American children. The vote on this substitute will be: Do my colleagues want to turn back to the past or do they want to go a new route or new direction for American education--a plethora of new programs or a new way? That is the question before us. I look forward, as we continue this debate, for the Senate, following the lead of the American people, to say enough is enough; let's chart a new path; let's put trust in those laboratories of democracy in the States that have done such a marvelous job on welfare; let's give them the same opportunities in education. We will look back, as we look back on welfare, in a few years and say we did right by the American people and, more importantly, the children of this country. I again thank Senator Wellstone for his willingness to allow me to precede him. I yield the floor.

Mr. HUTCHINSON

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Let me finish my story. Then maybe I will answer the question and be glad to yield. After having looked at the terrible conditions in the building, the conditions to which the students were being exposed every day, I asked the principal: Where did you get the money? Where did you get the money to buy all of this state-of-the-art equipment? And he said, rather sheepishly: This was a Federal grant. We went back and talked about it. He applied for this grant. The school applied for the grant. This was the way they could spend the money. Then he said: I would much rather have spent the money on improving my facilities. I would much rather have lowered the ceiling, put good lighting in, painted the rooms. I would much rather have had some resources to do that. The answer on the other side is: Well, we will just start a school construction program from up here. Do you know what will happen then? We will spend school construction money where they don't need school construction. What we had here was a typical Federal Government approach, a prescriptive categorical grant. Do you know how much money they got? They got $239,000 for the Holly Grove school to buy athletic equipment. To my colleagues, I say that is the insanity we must end. I am not saying that is not good. I am glad they have the equipment. I am sure the community can come in and use it in the evening. There is probably some good coming out of this state-of-the-art athletic equipment. But that is not what they needed, and the principal knew it. Under our legislation, that principal and the school district, working together with the school board, would be able to decide what was needed most. For a lot of schools, maybe it would be nice. I don't know. For an afterschool learning program, maybe they could use the equipment. Or maybe a school could use computers, or maybe they could use tutors, or maybe they could use new textbooks. But when they talk about swimming pools from block grants, I want you to remember this picture because that is the current system. I am not shy about how I feel about education. As is Senator Sessions, I am excited about the legislation this committee has produced. This is a debate about education, not elections. It is a debate about student achievement, not bureaucratic preservation. If the underlying bill is passed and signed into law, the American people will be the beneficiaries, the American children will know they have a better opportunity in the future, and we will know we did our job. I think this bill is so good and the facts so clear and the message so strong that proponents of the status quo are worried this could actually happen. In fact, some colleagues have already stated their intentions to offer amendments that they know darn good and well will kill this bill--kill it. I am elated that so far the debate has been about educating our kids. I hope it continues. However, I understand a gun and gun violence debate is coming. Who knows? Possibly campaign finance, maybe prescription drugs, too--all important issues in their own place, to be sure. But there isn't any American who follows this debate who does not understand what that would do to this bill. It would kill it. That is what they want to do. I respect any Member's right to have their amendment debated on the floor of the Senate. I, too, have that right. I want to preserve it. But the Senate has already debated a juvenile crime bill. Members have stated their positions, and they have taken tough votes. What we need to do is ensure that this debate remains on education. I implore my colleagues on the other side to reject the temptation to offer extraneous, unrelated, nongermane amendments to this bill. Let's have an honest debate on education. We can disagree and disagree vehemently. We can have an honest philosophical difference over what the role of the Federal Government ought to be. Let's have that debate and take those arguments to the American people. But let's not clutter this up with extraneous, nongermane issues. With millions of American students struggling to read, millions of American students who don't know the basics of U.S. history or don't exhibit basic mathematic skills, you would think we could collectively improve student performance by passing the pending legislation. We will soon see if we can bring our children to the halls of learning or keep them outside spinning endlessly on the merry-go-round of Washington politics. I will conclude by quoting a former Secretary of Education, Bill Bennett. He used this analogy, and it is appropriate in our debate on the floor of the Senate. This was back in 1988, and it is true today under the ESEA: If you serve a child a rotten hamburger in America, Federal, State and local agencies will investigate you, summon you, close you down, whatever. But if you provide a child with a rotten education, nothing happens, except that you're likely to be given more money to do it with. That is the current system. That is the status quo. I won't defend it. We want to change it. This legislation does that. I hope as this debate goes forward we will have an opportunity to vote on the substance of the Educational Opportunities Act. I yield the floor.

