Tim Hutchinson

Mr. HUTCHINSON

Mr. HUTCHINSON. I will be glad to yield.

Mr. HUTCHINSON. I send an amendment to the desk.

Mr. HUTCHINSON. I will be glad to yield to the distinguished chairman.

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

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Thank you, Mr. President. If I might just briefly respond to a few of the points that my good friend from Montana made in his excellent statement. It seems to me to be a difficult proposition to come to the floor of the Senate and argue that we should not have a debate and to argue we should not have a vote on the admission of China to the World Trade Organization. Yet that is the posture which the opponents of this amendment must be. The Senator from Montana has said it would be an ``alarming precedent''--I believe those are the exact words--that has never happened before. In many ways, China is unprecedented. They are unprecedented in their size, their population, and their impact upon world events. And in many ways the abuses that are currently going on by their government to their own people are unprecedented. It is unprecedented to have a nation in the World Trade Organization with 40 percent of the economy controlled by the state. That is unprecedented. Perhaps that is a good reason to have a debate on this issue and have a vote on who should be admitted to the World Trade Organization, since it would be unprecedented for a nation of this size, with such a mixed economic system, to be admitted to the World Trade Organization. It is unprecedented to admit to this trade organization a nation that views us as a hostile power and, as evidence indicates, has aggressively spied on the United States and stolen nuclear secrets from the United States. To say it is an ``alarming precedent,'' I think is a great overstatement. In fact, if there was ever a reason to change the precedent, it would be because of China's behavior. The Senator from Montana said amendments would certainly be messy. That is what democracy is about. That is what happens; that is what debates are about; that is what freedom is about. It might be messy; it might be unpleasant to vote on amendments that might be offered. But to respond to the question of the Senator from Montana, I am more than delighted to have a straight up-or-down vote with no amendments. If we were in the House of Representatives, we could have the Rules Committee provide such an order; we would have no amendments, and we would vote up or down on whether China ought to go into the World Trade Organization. I am delighted to have such an opportunity, and I make a commitment to that right now. If we have a unanimous consent, at the appropriate time, I support having a clean vote on China's accession to the World Trade Organization. I was somewhat surprised to hear my colleague from Montana say China has not been a bad boy, they have been a good boy; a number of things they helped us with--Pakistan and India. They had signed international agreements. They had shown restraint. They have been adjudged one of the greatest proliferators of weapons of mass destruction in the world today. In fact, they were a great contributor to the problems and the arms race that has developed between Pakistan and India. Signed international agreements--indeed, they have signed international agreements. Last year, they signed the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and since they signed that international agreement our State Department has adjudged their behavior on civil and political rights abysmal. They have a new and vicious and brutal crackdown upon the rights of their own people. That is the international agreement. My colleague said they have shown restraint, not like the adventuresome nature of their politics 25 years ago; they have shown restraint. Well, I don't believe it is restraint for them to vigorously modernize their weapon systems and to vigorously seek American technology through legal and illegal means. All of that aside, some of the questions were answered, but many of the questions I raised were not addressed at all and have nothing to do with anything other than trade and the economy. But they are questions that need to be debated, questions that need to be answered. Are we lowering the WTO bar for access to the Chinese? To say that we can deny them permanent MFN after the fact, after they have been admitted to the WTO, and that will be our vote, I think begs the question. There will be such international pressure for permanent MFN if we have already supported their admission to the WTO that it will be inexorable. It will be a fait accompli. But the evidence clearly is that we are setting a different standard for China. In my discussions with the State Department over a year ago, they made it very clear to me that they were debating within the State Department whether we would have greater influence on China with them in at a lower standard, or out waiting for them to change and to make the necessary reforms. It is very clear that the administration has pursued the idea of lowering the standards so that China could be brought in prematurely. Admitting them as a developing country is changing the standards for China. These are issues which have not been addressed today in our debate but need to be addressed by the U.S. Senate. I will not go through all of those questions again, but they are important questions. The Senate and the Congress should not keep ``punting'' on trade issues. We have a constitutional role. We are a coequal power with the executive branch. This is an opportunity for us to regain our voice on those very, very important issues that affect the lives of every American. The issue today is not do we want China in the WTO; the issue is do we want to have an opportunity to debate that and to vote on that. That is the issue. I have said, and I will say again, I want China in the World Trade Organization at the right time and under the right circumstances. But I do not believe that we should allow the administration to make a unilateral decision coopting the constitutional right of the House and Senate to express itself on this very, very important issue. I hope that this amendment will be passed, that we will have the opportunity at the appropriate time to vote yes or no on China's admission to the World Trade Organization. I hope that the reforms are made in China so that I could vote yes on that. I would like to see that, but I believe that we have the greatest leverage we will ever have in bringing about reforms before we concede ahead of time that they should go into the WTO. I believe this is an eminently reasonable amendment because we are not prejudging what the outcome should be. We are simply saying we should have the right to vote. We should say yes or no--not trade negotiators in a vacuum apart from those who were elected by the people to represent. I reserve the remainder of my time and I yield the floor.

