Tim Hutchinson

Mr. HUTCHINSON

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, I am happy to yield to the Senator from Wyoming whatever time he desires.

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Will the Senator yield for a question?

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

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, my staff talked to the community health centers, and they clarified that they do not oppose this amendment. In fact, while they may have concerns about how they are getting involved in a political fight before the Senate that may affect their relationship with the appropriators, in fact I think they would very much welcome the additional $25 million for health care in rural areas. That is where their heart is. They want to help people. They are not going to turn away $25 million to help. The Senator from Iowa is concerned about why I didn't take this from the Department of Defense bill or shift it from something else, and why we chose the NLRB. I think I made that case very convincingly. They have done an excellent job. They ought to be commended for their priorities and their impact analysis system by which the most critical cases are taken first. They have seen a decrease in the backlog. They have seen a decrease in the number of cases being filed--all the time not seeing an increase in their budget. To increase it by $25 million so they can buy an $11 million computer and hire 122 more people at a time when there are tens of thousands of people in the poor areas of this country being left uninsured and without access to basic health care, I think, is a pretty easy call. While I think I can make a strong case for why we need to increase defense spending, when we have treatment goals failing in virtually every branch of the military, with the exception of the Marines, and when we see tens of thousands of our men and women in uniform on food stamps, I can tell you why I didn't take it from defense. But the more important question is why NLRB? Because it is a Washington bureaucracy that is going to get bigger under that plan to buy a computer and hire 122 more people at a time when they have seen a decrease in the workload. That is why. It is very simple. I know there is a need in the community health centers, and I want to help them. This is a little bit of help. It is enough help to provide health care for an additional 83,000 people nationwide. And some of those folks are going to be in the delta of Arkansas. This is not a difficult amendment to vote for. It is a pretty easy case. I have had to come down and defend a lot of amendments on this floor, but I don't think I have ever had one that I felt more strongly about personally or for which it was easier to make the case. The budget for the NLRB has been cut over the years. From 1980 to 1998--over that 18-year period--their budget declined 21 percent. That sounds pretty bad until you realize the number of charges received and processed declined 10 percent more than that--31 percent. To stand on the floor of the Senate and say we are disenfranchising, that we are denying justice by not increasing by $25 million the budget for a Washington bureaucracy, I am sorry; I don't think that sells. And I don't think it is too convincing to those who are going to be denied health care by the defeat of this amendment. They have done a good job in reducing the backlog. They have done a good job in seeing a fewer number of charges. And they have done so with lower budgets over the last 18 years. It doesn't make any sense now to increase it dramatically by $25 million so they can hire 122 more people and buy an $11 million computer system. I suggest that money would be better used by people in the poor communities, in the rural areas of this country, to ensure that they can walk in--44 percent of them are children--and not have to worry about presenting insurance documentation when they go into these health centers; that they can get treatment. Eighty-three thousand more people would be served. I ask my colleagues to support this amendment. I reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, I regret that the Senator from Illinois implies that I deny the employees of this country their right under the National Labor Relations Act. I certainly would not imply by his position that he supports denying 83,000 Americans health care served under the $25 million added to the budget of the health centers. I wouldn't make such a suggestion. I regret he made such a suggestion before the Senate. If we were denying justice for employees, I would not offer this amendment. The reality is, we are not cutting a dime from the NLRB. We are only eliminating the $25 million increase so they can hire 122 more employees and a computer system at a time when the caseload is decreasing. Mr. President, a 31-percent decrease in caseload I don't think justifies a $25 million increase in funding. It is not hard to understand. Make that case to the American people. I will go out and say this is what we should do, flat-line their budget at a time they have decreasing workload and put more money into community health centers. That is what this amendment does. If Members want to vote against community health centers and vote for more bureaucracy, Members have their opportunity. I want to serve those 83,000 people who will receive health care because of this $25 million infusion into this very worthwhile program. It is bureaucrats at the NLRB--122 more employees--or serving people who need health care, primarily children. I ask my colleagues to support the children of this country, not the bureaucrats in Washington.

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, I have a second-degree amendment at the desk.

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

Mr. HUTCHINSON. My question is, at the end of the 30 minutes of debate on my second-degree amendment, should there be a motion to table my second degree, and if the motion to table were to fail, my assumption is that we would at that point adopt my second degree by voice vote, at which point Senator Wellstone would be recognized to offer his second degree. I just wanted that clarified.