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Madam President, I commend Senator Sessions from Alabama. The Senator from Alabama has been a strong voice for change on the HELP Committee. He has been a very influential member in the writing and offering of this legislation, as has the Senator from Washington, who has been one of the outstanding leaders in this Nation. He returns periodically from our recesses and reports on his visits to the schools in Washington State. He made a conscientious effort to gain the input of local educators, the ones to whom we ought to be listening. I commend his great efforts in this debate. This is an important debate. As I said yesterday, I believe this is the most important issue and the most important debate the Senate will have in this Congress. It is important, as Senator Gregg said, for us to have this debate on the substantive issues. There are very real, philosophical issues as to what should be the Federal role in education. It is that philosophical difference that should be debated. I am afraid, as I listened to the other side yesterday during their speeches, that what I saw was a straw man being erected and knocked down. That is a very common practice in debate but not very illuminating when it comes to what ought to be the public policy of the United States regarding our public schools. During the 35 years of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, Washington made its imprint very deeply; it engraved it into the status quo. The ``status quo,'' that is what Ronald Reagan used to say is Latin for ``the mess we are in.'' If you look at the statistics and studies and reports, you cannot help but conclude that American education is a mess today. American 12th graders rank 19th out of 21 industrialized nations in mathematics. Only Cyprus and South Africa fared worse. You can take a whole smorgasbord of studies and facts and statistics to indicate the status quo is not sufficient. The Democratic side, the other side in this debate, has clearly aligned themselves with the status quo. They said it explicitly. They said it forthrightly. They said it candidly. Senator Kennedy, who is always very articulate and succinct in the way he expresses himself, said we should stick with the tried and the tested. That is an honorable position to take. It is a position we deserve to debate on the floor of the Senate, not misrepresenting or mischaracterizing the bill the committee has presented. If you want to preserve the status quo, if you want to stay with the tried and the tested, then clearly the bill the HELP Committee has produced is not the bill for you. This is a bill that takes a dramatically new approach. It is a bill that says the past may have been tried and tested, but it is also a past that has clearly been flawed. While American 12th graders have been ranked 19th and 21st among industrialized nations in mathematics since 1993, 10 million American kids reach 12th grade without having learned to read at the basic level. Senator Gregg said it very well: That is the problem in American education today. We have young people who are reaching 12th grade, preparing to graduate from high school, who cannot read and write. It is not sufficient. It is irresponsible, and it is reprehensible for this Senate to defend that kind of status quo. Twenty million high school seniors cannot do basic math, and 25 million are illiterate in American history. That should embarrass us as Americans. It certainly ought to embarrass us as U.S. Senators. What about middle school test scores? Two-thirds of American eighth graders are still performing below the proficiency level in reading. But it is not only high school and middle school students being shortchanged by our Washington cubical-based system; over three- quarters of fourth grade children in urban high-poverty schools are reading below basic on the National Assessment of Education Progress. Those kids, in particular, are the ones title I was intended to help most. The Elementary and Secondary Education Act, as it originated 35 years ago, was created to help those disadvantaged children who were from distressed urban schools. Yet it is these very children, three-quarters of whom are in the fourth grade, who are reading below the basic level. Those are the children we are failing, those we had promised we were going to help when we established the ESEA 35 years ago. Last year--and I think this will demonstrate the tragic failure of America today--when the Children's Scholarship Foundation, a private scholarship fund--no public dollars, no Federal dollars, no ESEA dollars; private dollars, a private scholarship fund--offered 40,000 scholarships for tuition, 1.25 million applications were received. Even though families were required to make a matching contribution from their own pockets of $1,000, 1.25 million applications were received for 40,000 scholarships from the Children's Scholarship Foundation. Does that not tell us that the status quo has tragically failed American families and American children? In urban districts, the Children's Scholarship Foundation demand was high. A staggering 44 percent of eligible parents in Baltimore applied; 33 percent of the parents in Washington, DC, applied for these scholarships. In the poorest communities, parents simply are not satisfied with their schools. So I say to my colleagues, one could make the argument our country's education system is in a state of emergency, and you would have compelling data to back up that claim. Clearly, the ``tried and tested programs'' are flat busted. They even say that expanding Washington control would fix the multitude of programs. That is nothing more than robbing our kids of their future. I mentioned yesterday that the President a year ago, as quoted in the New York Times, said he wanted Washington to have more control over education. I will say again, we have too much Washington control. Just last week, back in the State of Arkansas during our recess, I visited an elementary school in North Little Rock. I spoke to a very, very impressive class of fourth graders. I had been invited to come and talk to them about government. They were seated around. For 45 minutes we did a give-and-take. They asked me questions and I asked them questions. I asked them questions to try to get an idea of where they were in their understanding of American government. It was inspirational. Frankly, they knew more than many civics classes and government classes in high schools that I had visited and to whom I had spoken. The key wasn't any ESEA program. Frankly, it wasn't any title I program. It was that they had a tremendous teacher. I am convinced more and more as I visit schools, the key to good education is good principals and good teachers who are excited about their job and want to communicate facts and information and truth to children. So I went to this school. While I was at the school, after I made my presentation, the principal, who sat through the 45-minute session with the fourth graders, half jokingly--I say, only half jokingly-- introduced me to one whom he described as ``his boss.'' He said, ``Meet my boss, the title I coordinator for our schools.'' I thought in that little joking comment there was a real truth that was being communicated. The other side has said that title I is only 7 percent of the local school district's budget, it is only 7 percent of their funds, but I think when a principal says, ``Meet my boss, this is the title I coordinator,'' it says that while it may only be 7 percent, it wields tremendous influence on the decisions made by local educators. It is a revealing comment, indicative of the extent to which our Federal bureaucracy has assumed control of our local schools. While 7 percent of the education dollars come from the Federal Government, I am repeatedly told by educators, half of all the paperwork is done to obtain Federal grants and comply with Federal regulations. Child-based education is the focus of the bill the HELP Committee has produced. The pending legislation before us is based upon children; not systems and bureaucracies, but what is best for the children. Make no mistake about it, we have a bill that is about educating America's children, not keeping a failing, dilapidated system on life support. The bill before us pioneers a new direction for the Federal Government's role in education. It includes four student-focused initiatives, including the Straight A's program, which we have heard a lot about and which I think is the heartbeat of this legislation. It is a 15-State demonstration program. As Senator Gregg said, no State has to do it. No State is compelled to do it. No State is required to get into the Straight A's program. If they want to continue with the calcified system of bureaucracy that we have created over the last 35 years, they can do it, but 15 States will be given the opportunity to exchange the mandates, the regulations, the prescriptive formulas from Washington, DC, for freedom to mingle and merge those funds and use them as they deem most important for those children. The bill before us moves us in that direction. It also has a Teacher Empowerment Act. It has child-centered funding, and it has public school choice, all geared to students, under the premise that no child ought to be chained in a school that has failed year after year. The Department of Education tells us there are literally hundreds of schools that have been adjudged failing schools in which children are trapped. No child ought to be trapped in those schools. I have listened carefully to the bill's opponents who claim our legislation is nothing more than a blank check to the States. Having served in the State legislature in Arkansas and worked with local school boards, I do not subscribe to the notion that Washington is somehow omniscient. It is not. Nor do I subscribe to the notion that the States are incompetent or uncaring. Beyond that, this bill is not a blank check. It requires accountability and student performance measures in exchange for flexibility and discretion by States and local schools. That is something the current system does not have and opponents fail to mention. I say to all my colleagues, when they listen to the eloquent speeches on the other side of the aisle and when they speak about blank checks and lack of accountability, ask yourselves what kind of accountability exists in the current system. I will tell you what accountability means under the current ESEA. It means: Did you fill out the grant application correctly? Did you get the ``i's'' dotted and the ``t's'' crossed? Did you fill it out in the correct manner? The second thing accountability means under the current system is: Did you spend the money in the prescribed way? That is all accountability means. There is no accountability as to whether kids are learning. There is no accountability as to whether academic progress is being attained. In fact, if you fail, the likelihood is we will just fund your failure at a higher level. That is not real accountability. Rather than cubical-based bureaucrats in Washington pulling the funding strings, funding will be allocated directly to the States and based on how well each school's students are performing. Let me illustrate what is happening under the current Washington- based, top-down system. School districts currently receive funds under more than a dozen Federal categorical grant programs. The only accountability for many of these programs lies in how the money is spent, not in improving student achievement. Washington requires schools to spend money on technology, but there are no requirements for what matters most: Are the kids learning? Officials in an elementary school in my home State think that one of their greatest needs is to remediate children early. This is referring to a principal whom I talked with last night and again today in a situation that arose in her elementary school. She thought the greatest need was to begin remediation early, as soon as the deficiency could be identified, rather than waiting until the end of the school year and sending the children to summer school. To achieve this, the principal wanted to implement a concept known as point-in-time remediation, which is designed to help underachieving students before they fall irreversibly behind. This principal needed to hire a new teacher who would spend time each day working in different classrooms throughout the school assisting students who were struggling below grade level. In her desire to do what she believed was best for her children and to utilize this point- in-time remediation, she made an application for a Federal grant. Her title I coordinator rewrote her grant application as a request for funding to hire a teacher to reduce class size, and the application was then approved. She now had an approved grant for class size reduction, which has been one of the hallmarks of what the other side said we needed to be doing: provide 100,000 teachers from the Federal level to reduce class size. That is what this title I coordinator did. She rewrote the principal's application so it would comply with the program that was most likely to get approved--class size reduction. The application was approved. Here is the problem: The school does not have a class size problem. They do have a desire to work with students to keep them from falling behind. Unfortunately, for many of the children of this Arkansas elementary school, under our current one-size-fits-all, overly prescriptive Federal education system, arbitrarily lowering class size is more important than meeting the real needs of children. This principal is faced with the alternative: I either fudge, I cheat, I do not follow the prescription of the grant application and what the grant was given for or I cheat my children whom I care about, for whom I want to do point-in-time remediation. That was the choice this principal was facing. That is the choice our one-size-fits-all approach to education from the Federal level gives educators over and over. The arguments I have heard repeatedly from the other side echo the arguments we heard a few years ago when we sought to reform welfare: block grants, blank checks, cannot trust the States; they are going to hurt people; they are not compassionate. What happened is, nationwide welfare caseloads have fallen in half since we passed welfare reform and gave the States the same kind of latitude that we now would like to give them in regard to education. The sky did not fall. Disaster did not occur. The States did not turn their backs upon the needy. But hope and opportunity and a way up and out was created for millions of Americans who had been trapped in a welfare system that did not do anyone justice. Now we are hearing the same arguments regarding education: You cannot trust the States; they will build swimming pools; it is a blank check; they are not compassionate; they do not care; they are not going to do what is right for the children. I reject that, and I think the American people reject the notion that wisdom flows out of the beltway in Washington, DC. Under the Straight A's Program, States do not receive a blank check. Before a State is even eligible to participate in the optional demonstration program, it must have a rigorous accountability system in place. It must establish specific numeric performance goals for student achievement in every subject and grade in which students are assessed. It must establish specific numeric goals to reduce the achievement gap and to increase student achievement for all children. No more averaging. No more aggregating the test results so as to conceal the failure of the current system. They must establish numeric goals reducing the achievement gap, which is still all too real between the disadvantaged students and those who have more advantages. Under our bill, it must establish an accountability system to ensure schools are held accountable for substantially increasing student performance for all children, regardless of income, race, or ethnicity. That is far from a blank check. That is not the end. Then a State signs a performance contract with the Secretary setting forth the performance goals by which the State's progress will be measured and describing how the State intends to improve achievement for all students and narrow that achievement gap. Unlike current law, Straight A's forces States to measure the progress of all children by requiring States to take into account the progress of students from every school district and school in the State so that no community is left behind. States must make improvements in the proportion of students at proficient and advanced levels of performance from year to year so that no child is left behind. Most importantly, States must include annual numerical goals for improving student achievement for specific groups of children, including disadvantaged students, so that no child is left behind. Right now, title I--I know my good friend, the distinguished Senator from Minnesota, cares about disadvantaged children--only serves two- thirds of the eligible children. That is a tragedy. That is a disgrace. Under the bill our committee has produced, every title I eligible child will be assured of being served. For the first time, the Federal Government will not make schools fill out paperwork to show us what they are spending their money on, but we will make States show us that every child in every school in every school district is learning. Block grants. I heard Senator Kennedy say this yesterday, and I think some others on the other side of the aisle also said this: Block grants will surely result in abuses. We are, of course, investigating this, but let me point back to the example of a school building a swimming pool with a block grant. First of all, I do not know if that is accurate, and I do not know if they were violating the law at the time, if it did occur. But beyond that, there is no honest way to compare the block grant experience of the 1960s with the accountability provisions that are required in the Straight A's proposal in the legislation before the Senate. It is apples and oranges. It is not even fair to make such a comparison. But they do so. In that allegation, in that attack upon this bill, there is the insinuation or the suggestion that currently, under the status quo-- which is so roundly defended--there is somehow accountability and those abuses do not occur. On that, I know they are wrong. Let me give you an example. I want to show some pictures. Last August, during a recess, I toured a lot of the Delta area in Arkansas, which is the poorest area in the State of Arkansas. It is also the poorest area in the United States. We hear about Appalachia. Today, the Delta of the Mississippi River is the poorest area in this Nation. So I spent almost 2 weeks in the Delta area of Arkansas. During that time, I visited the rural health clinics, I visited the hospitals, and I visited schools. But one I will never forget--I had staff go down this past week to verify that I had my facts straight-- was the Holly Grove school in southern Arkansas in the Delta. It is about 95 percent minority--95 percent African American. They are in a 50-year-old building. The building is older than the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. They have a very low property tax base, so they have very little funding. Frankly, it is an issue the State needs to address in the equitable distribution of State funds. But that is not my point at this moment. So I went into the building. It is 50 years old. It is dilapidated, falling down. We hear about inner-city schools falling down. This rural school surely is as bad as any inner-city school I have ever visited or seen or heard about. The ceilings are 12 feet high, so it is very difficult to heat. That in itself makes it a very bad learning environment. The lighting is very poor. Then, worse yet, the ceiling is collapsing. Tiles are falling down, tiles are missing. There are big water stains. You can see it in this picture. These are the water stains in the tile of the ceiling. There are missing tiles in the ceiling. This picture gives you an idea of the conditions in the building. This picture shows the outside of the school, the school door. This one school building, by the way, houses Head Start through the 12th grade. As you can see from the picture, the paint is in very poor condition. The building itself, while brick, is 50 years old. I want to show you an amazing thing. I toured the school. The principal took me through the school. There were broken windows. The ceiling was, as I said, collapsing. We opened this one door, and I had the most amazing sight. I saw state-of-the-art exercise equipment. Here is a picture of it. This was taken last week. These are treadmills--I suspect better than what we have in the Senate gym. There were a number of treadmills. And then, if you don't like treadmills, they had Stairmasters, a number of Stairmasters. This is brand new equipment. This was all purchased last year. If you want to go beyond the Stairmasters and the treadmills, there is Nautilus equipment, state-of-the-art, brand new Nautilus equipment, a big room full of this equipment.

Mr. HUTCHINSON

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, I am pleased to join Chairman Warner in bringing this enhanced military medical improvement legislation to the floor today. As chairman of the Personnel Subcommittee, I have chaired several oversight hearings which have contributed to identifying areas of improvements to the original legislation. While the pharmacy benefit included in S. 2087 is significant, beneficiaries have expressed concern over meeting their acute prescription drug needs. The version of the Military Medical Improvement Act of 2000 that I join the chairman in introducing today, builds upon the previous legislation and provides for enhancement of the pharmacy benefit by adding a retail component on the pharmacy program to address the acute medical needs of our military retiree population. The new legislation provides for system wide expansion of the Base Realignment and Closure of ``BRAC'' pharmacy benefit. The BRAC benefit includes access to retail networks with a 20 percent beneficiary cost share. The benefit also includes the mail order pharmacy program with current co-pays of $8 for a 90 day supply of drugs with no enrollment fees for deductibles. I feel it is critically important to provide a uniform benefit for all our military retirees and their families. Revised cost assumptions associated with S. 2087, and a provision in the Budget Resolution, allow us to enhance the original provision to more closely meet the needs of those who were promised health care. Mr. President, as I travel and meet with military beneficiaries, I will continue to examine opportunities to improve and enhance the health care package provided to our service members, their families, retirees, their dependents, and survivors. The medical component of the compensation package continues to grow in significance as health care costs increase and the recruiting environment becomes more difficult. Meeting the commitment to military retirees sends a strong message to those young people we seek to draw to military service. This enhanced legislation continues the ongoing process of working toward meeting the needs of the military population. As chairman of the Personnel Subcommittee I am committed to further examination of follow on opportunities to improve the military health care system.

Mr. HUTCHINSON

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, I am pleased to join Chairman Warner in bringing this enhanced military medical improvement legislation to the floor today. As chairman of the Personnel Subcommittee, I have chaired several oversight hearings which have contributed to identifying areas of improvements to the original legislation. While the pharmacy benefit included in S. 2087 is significant, beneficiaries have expressed concern over meeting their acute prescription drug needs. The version of the Military Medical Improvement Act of 2000 that I join the chairman in introducing today, builds upon the previous legislation and provides for enhancement of the pharmacy benefit by adding a retail component on the pharmacy program to address the acute medical needs of our military retiree population. The new legislation provides for system wide expansion of the Base Realignment and Closure of ``BRAC'' pharmacy benefit. The BRAC benefit includes access to retail networks with a 20 percent beneficiary cost share. The benefit also includes the mail order pharmacy program with current co-pays of $8 for a 90 day supply of drugs with no enrollment fees for deductibles. I feel it is critically important to provide a uniform benefit for all our military retirees and their families. Revised cost assumptions associated with S. 2087, and a provision in the Budget Resolution, allow us to enhance the original provision to more closely meet the needs of those who were promised health care. Mr. President, as I travel and meet with military beneficiaries, I will continue to examine opportunities to improve and enhance the health care package provided to our service members, their families, retirees, their dependents, and survivors. The medical component of the compensation package continues to grow in significance as health care costs increase and the recruiting environment becomes more difficult. Meeting the commitment to military retirees sends a strong message to those young people we seek to draw to military service. This enhanced legislation continues the ongoing process of working toward meeting the needs of the military population. As chairman of the Personnel Subcommittee I am committed to further examination of follow on opportunities to improve the military health care system.