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, under the UC, it is my understanding that there is no time limit currently on the second-degree amendment.

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Is the Senator aware that the amendment does not cut the budget for the NLRB, that it only flat-lines, it only eliminates the increase in funding at a time when only 4 percent are being adjudicated and the number of cases is falling?

Mr. HUTCHINSON. That is fine. I yield to the Senator from Iowa.

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Reserving the right to object--and I don't intend to object--should the motion on my second degree be a motion to table and the tabling motion failed, would my second degree still be the pending business? I need an up-or-down vote.

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, I rise to support the Enzi amendment. I compliment the Senator. He has been a tireless worker and leader in the area of OSHA reform. I think on both sides of the aisle no one would dispute Senator Enzi has been the foremost student of OSHA, the way it works, where its failings are. The legislation he has brought forward and his efforts to reform this agency deserve the praise and the appreciation of the American people. I appreciate very much his willingness to offer this amendment. I think a few things need to be clarified. It does not cut enforcement. The Senator from Minnesota said this cuts enforcement. No, it doesn't. It takes the $33 million increased spending and says half of that will be used for compliance. Over last year's level, there is no cut in what will be available for enforcement. In fact, half of the $33 million increase will continue to go into the enforcement area. The Senator from Minnesota said the amendment was flawed. It is not this amendment that is flawed. It is the ``find and fine'' approach of OSHA that is flawed and that needs reform. This is a small step, but a significant step that the Senator from Wyoming has offered that will help move away from the ``find and fine'' approach, the enforcement- only approach, the punitive approach to a program and a system that will assist small businesspeople who want to do the right thing, who want to have a healthy workplace, who want a safe workplace and want to comply with OSHA but they need help. Anybody who has ever worked with OSHA, anyone who has ever looked at the OSHA regulation book, knows a small businessman, if he is to comply, needs assistance. So I think this is a very well thought out and a very important amendment. The Senator from Minnesota, as so many others do, likes to put everything in terms of class warfare. This is not a class issue. It is not in any way an inference that blue-collar workers should not have protection and should not be assured they are going to work in a healthy workplace and a safe workplace. It is a difference on what is the best approach, on how we best achieve that common goal. It is not a class issue. It is not a class warfare issue, as some would like to make it. OSHA itself has estimated that 95 percent of small businesses--95 percent of the workplace, employers--want to comply, that they are good actors who want to be in compliance. It is among those 95 percent so many accidents are happening and that is where this kind of amendment increasing employer assistance is going to help. It is going to assist that small businessperson who wants to comply with OSHA but needs help in doing so. It is going to assure them that they are going to have the resources to be good actors and to have a safe workplace. I do not know what the experience of the Senator from Minnesota has been, or that of others who may be voting on this, but I do know my experience. I was a small businessperson. I know it is unconstitutional, but I almost wish it were a requirement, before serving in the Senate, to be an employer; that you had to deal with Federal agencies and you had to deal with this Tax Code and you had to deal with the regulatory agencies like OSHA. My brother and I owned a radio station and we did just that. From my experience, let me tell you, we wanted to comply with every OSHA rule, all 1,275 pages. We wanted to comply. But we were a small business that had just a handful of employees, less than a dozen. Frankly, we did not understand. We understood radio, but we did not understand every minute, highly technical safety regulation that OSHA put forward. That is where this amendment would help. It doesn't cut OSHA's funding; it just says let's put half of the increase into compliance, into consultation service for small businesspeople. It is hard for me to imagine why anybody would oppose this. The Senator from Wyoming has hit upon something. It is very logical. It is very much common sense. The American people out there understand this amendment. Those who may have the opportunity to see this debate and hear this debate, they will understand the difficulty that good actors, people who want to be in compliance, law-abiding businesspeople have in complying with an OSHA regulation book over 1,200 pages long. We are not saying decrease enforcement. But I will tell you this: OSHA could send an army, we could quadruple the enforcement budget, let OSHA send an army of inspectors out across this country; they still could not get into every workplace in the country. That is simply the wrong approach if we want a safe workplace. The right approach is to put more into consultation services, work with the 95 percent of businesspeople who want to have a good workplace, assist them in ensuring they have it, and we will do more to save lives than under the ``find and fine,'' punitive, enforcement-oriented approach that OSHA has had in the past. Again, I commend Senator Enzi for remarkable leadership, leadership that has been praised on both sides of the aisle in his tireless efforts to improve the way OSHA operates. I commend him and am glad to be supportive of his amendment today. I have a chart I will just point to briefly. It shows 61.5 percent of the current budget is going to enforcement; less than a quarter of their budget going to compliance assistance. Senator Enzi has taken the approach that at least half of what we are putting into OSHA's budget ought to go into assistance, not taking a hammer and beating up on the small businessperson who is trying to comply with OSHA's thousands of regulations. Once again, I am glad to be a supporter of this amendment and ask my colleagues to support Senator Enzi and his continued efforts to make OSHA a better agency and to make the workplace in this country a safer place for American workers. I yield the floor.