Mr. HUTCHINSON

Mr. HUTCHINSON. I thank the chairman for yielding me this time, and I thank him for his leadership on this bill we bring to the Senate floor today. I thank Senator Collins for her outstanding remarks, as well as her leadership, particularly in the area of our rural schools. She has done a great job. I also am pleased that that is included in the chairman's mark. I look forward to the debate in which we engage today and throughout this week and perhaps next week as well. I see Senator Coverdell from Georgia, who has led the way on education savings accounts, and Senator Frist from Tennessee, who was on the floor a moment ago, who led on education flexibility. We have a number of members of the committee who have worked hard, including Senator Sessions from Alabama, who has been very engaged and involved in this, and Senator Gorton from Washington, who has been very involved as well and is not a committee member. This is the most important debate we will have in this session of the Congress. The debate on education and the Educational Opportunities Act is the most critical debate we could possibly have. I sat here during the remarks of Senator Kennedy. I respect him immensely; I regard him as a friend. Never could the philosophical chasm that exists between the Democratic approach and our Republican approach on education have been made more clear than during the statement of Senator Kennedy. While I wish I could take longer to refute some of the things he said, there was one particular comment to which I took greatest exception. That was his statement that Republicans want to cut funding for education. That simply is not accurate. As all who watched the budget process last year are well aware, we increased education spending above what the President had requested and what he had recommended in his budget. This year, in this legislation, we once again increase spending on education. The statement that Republicans want to cut spending for education is simply inaccurate. Senator Kennedy is off base in making that allegation. Every school district in Arkansas will see an increase in the Federal contribution to their budgets as a result of the Educational Opportunities Act. There was another statement of which I took note. I wrote it down as Senator Kennedy was speaking. He said twice: We need to stick with the tried and the tested. At one point he said: We need to stay with the tried and the demonstrated successful programs. Another time he said: We have an effective program. I will debate on that ground all week long. I do not want to be the Senator standing on the floor of this Chamber defending the status quo and arguing that it is tried and tested. It was tried and it has failed. We don't have to look very far to realize that. In yesterday's Washington Post, in the Metro section, just the headline tells the story: Test Shows Students Can't Do The Math; 64 Percent Fail Final Exam After Montgomery Standardizes Grades. As we read the small print in the story, it becomes even sadder. The whole purpose of the Federal role under title I was to lower the disparity in scores between the disadvantaged and the advantaged, to narrow the gap. What this story tells us is that while 64 percent of all students failed--almost two-thirds--80 percent of African American and Latino students flunked the test while only about 50 percent of whites failed the test. That is one of the great tragedies. That is the great failure of our existing status quo approach to title I and trying to fund education for the disadvantaged and trying to narrow the gap between those who are advantaged and those who are disadvantaged. I will repeat this over and over again this week. Stick with the tried and the tested. That is what Senator Kennedy said: Stick with the tried and the tested. That is what the Democratic side offers. That is what they offer this Chamber. That is what they offer this country: Just stick with the status quo. That is why we will win this debate this week and before the country, because we know the children of America deserve better. The tried and the tested has not been good enough. To use an old phrase from Scripture: It has been weighed in the balances, and it has been found wanting. During the 34 years of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, Congress has increased funding dramatically. We have created programs exponentially, and we have added bureaucracy layer upon layer. As Senator Collins pointed out, 15 years ago the alarming report, ``A Nation At Risk,'' recorded that the state of education in the United States not only jeopardized a generation of young Americans but posed a real threat to the future of our Nation. Since that time, many States have embraced standards and accountability; 26 have instituted exit exams for high school. With these reforms, slight increases in student performance have occurred. But by virtually every measure, we remain a nation at risk. Unfortunately, while many States are responding to the crisis with bold, creative reforms, the approach of the Federal Government has remained unchanged. Each succeeding reauthorization of ESEA has resulted in preserving the top-down bureaucratic model of education. This is the first time we as Republicans have been in control of the majority, at least in the House and the Senate, the first time we have had an opportunity to leave our imprint upon ESEA. It should not be surprising, as we look at the history of this program, that the American Legislative Exchange Council, when they issued their bipartisan report on education 2 weeks ago--the American Legislative Exchange Council is the Nation's largest bipartisan association of State legislators; they released their report card on American education about 2 weeks ago--concluded the current path is not good enough. Senator Kennedy may say let's stick with the tried and true, but the American Legislative Exchange Council, as most Americans, has concluded the current path is not good enough. We heard the same dire, fearful predictions when we tried to do welfare reform a few years ago, the same predictions exactly: The sky is falling. You can't trust the States. We heard the same kind of fearful, dire predictions when States began experimenting with charter schools, that it was going to destroy public education. Yet today, with thousands of charter schools throughout the country, no one would dare make that claim. Where has the current prescriptive regulatory approach led us? In student performance, America's 12th graders rank 19 out of 21 industrialized countries in math achievement and 16 out of 21 countries in science. Where has the current prescriptive regulatory approach led us since 1983? Ten million young Americans have reached the 12th grade without having learned to read at a basic level; 20 million seniors could not do basic math; 25 million are ignorant of the essentials of U.S. history. In the fourth grade, over three-quarters of children in urban, high- poverty schools are reading below basic on the NAEP test--the National Assessment of Education Progress. Where has it gotten us? Throughout the United States, per pupil expenditures have increased by more than 23 percent over the past 20 years, the past two decades, after adjusting for inflation. Yet two-thirds of American eighth graders are still performing below the proficiency level in reading. I suggest that reauthorizing a status quo ESEA should not be an option. America's children deserve better. Not only does American education fail in regard to the most essential criterion, student achievement, but it also fails in its allocation of resources. For example, in Florida it takes six times as many people to administer a Federal education dollar as a State dollar. That is amazing. In Florida, they have 297 State employees administering $1 billion in Federal funds. They have 374 employees overseeing $7 billion in State funds. It takes six times as many people to administer a Federal education dollar as a State dollar. Unfortunately, Florida is not an exception; it is all too typical. The result from this bureaucratic model of education is that we fund systems; we fund bureaucracies; we fund enormous overhead. In 1994, fewer than 50 percent of the personnel employed by U.S. public schools were teachers. Something is wrong with that picture. Senator Kennedy may say that it is tried and it is tested, but when more than 50 percent of our education personnel are not even in the classroom, I say it is tried, tested, and it has failed. The Educational Opportunities Act pioneers a new direction for the Federal Government's role in education. When only 38 percent of U.S. public school teachers majored in an academic subject in college and only one in five teachers feels well prepared to teach to high academic standards, my colleagues, I say we need a new approach to professional development and teacher empowerment. The Educational Opportunities Act gives us that new approach. The New York Times ran a headline in its January 18, 1999, edition. It read: ``Clinton to Urge More U.S. Control on Aid to Schools.'' Colleagues, more control is not what is needed. Better student performance--better results--is what is needed. The Educational Opportunities Act includes four initiatives that promote student achievement. These provisions focus on students rather than school systems. They require results and student performance, help develop teachers of excellence, and promote choice and flexibility. These four initiatives are: Straight A's, Teacher Empowerment Act, child-centered funding, and public school choice. The Straight A's provision is the heartbeat of this bill. In short, it allows up to 15 States to execute a 5-year performance agreement with the Secretary. States then have the option to consolidate any of their formula grant programs, including the huge title I program, and merge those funds with State and local dollars. The 15-State demonstration project would allow States to use Federal dollars for any educational purpose permitted under State law. In return for this broad new flexibility, participating States will be held accountable for improving student performance and narrowing the gap between advantaged and disadvantaged students. States will be rewarded with bonus funds for successfully reducing this achievement gap. By the way, no State is required to leave the current funding system; but the 15 lucky States--the 15 wise States--accepted into the demonstration program may consolidate funding from any or all of 12 different ESEA programs. The idea is to let States mingle the dollars from these several programs and spend the money on whatever their students need most--new tests, tutors, reading programs, bricks and mortar, computers, whatever is deemed most needed. States that prefer to keep their Federal dollars in redtape-wrapped categorical packages may, of course, be free to do so. Straight A's will work because it is based on a solid premise: Accountability plus freedom equals academic achievement. Instead of filling out form Y to get grant X, Straight A's would only require that States boost academic performance and narrow the learning gap. After 34 years and $118 billion, with no reduction in the achievement gap between advantaged and disadvantaged students, it is time to say: Enough. Kentucky Democratic Governor Paul Patton expressed the Straight A's concept well when he told the L.A. Times recently: ``We need the Federal Government as a limited partner and us as the general partner.'' Straight A's respects the tenth amendment and allows Uncle Sam to put fuel in the gas tank while leaving the States in the driver's seat. Straight A's will reduce overhead and transaction costs for dozens of separate fussy programs enabling more resources to go to direct services to students. The old Federal approach to education has failed. It is time to give the States the opportunity to act as charter schools and option out of burdensome Federal regulations in return for unprecedented levels of accountability for student achievement. Under the current model, accountability means this: Did you fill the forms out correctly? Did you cross your ``t's'' and dot your ``i's''? Under the Educational Opportunities Act model, accountability relates only to student performance. The theory of Straight A's was clearly articulated by Democratic California Governor Gray Davis on the ``Meet the Press'' program in February. He said, ``So if you say to the States, `we will hold you accountable. You just improve student performance and we will give you the money,' that will give all the Governors the flexibility to get the job done.'' While there has long been lipservice to goals, standards and accountability associated with Federal programs, the reality has been that the question we focused on was: Are you spending the money in the prescribed way? Under the new approach, the question is, and must be, Are the kids learning? If academic achievement rises, particularly for low-income children, why should Washington care whether the dollars that produced the desirable result were spent on smaller classes or larger classes, on computers or textbooks, on tutoring programs or staff development? The important thing is that those children are making academic progress. The gap is narrowing. Under Straight A's, Washington assumes the role of shareholder, not CEO of the Nation's education enterprise. I have talked about--and I will talk about it later this week--the example of one of the school districts I visited in Arkansas which has about a 95-percent minority population. As I toured the school, the sad thing was the building was dilapidated, with paint peeling off of the walls. I will show pictures later this week. The ceiling was collapsing and it had big waterstains where it flooded. I thought, these poor children have to be educated in such an environment. Then I walked into a room which was full of state-of-the-art Nautilus equipment-- treadmills and all kinds of gymnastic equipment. I said to the principal: Sir, how did you get the money to do this? He mentioned a particular grant program. I have since investigated, and they received $239,000 to buy treadmills and Nautilus equipment. That may be nice for the community, but the principal told me he would like to have improved, renovated, and made that school building into an atmosphere in which the children could better learn. Under our bill, they will have the flexibility to take Federal dollars and use them where they--and they alone--know it is most needed and not what Washington says in some prescribed formula grant where the money has to be spent. The second important provision in this bill is the Teacher Empowerment Act. This initiative is included in title II and provides maximum flexibility to States and to local education authorities to develop high-quality professional development programs by consolidating funds from the Eisenhower Teacher Professional Development Program and the Class Size Reduction Program. As a result, the bill provides more than $2 billion annually over 5 years by consolidating these two programs into one flexible funding stream. Under the Teacher Empowerment Act, States and local governments would be encouraged to fund innovative programs to promote teacher testing, tenure reform, merit-based teacher performance systems, alternative routes to teacher certification, of which Senator Collins was speaking, and differential and bonus pay for teachers in high-need subject areas, teacher mentoring and in-service teacher academies. Local school districts could use this money to hire new teachers to reduce class size or hire special education teachers. They would have the option of issuing teacher opportunity payments directly to teachers to use toward a high-quality professional development program of their own choice. If a local school district fails to improve teacher quality, they are required to offer teacher opportunity payments directly to teachers, if they are failing to improve the professional quality of their staff. In consolidating these two programs, we provide more money for teacher professional development. In my home State of Arkansas, the combined fiscal year 2000 allocation for both programs is $14,970,900. The estimated fiscal year 2001 allocation will be $16,337,800, an increase of over $1.3 million. Under this bill, every school district in Arkansas will be authorized to receive additional money for teacher professional development. For example, the Jonesboro School District in northeast Arkansas currently receives about $169,000, and they will be authorized to receive $186,000, an increase of almost $17,000, for professional development. In Texarkana, the increase amounts to an additional $24,000. The Fort Smith School District will see a $36,800 increase. The teachers of the Little Rock School District will have $82,000 more for professional development activities under our program. One of the other key changes made in the Educational Opportunities Act is to shift the child-centered funding. We do this through a title I portability demonstration program. Under this initiative, interested States and school districts are allowed to use their title I dollars to establish a per pupil amount for each eligible child, which would then follow the child to the school they attend. The per pupil amount would be used to provide title I's supplemental educational--``add on''-- services directly to eligible children. Eligible students will be able to use their per pupil amount for ``add on'' services at a public school (including charter schools) or a tutorial assistance provider. This funding is available for children between ages 5 and 17 whose family income is below the poverty line. A State may choose to expand eligibility to any educational or economically disadvantaged child in preschool through high school. (These eligibility requirements are consistent with title I.) Each State participating in a portability program is required to operate a full public school choice program to ensure that low income families have maximum flexibility as to where their child receives title I services. States operating a ``child-centered'' program would continue to receive their title I formula allocation as well as a new allocation authorized in this program. The new allocation coupled with the States' formula dollars will permit States to serve all of their title I eligible children. Only two-thirds of title I children are served by the program. That is very important. Currently, only two-thirds of title I children are served by the title I program. Under our program all disadvantaged children are going to receive the educational opportunities they deserve. States and school districts would be required to establish specific goals for improving the academic performance of eligible children and a system to measure progress to ensure that student performance is improving. States would be required to annually submit student performance data, disaggregated by race, family income, gender, and limited English proficiency, to the Secretary. The accountability system is similar to the strong accountability provisions in both the Teacher Empowerment Act and Straight A's. GAO would be required to evaluate the program's effects on student achievement and parental satisfaction. We must cease to think of title I education programs as investments in programs or populations, and begin to view them as ``student-based, portable entitlements for individual children.'' One of the experts I have often turned to for advice on the appropriate Federal role in education is the Arizona Superintendent of Public Instruction, Lisa Graham Keegan, one of the leading education reformers in the Nation. In endorsing the concept of portability, this is what she said: Presently, there is no guarantee that a poor child will necessarily receive any benefit from the Title I funds he or she generates for a school district, regardless of how needy that child might be. What I am required by law to do is to distribute this money to central offices of school districts, which are then under no legal obligation to spend the money on particular children. They simply provide the services they want to provide in the schools they wish to provide them in, which many benefit some disadvantaged children, but not all of them. Putting it bluntly, Title I is an entitlement for bureaucracy, not an entitlement for a child. This bill changes that. It makes title I something aimed directly at the child--strapping it to that child's back under this portability demonstration as opposed to funding systems and bureaucracies. Portability is already standard practice in federal higher education policy, where an historic choice was made in 1972: students rather than colleges became the main recipients of federal aid. A low-income college student establishes his own eligibility for a Pell grant, or Stafford loan, etc., and then carries it with him to the college of his choice. That might mean Stanford or Michigan State, Assumption College, or the Acme Truck Driving School. The institution only gets its hands on the cash if it succeeds in attracting and retaining that student. The same thing could be done with federal education programs meant to aid needy elementary and secondary students. The big title I program, for example, spends almost $8 billion annually to provide ``compensatory'' education to some 6.5 million low-income youngsters. That's about $1,250 apiece. What if that money went straight to those families to purchase their compensatory education wherever they like. To be sure, title I would turn into millions of mini- scholarships, like Pell grants. In addition to Straight A's, the Teacher Empowerment Act, and child- centered funding, the Educational Opportunities Act also includes an important provision for children trapped in failing schools. Listen to the statistics: Over 5,000 title I schools have been identified as ``failing'' schools for over 2 years; over 1,000 for at least 4 years; and over 100 for over 10 years. And yet, we continue to subsidize this failure by keeping the stream of title I funding flowing to these substandard schools. In this bill we have a public school choice provision that seeks to remedy this problem. Under the ``choice for failing schools proposal,'' once a school has been identified as failing, they have 2 years to improve. If after 2 years, the school has failed to improve student performance, the school district would be required to use the school's title I allotment to allow children in the failed school to attend another higher performing public school. This proposal has the dual effect of terminating federal funds to schools that consistently failed to show any signs of improvement while simultaneously providing the option to low-income parents to take their children out of a failing school and put them in a better school. No child should be permanently consigned to a sub-par school. No child should be trapped in a failing school. This bill begins to show a way out. Another important provision in this bill addresses the needs of small, rural school districts that receive small amounts of formula funds and are not able to compete effectively for competitive grants. This program is based on the Rural School Initiative introduced last year by Senator Collins of Maine, which I cosponsored. This initiative has two parts. The first provision allows small, rural school districts with under 600 students to combine the funds from three current formula grant programs: title II--the Teacher Empowerment Act, title IV--Safe and Drug-Free Schools, and title VI-- the Innovative Education Strategies grant. Small school districts often receive such small amounts under these separate funding streams that they cannot effectively use the funds. This initiative allows them to combine the funds to develop an effective program to improve student achievement. The second provision authorizes supplementary grants to small, rural school districts that forgo eligibility to participate in competitive grant programs. A participating district receives a minimum total of $20,000 and a maximum of $60,000 from the existing formula programs plus the supplementary grant. This new initiative solves two problems. It recognizes that formula grants to schools are often too small to implement any real changes, and it recognizes the limited resources of small districts and the enormous amount of paperwork that are required by applying for competitive grants. Small school districts often lack grant writers and the expertise and time needed to apply for competitive grants. I know in my home state of Arkansas that one school district had to take two teachers out of the classroom for an entire week just to fill out the required paperwork to apply for a federal competitive grant. We need teachers in our classrooms, not filling out paperwork. This initiative will have a great impact on my home state; 111 of the 311 total school districts in Arkansas will be eligible to participate in this initiative, and every educator that I have spoken with about this has been supportive of this initiative. Every educator I have spoken to in Arkansas about this initiative has been supportive. Although the United States spends $664 billion annually--more than 8 percent of its gross domestic product, GDP--on education, nearly 60 percent of our low-income 4th graders, and 40 percent of all 4th graders, cannot read at a basic level. On recent international tests of math and science, our high school seniors ranked near the bottom of industrialized nations; in mathematics, only Cyprus and South Africa fared worse. Our children deserve better. The current system, the top-down bureaucratic restrictive model has failed American students--tried, tested, and failed. Today, one-third of all college freshmen enroll in at least one remedial class before attempting college-level course work. Listen to the words of former Education Secretary Bill Bennett: ``We have not yet begun to look at performance or accountability in the spending of federal dollars. Of 60 plus programs authorized under ESEA, not one rewards school districts or states for doing well. Not one inflicts meaningful punishment on schools that do badly. For the results of such policies, one need only look at the performance of our disadvantaged students. Forty percent of inner-city students cannot read by the fourth grade. And 77 percent of low-income fourth-graders in urban high-poverty schools are reading below basic reading levels. I read this morning in the CongressDaily that Democrats were considering offering a whole host of extraneous amendments. I hope that is not the case--everything from guns to campaign finance reform. Those proposals are worthy of debate but nothing should distract this Chamber from what is first and foremost on the minds of the American people-- the education of our children. I hope those who might consider such a stalling tactic or those who seek to move this debate and shift this debate from student performance, student achievement, and improving our schools will reconsider and realize this bill not only deserves debate--the differences will be clear between the two sides--but this bill deserves a vote. As the debate moves forward and the American people express themselves, the Educational Opportunities Act deserves to be passed by this Chamber and sent to the President. What we have done for 34 years under the Elementary and Secondary Education Act has demonstrably failed. Senator Kennedy said it is tried and tested. It was tried and tested and it has failed the test. It is time we change. I yield the floor.