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. HUTCHINSON. If I might just respond to the Senator from Iowa. I do not know who he spoke to at the health centers. I suppose whoever it was is a spokesman for all of them. But the ones I would like to speak for are the 83,000 people who could be served if this amendment were adopted. The $25 million, it is estimated, would allow these health centers to be able to serve 83,000 more people. Those are the ones I am concerned about. I am not so much concerned about whoever in Washington, DC, decided that the NLRB needed a big increase. The fact is, the NLRB has said with this increased funding they will hire 122 more people, and they will buy an $11 million computer system. So I would say to the Senator from Minnesota, that is the issue. Do you want an $11 million computer system for the NLRB and 122 more employees or do you want to help 83,000 more people to get health care in the delta and the poor areas of this country who are currently not receiving it? It is a pretty simple issue. We can try to cloud it with parliamentary questions. We can try to cloud it with questions about a UC that was adopted. But there is a very fundamental question in which I believe very strongly. I oftentimes hear the Senator from Minnesota speak with great passion and the Senator from Iowa speak with great passion as to how they are prepared to create a problem in the Senate in order to further their goals. I admire them. I respect them for their commitment. I just say, I have a deep belief about those who are being served by these community health centers. I have visited them. I see the good work they do. I see the fact that poor people can walk in and not have to worry about presenting an insurance policy in order to get help. I know the value of helping those little children in the delta when they get preventive health care services now and what that is going to save us down the line, not only in terms of our budget but in terms of the quality of life that they are going to be able to live. Once again, I reiterate the numbers concerning the NLRB. We have seen, over the last 25 years, their budget cut by 21 percent, while the caseloads have dropped 31 percent. This isn't a new thing. Last year, we flat-lined their budget, and the result was they had fewer cases filed and a smaller backlog with a flat-line budget. I think anybody who will listen to the arguments and look at the numbers will have a difficult time accepting the logic that they need to hire 122 more people and buy an $11 million computer system, having a $25 million increase in their budget at a time we could be helping poor people get health care around this country. So it is a very clear question. I think clouding it is not the answer as to how we resolve it. I reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, I yield such time as he may consume to the Senator from Wyoming.

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Objection.

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Should the motion to table fail, I would assume by voice vote my second-degree amendment would be adopted, and then at that point Senator Wellstone would be recognized to offer a second degree. Is that the understanding?