Mr. HUTCHINSON

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, I rise today with Senators Grassley, Hatch, Craig, Thomas, and Frist to submit a resolution which states that it is the Sense of the Senate that $10 million should be immediately reprogrammed within the United States Department of Justice's (DOJ) budget to allow the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) to support the cleanup of State and local methamphetamine laboratories in Fiscal Year 2000. I do so with a sense of urgency as my home State of Arkansas has suffered a terrible and great increase in the production, distribution, and use of methamphetamine and is desperately in need of federal assistance to bear the financial burden inherent in the cleanup of methamphetamine laboratories. In March, Governor Huckabee informed me that the DEA had exhausted all of the funding available to cleanup State and local methamphetamine labs and that the State of Arkansas was paying over $7,500 a day despite the much-appreciated efforts undertaken by ENSCO, an El Dorado, Arkansas company, to dispose of methamphetamine labs at no cost to the State. As the costs associated with the cleanup of a single lab range anywhere from $3,000 to $100,000 and average about $5,000 and, with over 200 labs seized to date, Arkansas will seize over 800 labs this year, it is imperative that funding be provided to the DEA so that it may continue to assist in State and local methamphetamine lab cleanups. On March 28, 2000, Senators Grassley, Kyl, Craig, Ashcroft, and I asked United States Attorney General Reno to identify $10 million in funding within the DOJ's budget which could be reprogrammed to provide the DEA with the monies necessary for it to administer the cleanup of labs seized by State and local law enforcement agencies. I was greatly encouraged and highly appreciative when she quickly responded by requesting that $10 million in Community Orientated Policing Service (COPS) recovery funds be reprogrammed. Despite an April 3, 2000, letter from Senators Inhofe, Craig, Thomas, Thompson, Frist, Ashcroft, Hatch, Enzi, and I supporting this request, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has informed me that a determination has not been made. While I appreciate the fact that Director Lew and the OMB continue to look for this critical funding, I ask them to put aside politics and act quickly to meet this need. This Resolution is intended to make it clear to this Administration that the United States Congress is serious about solving this problem. I implore the President to take a firm stand against methamphetamine and establish an effective policy to address this exponentially increasing problem. I am firmly convinced that we can solve this problem with Congressional support and Presidential leadership. Accordingly, I ask my colleagues to take the first step toward a solution by joining me in supporting this Resolution.