Mr. HUTCHINSON

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, if I may return to the State of Arkansas where we had a reduction in the number of students by 1.3 percent over the 25 years from 1970 on; the number of teachers grew by 17,407 in 1965 to almost 30,000 in 1997. That is an increase of 70 percent in the number of teachers, while we saw a decrease in the number of students. That is dramatic class size reduction. Unfortunately, we have not seen a comparable increase in academic achievement. I believe, if you look nationwide, that will be the story in State after State. While student-teacher ratios have decreased, we have not seen a comparable increase in academic achievement. Why would we then put this huge investment, dictating from Washington what the solution should be? If I were to make no other point in these remarks, it would be this seventh concern, that a one-size-fits-all approach from Washington will actually have a negative impact on the poorest students in this country. It will actually penalize poor children in districts across this country. The L.A. Times, in an editorial entitled ``Class-size Reduction Doesn't Benefit All; Quality Teachers Gravitate to Upper-Income School Districts, While Inner-City Students Lose Out''--it is an interesting phenomenon. Because of the influx of Federal funds to hire teachers, the result has been inner-city schools and poor school districts that can compete less effectively with larger and more affluent schools are actually penalized under this proposal. The L.A. Times editorial said it very well: A substantive reduction in the size of classes in the lower grades for virtually every one of California's public elementary schools triggers a frenetic stirring among the existing teacher force. Schools post job openings for the newly created classrooms. Teachers apply to multiple sites, some more attractive than others. The more attractive schools--those in middle to high-income communities--receive stacks of applications along with well-honed cover letters. The least attractive schools-- poorly performing schools in high poverty areas--scrape far fewer applications from their mailboxes. That is the phenomenon. As so often is the case when we have a federally initiated program trying to decide in Washington, DC, what is best for local school districts all across this country, we have unintended consequences, and the tragic unintended consequence of this program has been that the poor school districts, the inner-city school districts, are those that have been penalized while the more affluent and middle-class communities have prospered under this program. Randy Ross, vice president of the Los Angeles Annenberg Metropolitan Project, in testifying before our health committee in the Senate, noted this phenomenon. He said: One would think [that] . . . a policy that benefits all teachers would benefit all children--rich and poor. But for reasons that are all too clear, such is not the case with the wholesale reduction in class size. . . . I believe the federal government ought to take the moral high ground to insure that government spending helps poor children, and never, ever hurts them. That has been the tragic result of this program, that poor children are the ones, in fact, who are penalized. Senator Gregg rightly said the issue is not money. There is $1.2 billion set aside in this bill for teacher initiatives, including the hiring of additional teachers, if that is what is necessary. That is the better approach, where the local authorities have an option as to how those Federal funds should be spent. Frankly, in the area of IDEA, we have made an enormous commitment, but we have failed to meet that commitment with adequate funding. My sister Jeri who teaches in Reagan Elementary School in Rogers, AK, knows very well that if the local needs were best met, it would be in providing additional help in special education. Why shouldn't the local authorities have the right and have the option of determining whether or not hiring more classroom teachers fills the greatest need or whether spending that money to better meet the needs of special ed students would be the better use of local money? I suggest our approach is far superior, that while very sincere, Senator Murray has brought forth, once again, a flawed approach in the area of this Class Size Reduction Initiative. I think we should meet the responsibilities that we have already assumed in the area of IDEA before we create a new commitment and new responsibility that we are unprepared and unable to meet. I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor.

Mr. HUTCHINSON. I would like to yield, but I have a number of points I want to make before I wrap this up.

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, I only have a few more remarks. The point I was making, my sixth point, is why I think theirs is a flawed approach. The evidence is very clear that a simple reduction in class size does not improve academic achievement. In Arkansas, we have seen enrollment decrease from 1970 to 1996 by only 1.3 percent, but there has been a reduction in the number of students.

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Sure.

Mr. HUTCHINSON. I will be glad to yield.