Mr. HUTCHINSON

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the Roth marriage tax relief plan. The clock is ticking, Mr. President. In less than forty-eight hours, Americans across the country will empty their pockets to pay the government thousands of dollars in taxes. For approximately 42 American couples, tax day will have an extra sting to it, because they will have to pay an average of $1,400 extra in taxes to accommodate an outdated and discriminatory tax system. When we first adopted the tax code, women made up only about three percent of the work force. But today, women are full time entrepreneurs. Some seventy percent of mothers work, only to find their income penalized. Our tax system did not anticipate this dramatic growth in dual income families. So now an outdated system discriminates against women and married couples. When Mr. and Mrs. Smith get married, they look forward to a bright and prosperous future--to have and to hold, for richer and for poorer. But they soon find that Uncle Sam has moved in and cast his low shadow over them. And they are undoubtedly poorer. The marriage penalty cuts two ways--by pushing married couples into a higher tax bracket and by lowering the couple's standard deduction. Two married income earners, with their combined income, must pay their income tax at a higher rate with a lower deduction than they would if they were two single people. This is not a one time penalty. Under our tax system, marriage is not a freeway. It is a toll road. For ten years of marriage, couples must pay an average of $14,000 extra. For twenty years, couples must pay $28,000 extra. And they must forgo money that they could have invested in a car, a house, or their children's education. Mr. President, we must update the tax system and we must lift this extra burden on the backs of American couples. The Roth plan takes solid steps on the path of tax relief. It increases the standard deduction for a married couple filing a joint return to twice the basic standard deduction for a single individual beginning in 2001. This standard deduction increase will help 25 million couples filing joint returns. The Roth plan expands the 15- percent and 28-percent tax brackets for a married couple filing a joint return to twice the size for a single individual. Twenty-one million couples will benefit from these tax bracket expansions. This legislation also expands the Earned Income Credit (EIC) beginning and ending income levels by $2,500, removing the disadvantage of receiving a smaller EIC after marriage. Finally, the Roth plan exempts family tax credits from the individual Alternative Minimum Tax. Mr. President, all week I have heard my colleagues on the other side of the aisle claim their support for marriage penalty relief. Yet they insist on quenching the thirst of American couples with only a raindrop relief. They offer nearly $100 billion less in tax relief for American couples in the next ten years. Fifty percent of the benefits under their plan do not occur until 2008. We must be serious about tax relief for American couples. If you talk to any marriage counselor, he or she will quickly tell you that the number one cause of problems in marriage is money--specifically, the lack of it. If we want to support American families, if we want to support the future of America, we can start by reducing the money problems of married couples. Mr. President, there are 207,677 couples in my home state of Arkansas suffering from the marriage penalty. They have called for marriage penalty relief. I want to give it to them. I hope that when the clock stops ticking on Saturday, the Senate will have lightened the load on the couples and the American family. I urge my colleagues to support the Roth marriage penalty relief plan.

Mr. HUTCHINSON

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, since this is coming off our time on the marriage tax penalty bill, I commend Senator Hutchison and all those who have worked so diligently on both sides of the aisle and in the House of Representatives to provide relief on this onerous and perverse provision in our Tax Code that puts the institution of marriage in a disadvantageous position and costs American families thousands of dollars each year. It is something that should have been eliminated long ago. I look forward to supporting the Marriage Penalty Relief Act. I hope there will be an overwhelming vote in the Senate for this bill.

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for up to 15 minutes on an unrelated topic.

Mr. HUTCHINSON

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, I rise today to speak in favor of S. 2397, the Military Recruiter Access Enhancement Act of 2000. This bill is designed to assist armed services recruiters in gaining access to secondary schools and school student directory information for military recruiting purposes. The matter of recruiting and retaining military personnel of the highest quality and in the quantity needed to maintain the optimal personnel strength of our armed services has been a topic of great interest to myself and my colleagues on the Senate Armed Services Personnel Subcommittee. I have heard detailed testimony in hearings this year from top Department of Defense manpower officials and actual military recruiters--those on the front lines doing the recruiting--regarding the challenges of contacting and informing young people today about the benefits of a career in the military. As I have contemplated the detailed testimony received on the subject, it is clear there are several factors combining to make the tough job of recruiting young people for military service even tougher. We found the following: The combined effects of the strongest economy in 40 years, the lowest unemployment rate since the establishment of an all-volunteer force, and a declining propensity on the part of America's youth to serve in the military make the recruitment of persons for the Armed Forces unusually challenging in the economic climate in which we exist. For the recruitment of high quality men and women, each of the Armed Forces face intense competition from the other branches of the Armed Forces. They face competition from the private sector, and they face competition from postsecondary educational institutions recruiting young people as well. It is becoming increasingly difficult for the Armed Forces to meet their respective recruiting goals. Despite a variety of innovative approaches taken by recruiters and the extensive programs of benefits that are available for recruits, recruiters have to devote extraordinary time and effort to fill monthly requirements for immediate accessions. Unfortunately--and this is, I think, dismaying and surprising to most Americans--a number of high schools, thousands of high schools, have denied recruiters for the Armed Forces access to the students or to the student directory information of those high schools. In 1999, there were 4,515 instances of denial of access to the Army. There were an additional 4,364 instances in the case of the Navy, 4,884 instances in the case of the Marine Corps, and 5,465 instances of denial of access to Air Force recruiters. In total, there were over 600 high schools across this country that denied access to at least three branches of the services, the largest of those school districts is San Diego, CA. As of the beginning of 2000, nearly one-fourth of all high schools nationwide did not release student directory information to Armed Forces recruiters. In testimony presented to the Committee on Armed Services of the Senate, recruiters of the Armed Forces stated that the single biggest obstacle to carrying out their recruiting mission is the denial of access to directory information about students, for a directory listing of high school students is the recruiter's basic tool. When directory information is not provided by schools, recruiters must spend valuable time, otherwise available for pursuing recruiting contacts, to construct a list from school yearbooks and other sources. This dramatically reduces both the number of students each recruiter can reach and the time available communicating with the students that the recruiters can eventually locate. The denial of direct access to students and denial of access to directory information unfairly hurts America's young people. High schools that deny access to military recruiters prevent students from receiving all of the information on the educational and training incentives offered by the Armed Forces, thus impairing the career decisionmaking process of students by limiting the availability of complete information on what options they have before them. The denial of access for Armed Forces recruiters to students or to directory information ultimately undermines our national defense by making it harder for our Armed Forces to recruit young Americans in the quantity and of the quality necessary for maintaining the readiness of the Armed Forces to provide national defense. The bill I have introduced legislates a series of formal steps to be taken with secondary schools that deny access to students or student directory information to recruiters. Step 1: The Department of Defense will be required to send a general officer or flag officer to visit the local education agency to arrange for recruiting access within 120 days following a report of access denial. Should a school say, no, we are not going to let military recruiters access, the first step is, negotiations. They would try to work this out. You would have a flag officer, or a general officer, who would go to the school, visit with the superintendent, the principal, the counselors, and find out what the problem is. Step 2: Should access still be denied, within 60 days of the visit in step 1, the Secretary of Defense must then notify the State's chief executive--presumably the Governor--of the denial and request his or her assistance. A copy of this request is also sent to the Secretary of Education. Step 3: If access for recruiters is still not achieved a year after the Governor has been notified--a full 18 months since the initial discovery that they are denying access--and if it is found that the school in question denies access for two or more of the Armed Services, that school will be placed on a list maintained by the Department of Defense and will be denied Federal funds until such time as recruiter access is restored. People may say that is having a heavy hand. May I say, there is no school in America that ought to ever lose Federal funding under this law because no school should ever have to deny access to military recruiters. There is an ample amount of time--a full 18 months--for negotiations, discussion, in bringing in the Governor of the State, to try the reconcile whatever problems there might be. I think the importance of this bill cannot be overstated. We have an obligation to provide an environment for our recruiters that, at the very least, places them on a level playing field with the recruiters of colleges and universities and with representatives from private industry. Today, the recruiting of high school students actually starts in junior high school for colleges, for universities, and even for private-sector jobs. To say a recruiter cannot have contact until that student is out of high school puts them at an incredible disadvantage. While DOD has had the ability to withhold Federal funding from colleges and universities which denied access to military recruiters, there has not been any significant recourse available at the secondary school level. In some cases, a few select administrators can make decisions about recruiter access based on their own personal bias or lack of familiarity with the positive aspects of military service. These ``gatekeepers'' effectively block information from students by denying access to recruiters. These nonaccess policies may actually exist when the community at large in the school's area is very much supportive of the Armed Forces and recruiting efforts. We must work collectively as a nation to keep our military ``connected'' with the people they serve. The concept of an all- volunteer force will only continue to be successful when the compensatory benefit package we offer young people is competitive and the career information on current educational and financial incentives is readily available to potential recruits. There are those who are understandably concerned about maintaining the privacy of personal contact information. It is ironic, however, that student directory information is often shared by high schools with cap and gown companies, college recruiters, and private industry representatives, but denied to Armed Forces recruiters. We must take active steps to eliminate that sort of bias, whether intended or not, and reestablish an equal footing for our Armed Forces recruiters with other groups seeking to contact students. We must remember that recruiters represent the primary tool of not only the Department of Defense but Congress, as well, in fulfilling our constitutional requirements to raise and maintain an army, the Armed Forces. There is no doubt in my mind that the recruiting professionals in all branches of our Armed Forces are top-notch role models, fully capable of succeeding in their respective recruiting missions, but they need to have a supportive and conducive contact environment. This bill will provide school officials of institutions currently restricting access to recruiters with additional incentive to improve or restore that access. This bill will bring attention locally and nationally to the problems of access restriction to Armed Forces recruiters. This bill sends a clear signal to DOD leaders and to the people of our country that we recognize the problem recruiters face in supporting the concept of our all-volunteer force. This bill provides a reasonable and calculated approach to improving access with a phased escalation in the negative consequences for schools insisting upon perpetuating nonaccess policies. It is nonantagonistic, it is nonconfrontational, but it is firm. This bill does not attempt to dictate local practices from Washington, as some may charge. This bill merely requires schools to provide--and I quote from the bill's language-- . . . the same access to secondary school students, and to directory information concerning such students, as is provided generally to post-secondary educational institutions or to prospective employers of those students. We are just simply saying: Make the playing field level. If you are going to deny access to Army recruiters, Air Force recruiters, Marine recruiters, Navy recruiters, then we expect the same denial would be applied across the board to private industry recruiters and to colleges and universities. If you are going to provide access to private industry and to colleges and universities, likewise, that access must be provided under this legislation to those seeking to recruit for our Armed Forces. The size of our Armed Forces has decreased significantly over the past decade. The number of veterans is decreasing daily. Fewer and fewer young people today have a close relative or friend with military service experience. We have in the Congress a corporate responsibility to make an extra effort to invite young men and women to bring their talent into the service of their country and to take advantage of the outstanding educational and training benefits currently available. Few occupations offer the patriotic satisfaction of military service. A healthy all-volunteer force does not just happen. When I asked recruiters appearing before a recent Personnel Subcommittee hearing what Congress could do to help them bring the best and brightest into today's military, of course they responded that educational benefits would help, they responded that health care benefits would help, they responded that improving housing would help. But equally important was their request for help in convincing parents and educators that enlisting their children and students was ``not the last choice'' but a first choice, and to help them gain access to students on school grounds and access to student directory information. In response to the DOD request for assistance, I would like to respond in two ways: First, by inviting all of my colleagues in the Senate, regardless of where they hail from, to join with me in pledging to visit one or more high schools in their home States this year and to promote military service as an attractive career opportunity while addressing students and facility members. This is one positive step we can all take to demonstrate our support for a healthy Armed Forces recruiting process. Secondly, I urge my colleagues to support this bill, the Military Recruiter Access Enhancement Act of 2000, in an enthusiastic and bipartisan fashion. We want and need the brightest and the best to serve in our Armed Forces. I cannot help but think of the many outstanding citizens in all walks of life, indeed, including many of my esteemed colleagues right here in the Senate, who began their adult lives with service to our Nation in one of the branches of the Armed Services. We owe it to the recruiters of our services to do all we can to help them succeed in their tireless efforts to bring in quality men and women for the defense of our country. Mr. President, I thank you for your indulgence and thank the Senator from Texas for her willingness to yield to me this time and for her tireless efforts on behalf of tax relief for the families in this country. I yield the floor.