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, I certainly associate my remarks with those of the distinguished Senator from New Hampshire who truly has displayed not only great leadership but great expertise on this whole subject area, and who, I think, very eloquently and very articulately explained the differences in philosophy and approach, and while sincere, the misguided efforts of the proponents of this amendment. I take a few minutes to make a couple of observations about what the other side said about their amendment and then will outline my objections and what I think are the flaws in the approach advanced by the Senator from Washington. Certainly, I think Senator Gregg was right. The Republican approach is superior because it emphasizes the qualities of the teacher, not simply putting more teachers out there. I recall very well, in the third grade, when there was an overabundance of third graders in a small rural school in Arkansas that I attended, we were placed in the second grade class. There were 7 third graders placed in the second grade class. Our teacher, Mrs. Hare--I remember her well--had 30 students in her class: 23 second graders and seven third graders. It was not an ideal situation by any means. It was not what anybody desired. We would have liked it if they had smaller classes. But I will tell you this: I am glad I had a quality teacher and that quality teacher was able to turn what would have been a disadvantage in having a combined class into an advantage for every student in that classroom. It is far more important that we have good teachers, qualified teachers, and teachers who have a heart for those students than it is for us, with a command-and-control approach from Washington, DC, to simply put more teachers out there and hire more teachers at the Federal level. It struck me that the Senator from Washington, in her arguments on behalf of her amendment, wanted to have it both ways. In one breath she said: The Class Size Reduction Program was dramatically effective, so effective that we had to continue it. In virtually the next breath she said: Yes, it is impossible in 1 year to judge the effects of the program; therefore, we need to fund it again so we can give it time to judge its effectiveness. You cannot have it both ways. So I think, as in many of the sincere arguments from the other side, they are, in fact, quite misguided. Let me outline a few of my concerns. Senator Gregg rightly pointed out it is a one-size-fits-all approach; it is a command-and-control educational system in which the Federal Government micromanages what the local school districts can and should be doing. It is highly inflexible. Lisa Graham Keegan, from the State of Arizona, who is one of the great education reformers in this country, stated recently that: President Clinton made it abundantly clear that he decided smaller class sizes are a good thing, even though research has provided no clear indicators of the impact that class size has on a child's ability to learn. Time and time again, I heard the other side say they have lots of conclusive studies, that reduction of class size inevitably improves educational achievement. But I have heard very few studies cited, other than one, in fact, from the State of Tennessee. She continued: Nevertheless, because [smaller] class size had been a good thing in some of the classrooms the President had visited, then smaller class sizes had to be a good thing for every classroom in America. There, I think, is the flaw in the argument. Because it helps in some situations does not necessarily mean it is the panacea for educational reform across this country. Second, I believe the approach cited by the Senator from Washington will reward States that have failed to address this issue. Education is primarily a State and local issue. Most States now address class size. In fact, 25 States have had class size reduction initiatives: California, Virginia, Florida, Wisconsin, Tennessee, and on and on. Twenty-five States have already addressed this. Yet this Federal program, in which we fund from the Federal level 100,000 new teachers, basically says that failure to act will be rewarded by the Federal Government stepping in and assisting States. So it has a negative incentive. It rewards States that have failed to address this issue. Third, it creates either a new entitlement program or an annual battle such as we have now had for two successive years in the appropriations process, pulling the rug out from under school districts that have hired teachers based upon this Federal program. It is a Band- Aid approach to a more systemic problem. It will either create a new entitlement which we feel obligated to keep funding year after year after year because school districts have acted on the basis of this Federal program, or we will go through this annual exercise, the schools never knowing for sure whether or not there is going to be this Federal program, and therefore we would be accused of pulling the rug out from under them. The Democrats keep mentioning we need to fulfill the promise we made last fall in the omnibus appropriations bill, which funded the Class Size Reduction Program at $1.2 billion. I simply ask the question: What happens if we do it this year and next year? At the end of the 7 years, what happens? I will tell you what will happen. Every school district that has acted on the basis of this program will be saying: Reenact it, keep on because we are now dependent on this Federal program for the hiring of teachers. As usual, in Federal education programs, it will continue to grow from year to year. It will become a new restrictive program that places more regulations on the localities and further contributes to Federal oversight of a local issue. Many school districts in Arkansas have declined to participate simply because of the amount of red tape and bureaucracy involved in the program. In fact, it feeds Federal dependence. It encourages those schools to look to Washington for funding. It encourages schools into a kind of Federal dependency. No. 5, needy, small districts oftentimes do not even qualify for one single teacher. I think one of the saddest results of this legislation was that some of the neediest school districts, because of their size, were unable to qualify for even one. They were unable to form the consortia required to allow them to receive even partial funding for additional teachers. So in a State like Arkansas those schools that are the neediest are those that are least able to avail themselves of this program. I might add, we have heard time and time again from the other side that failure to pass the Murray amendment will result in the firing of thousands of teachers across this country. That is not the case. Funds are only now flowing into the school districts from last year's Omnibus Appropriations bill. It is for this school year the teachers who have been hired are already funded, all the way through to the end of this school year. The way this should be addressed is through the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, which the education committee is addressing, and they will be bringing forth a reauthorization bill. That is the proper way for this issue to be addressed. But the issue of firing teachers, that is an absolute red herring; no teacher will be fired by the passage or failure of the amendment before us today. I might add also, listening to the other side, you would think when the $1.2 billion, 1-year appropriation for this program was enacted last year, that there was bipartisan, universal consensus that this was what we ought to do. That was far from the case. It is a revision of history. The fact is, when the Murray amendment was offered last year, it was defeated on the floor of the Senate, and it was only in the huge omnibus appropriations bill at the end of the session that, in order to reach an agreement with the President to prevent a Government shutdown, there was a resolution of the issue by a 1-year funding of the program. But there was not a 7-year authorization under ESEA, nor was there ever any consensus of this body that this was a proper Federal approach. The sixth reason I think this is a flawed approach is, while it is very expensive, it will make minimal difference in academic achievement. We have already discovered decreased class size oftentimes does not result in any marked improvement in achievement. Between 1955 and 1997, school class size has dropped from 27.4 students per classroom to 17 students per classroom, according to the National Center for Education Statistics. The number of teachers has grown at a far faster rate than the number of students.

Mr. HUTCHINSON

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