Mr. HUTCHINSON

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, I rise today in support of S. 2390 which Senator DeWine introduced yesterday. I am proud to be an original cosponsor of this legislation. I know that, unlike additional infringements on the constitutional rights of law-abiding Americans, this bill will effectively reduce gun violence and save lives. Like many of my colleagues, I am extremely concerned about gun violence. In my home state of Arkansas, there are several cities which have long been plagued by extraordinarily high levels of violence and murder, largely fueled by illegal guns, gangs, and drug trafficking. According to the 1998 Uniform Crime Reports, Little Rock, with a population of 176,377, North Little Rock with a population of 60,619, and Pine Bluff, with a population of 54,062, had 25, 8, and 17 murders respectively. The rate of murder per 100,000 inhabitants in North Little Rock-Little Rock was 10.3 and it was 33.8 in Pine Bluff and significantly exceeded the national rate of 6.3 murders per 100,000 inhabitants. Nonetheless, I have received literally thousands of letters from Arkansas asking me not to support additional gun control measures, but rather to simply enforce the laws already in effect. My constituents are right. We do not need more gun laws. We just need to enforce those already on the books. The facts show that the Clinton Administration has not done this; from 1992 to 1998 prosecutions of defendants who use a firearm in connection with a felony have decreased nearly 50 percent, from 7,045 to approximately 3,800. In addition, while more than 500,000 convicted felons and other prohibited purchasers have been prevented from purchasing firearms from federally, licensed firearms dealers under the Brady Handgun Violence Prevent Act, only 200 of these persons have been referred to the United States Department of Justice for prosecution. I have carefully studied the Project Exile program in Richmond, Virginia and am convinced that it saves lives. Before Project Exile was implemented, Richmond was one of the nation's murder capitals, and Project Exile resulted in a 40 percent reduction in the number of murders committed with firearms. That is why for the past several months, I have been working to implement Arkansas Exile. By supporting S. 2390, I hope to obtain the additional funding necessary to allow Arkansas and other states to implement a program proven to reduce gun violence. Finally, I support S. 2390 because it is the right approach. The President and many of my Senate colleagues condemn firearms, which are inanimate objects, and the gun industry while ignoring and working to overturn the well-established legal principle and a third-party's criminal act is an unforeseeable event for which a merchant may not be held liable. I am saddened and alarmed that the President and cities throughout the nation are using the vast resources for their governments to force the gun industry to take responsibility for the acts of criminals, and I am determined to do all I can do that the criminals, not the gun industry and law-abiding Americans, are held responsible for gun violence.

Mr. HUTCHINSON

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, I introduced an amendment earlier this week which calls for a doubling of funding for community health centers over the next 5 years, and I am pleased to join my colleagues, Senator Bond and Hollings, in a similar amendment, which I hope will pass the Senate unanimously. In my home State of Arkansas, Community Health Centers serve rural, low-income areas where access to primary health care is limited, if even existent. They serve anyone who walks through their door, whether they have money or not, or whether they have insurance or not. Back when there was a great ice storm in Arkansas, a 75-year-old farm laborer came into the community health center in Portland, AR, complaining of terrible tiredness. Upon examination and an electrocardiogram, it was found that he was in severe heart failure. His heart rate was so slow, it could barely be detected. With no money and no transportation, he had walked to the clinic. The clinic staff immediately got to work and gave him medication and arranged for ambulance transfer to a larger hospital in Little Rock. With ice forming, ambulances were hesitant to go, but one finally agreed. He and his wife were transferred and he arrived in time for live-saving surgery. In Dermott AR, a 2-year-old child was rushed into the Mainline Health Clinic with convulsions. A blood test was performed and he was diagnosed with meningitis, which is normally fatal for such a young child. Life-saving medication was given, and he was transferred to Arkansas Children's Hospital for intensive treatment. If it were not for these community health centers, both the farmer and this little child would be dead. Community health centers serve where no other medical professionals usually want to go and they are often the difference between life and death. They are the front line in rural America and their mission must be supported by Congress.

Mr. HUTCHINSON

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, as an original cosponsor, I rise today in support of S.J. Res. 14, which would amend the United States Constitution to prohibit the desecration of our flag. Opponents to this measure contend that the right to desecrate the flag is the ultimate expression of speech and freedom. I reject the proposition as I believe that the desecration of our flag is a reprehensible act which should be prohibited. It is an affront to the brave and terrible scarifies made by millions of American men and women who willingly left their limbs, lives, and loved ones on battlefields around the world. It is an affront to these Americans who have given the greatest sacrifices because of what the flag symbolizes. To explain what our flag represents, former United States Supreme Court Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes in his work, ``National Symbol,'' said. The Flag is the symbol of our national unity, our national endeavor, our national aspiration. The flag tells of the struggle for independence, of union preserved, of liberty and union one and inseparable, of the sacrifices of brave men and women to whom the ideals and honor of this nation have been dearer than life. It means America first; it means an undivided allegiance. It means America united, strong and efficient, equal to her tasks. It means that you cannot be saved by the valor and devotion of your ancestors, that to each generation comes it patriotic duty; and that upon your willingness to sacrifice and endure as those before you have sacrificed and endured rests the national hope. It speaks of equal rights, of the inspiration of free institutions exemplified and vindicated, of liberty under law intelligently conceived and impartially administered. There is not a thread in it but scorns self-indulgence, weakness, and rapacity. It is eloquent of our community interests, outweighting all divergencies of opinion, and of our common destiny. Former President Calvin Coolidge, echoed Chief Justice Hughes in ``Rights and Duties.'' We do honor to the stars and stripes as the emblem of our country and the symbol of all that our patriotism means. We identify the flag with almost everything we hold dear on earth. It represents our peace and security, our civil and political liberty, our freedom of religious worship, our family, our friends, our home. We see it in the great multitude of blessings, of rights and privileges that make up our country. But when we look at our flag and behold it emblazoned with all our rights, we must remember that it is equally a symbol of our duties. Every glory that we associate with it is the result of duty done. A yearly contemplation of our flag strengthens and purifies the national conscience. Given what our flag symbolizes, I find that incomprehensible that anyone would desecrate the flag and inexplicable that our Supreme Court would hold that burning a flag is protected speech rather than conduct which may be prohibited. I find it odd that one can be imprisoned for destroying a bald eagle's egg, but may freely burn our nation's greatest symbol. Accordingly, I urge my colleagues to pass S.J. Res. 14 so that our flag and all that it symbolizes may be forever protected.

Mr. HUTCHINSON

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, tomorrow, March 24, is the 2- year anniversary of the day on which Natalie Brooks, Paige Ann Herring, Stephanie Johnson, Brittheny Varner, and Shannon Wright were the victims of senseless violence at the Westside Middle School in Jonesboro, AR. Today, I rise simply to offer my condolences to their families and friends and to the other victims of that tragedy. They are, and will continue to be, in my thoughts and prayers.

Mr. HUTCHINSON

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

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Madam President, I associate myself with the eloquent remarks of the Senator from Maine regarding the elimination of the Social Security earnings test. I rise in support of the Senior Citizens Freedom to Work Act, H.R. 5. I am pleased the Senate is considering this legislation expeditiously and that the legislation reflects the intent of Senator Ashcroft's bill, S. 2074, of which I am a cosponsor. Arkansas is a State that has one of the highest percentages of senior citizens in the Nation. We traditionally are just behind Arizona and Florida--very high. When you look at the population of our State, there are about 2.6 million senior citizens. But when you look at low-income or lower income senior citizens, we are easily at the top and by far the leading State as a percentage of our population that has senior citizens who are in economic deprivation or lower income. These are the individuals, as the Senator from Maine so eloquently said, who are most in need of equity in the way we treat their Social Security income. Earlier today I had lunch with a doctor who is a dentist in Arkansas and has his practice in primarily a retirement population area. He was relating to me how many of his patients are now 65-plus, many 70, 75 years old, and about the remarkable health that they enjoy today and the opportunity, from a physical standpoint, that they have to go out and be a part of our labor market. In being a part of that labor market, they can use the experience and the expertise they have gained through a lifetime in our society and contribute that to the economy of today. I think this is long overdue. The law that we are proposing to change is truly a vestige of the 1930s. It begs for its elimination. Our Nation's working seniors deserve immediate relief from the earnings limit--a longstanding and outdated provision of law. Persons aged 65 to 69 are losing $1 in program benefits for every $3 they earn beyond $17,000, creating a very clear and a very real disincentive to work at all. According to the Social Security Administration, more than 800,000 seniors lose either part or all of their Social Security benefits because of the program's earnings limitation. That is almost one million working seniors. That is 12,755 people in the State of Arkansas whose lives will improve if we pass this legislation and the President signs it into law. Since I was elected to Federal office on the House side a few years ago, I have witnessed a steady commitment among the Republican leadership to provide greater flexibility, training, and financial relief to our Nation's workforce. We have advocated legislation that would provide private sector workers with the choice of flexible weekly work schedules--a perk that has been enjoyed by all of us on the Federal payroll for over 20 years. In 1998, we passed a comprehensive overhaul of America's job training laws, giving more funding and flexibility to States, municipalities, and businesses to provide essential job skills to its employees. More importantly, though, we have an impressive record for putting taxpayer money back into the pockets of those who need it most, the American people. The legislation before us complements our leadership's commitment to giving advantages to the worker--in this case, our country's most seasoned and experienced employees. This bill would end that longstanding practice of penalizing seniors for working--something that we ought to encourage; something we should commend. No different than providing tax relief to all working Americans, we want to help senior employees who choose to remain in the workforce. I disagree with the notion that ``you can't teach an old dog new tricks.'' In fact, we could learn a thing or two from our seniors. We could learn a lot from our seniors. That is why we are debating this bill. This legislation would not just help our senior workers; it also benefits employers, too. President Lincoln said: ``You cannot lift the wage earner by pulling down the wage payer.'' Social Security's antiquated barriers not only penalize seniors who want to work but employers who want to hire them. Seniors are turning down employment opportunities that business owners need to fill in order to compete in the global economy. America posts one of the lowest unemployment rates in four decades, making good, plentiful workers harder than ever to find. Employers and our most experienced employees stand to gain considerably from the passage of this legislation. H.R. 5 passed the House of Representatives 422-0. I anticipate it will pass the Senate with a similar kind of margin with great success. The bill's language has the support of a bipartisan coalition of Senators who advocate comprehensive Social Security reform--reform based on a continuation of existing benefits while ensuring the program's financial long-term solvency. In fact, H.R. 5 is part of many of the comprehensive reform packages introduced in the last 2 years. It has been included in a lot of the plans to totally reform Social Security. We all understand that if left unchanged, the future of Social Security is in jeopardy as the program begins running deficits in about 2013 when 71 million of my fellow baby boomers begin collecting their retirement benefits. We know the number of retirees will double between 2008 and 2018, narrowing the ratio of workers to beneficiaries to less than 3 to 1. When Social Security first started, there were 45 people working to take care of 1 retiree. In 1950, there were 16 workers working for every beneficiary. We all know that all trust funds will be completely exhausted in the next 30 years when the beneficiaries far outnumber the working contributors. I remember back in December 1998, when the President hosted the White House Conference on Social Security, Members of Congress were asked to participate and share their ideas, with the common understanding that restoring the program's financial solvency was not only necessary but imminent. The Speaker and the majority leader reserved the first bill in the House and Senate for the President's legislation. It was to be accompanied by several bipartisan bills offered by our colleagues. Although several bipartisan bills were introduced by Members of this body, H.R. 1 and S. 1 remain vacant. Although H.R. 5 represents an important step toward equitable reform, it definitely sets aside provisions that would address the future financial stability of this vital program. We must not allow the passage of this legislation to be the ``last rites'' of Social Security reform. Frankly, I am disappointed by the President's lack of participation in this important debate. The next step after passing H.R. 5 should be to lock up the Social Security surplus. Not only do our working and retired seniors need penalty relief, they deserve assurances that their future benefit checks are not being spent on other Federal programs, no matter how good those other programs may be. The very reason Social Security has a solvency problem is that it is a federally administered program that has IOUs disguised as trust funds. Our Nation's seniors deserve a program that delivers long term and is based on real money. I am confident that passage of H.R. 5 will open the door for more bipartisan legislation that enhances the strength of the Social Security program. In time, Presidential leadership will mean more than words and with it will bring forth reform that preserves the program's financial stability for our children and our children's children. I ask my colleagues to continue supporting that cause and join me in supporting H.R. 5. I thank the Chair and yield the floor.

Mr. HUTCHINSON

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that subsequent to the UC of the Senator from California, the morning business period be extended until 5 p.m., with Senators permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes each.

Mr. HUTCHINSON. I thank the Chair. (The remarks of Mr. Hutchinson pertaining to the introduction of S. 2215 are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')

Mr. HUTCHINSON

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, in late-December 1999, the Federal Communications Commission took the unusual and aggressive step to restrict the programming of noncommercial television stations by not allowing certain types of religious programming. Within the context of a license transfer involving a noncommercial television station in Pittsburgh, PA, the FCC attempted to establish guidelines for what they felt were ``acceptable'' educational religious programming. The commission states in the Additional Guidance section of their decision document that, ``. . . programming primarily devoted to religious exhortation, proselytizing, or statements of personally-held religious views or beliefs generally would not qualify as `general educational' programming.'' As a former religious broadcaster, this type of misguided agenda coming from a nonelected agency of the federal government is very disturbing. My office was flooded with letters and phone calls from Arkansans who were worried that the Federal Government had finally made an overt attempt to restrict what religious programming we watch on television or listen to on the radio. Surprisingly, the national media remained strangely quiet despite the serious free speech implications and first amendment violation by the commission's ruling. Soon after the FCC's controversial decision, I sent a letter to Chairman Kennard, along with Senators Nickles, Helms, Enzi, and Inhofe, criticizing the commission's actions. Congressman Oxley introduced legislation in the House to address this issue. Although I am a cosponsor of Senator Brownback's companion bill to Congressman Oxley's bill, I do not believe this legislation to prevent future attempts by the FCC to restrict religious programming goes far enough. That is why I am introducing S. 2215, the ``Noncommercial Broadcasting Eligibility Act of 2000.'' Simply put, my bill would effectively deny the FCC the ability to create new rules defining what is appropriate and eligible programming for noncommercial television and radio stations, while creating a ``clear and simple test'' and guidance as to what programming noncommercial television and radio broadcasters may broadcast. This ``clear and simple test'' is based on the well-established guidelines from section 501(c)(3) and 513 (a) and (c) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986. By requiring the FCC to look to the well-established guidance used by the Internal Revenue Service and the courts in defining what is ``substantially related'' programming, my legislation gives noncommercial broadcasters the ability to broadcast programming that is ``substantially related'' to their tax-exempt purpose, whether it be educational, religious, or charitable. It is clear that the FCC intended to restrict religious programming and may be inclined to do so in the future. The commission should not be allowed to circumvent the United States Constitution and pursue its own political agenda. Again, the Noncommercial Broadcasting Eligibility Act of 2000 will help prevent future misguided attempts by the FCC to limit our rights which are protected by the first amendment to the United States Constitution. I ask that my colleagues join me by cosponsoring this bill and making it clear that the Senate will not stand idly by as the FCC attempts to unilaterally decide what religious programming is in the public's best interest. I think it is outrageous for a nonelected agency to decide that a church service is not educational or that certain choral presentations do not fit their accepted definition of religious education. It is time that we draw the line. This legislation will do that. I ask my colleagues to join me in it.