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, I will take a moment, and then I will yield my remaining time. I say that the leverage of which I speak--I think the Senator from Montana knows and agrees that the leverage is greater now before China goes into the World Trade Organization. The issues of which I speak deal primarily with trade issues. I hope we will use that leverage for human rights and nuclear nonproliferation across the board. But certainly there are trade issues that are critically important. We have almost a $60 billion deficit with China. They have great barriers there, and we cannot lower the standards just so we can have a political announcement and have a gift that we are providing the Chinese by saying we are going to support your accession to the World Trade Organization. I didn't want to offer this amendment today. I would much rather that this had gone through the committee. I would rather we had a different vehicle. But we are going out on Easter recess and the Premier is coming to this country. The negotiations are coming to a head. This is the only opportunity we have to ensure that we will have a voice on whether or not they should go into the WTO. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment--not to table it but pass the amendment and let the administration know how seriously we take this issue, and that as a coequal branch of Government we should be able to approve or disapprove whether China goes into the WTO. There are serious issues that were not raised in this debate. We have had a good debate, but there needs to be a much more thorough debate, with many more Members involved. That will take place at the appropriate time if this amendment is passed. I ask colleagues to support it at the appropriate time. I yield the remainder of my time. Mr. STEVENS addressed the Chair.

Mr. HUTCHINSON. I thank the Chair.

Mr. HUTCHINSON. I thank the Chair. This is a very straightforward amendment that simply says that before China can be admitted to the World Trade Organization, there will have to be a joint resolution passed by the Congress supporting that accession of China to the World Trade Organization. It is very simple. It is simply saying we should have a voice in this. We should not have the administration arbitrarily and unilaterally making a very, very significant and major decision without the input of the U.S. Congress and this body. It does not prejudge what should happen. It does not say whether China should be in or not. There may be very compelling arguments that could be presented in such a debate. But it does say that before China is admitted to the World Trade Organization, every Senator in this body ought to have an opportunity to look at the evidence and have a say in the outcome of that debate. That is why we need this amendment, because Congress needs to, once again, assert its constitutional responsibility in the area of foreign commerce. I believe we must do it now for a couple of reasons. It is the only opportunity we are going to have before the recess, and our only opportunity before Zhu Rongji visits this Nation next month. He will come during our Easter recess. So, if Congress is going to have any kind of statement on this, if we are going to be able to take any kind of action on this, we must take it now. I know some of my colleagues will say this should have gone through committee. In an ideal world I would agree. It is very straightforward. I do not think it would require a great deal of debate, as to whether someone is for it or against it, but ideally that is where it should have gone. But, once again, the stream of negotiations that have taken place in recent weeks between our country and the Chinese Government, with our officials going to China--Deputy Treasury Secretary Larry Summers, Secretary of State Albright, U.S. Trade Representative Charlene Barshefsky have all been making repeated trips to China-- negotiating, obviously; attempting to broker a deal on the World Trade Organization accession of China. If we wait for an announcement by the administration that a deal has been reached, an announcement by the administration that the outlines of an agreement have been reached, we will make China's membership in the WTO a fait accompli. Any effort to stop it after the fact, after the negotiations are completed and after an agreement has been announced, I think will be too late for this body to really make a difference. The amendment is, as I said, very straightforward. It would require a joint resolution to be passed before the United States could support admission of China into the WTO. Again, it does not preclude our support for China's entry. It simply sends a clear statement that Congress should be involved in the process of deciding U.S. support for China's accession into the WTO. The administration should not make any hasty deals with China. We must give careful consideration to the timing as well as to the consequences of Chinese accession. Congress must be thoroughly involved in that debate. We cannot negotiate a trade deal with the most populous nation in the world, and, as we hear so often, the largest market in the world, in a vacuum. There are certain facts that we must face; there is a political environment in which all of these negotiations are occurring. The Chinese have used espionage to obtain important nuclear secrets from the United States. That is a matter that must be fully investigated. I believe it will be. I believe the appropriate oversight committees are moving expeditiously to investigate. But it certainly is not going to happen before we go out on the Easter recess. We may have hearings next week, but we will not see the end of this, we will not have all the facts on the table, before the Easter recess and before Zhu Rongji visits this country. Another fact that faces us is our trade deficit with the Chinese is at an alarming all-time high of $56.9 billion for 1998. It is rising exponentially every year. That reality ought to cause us to pause before we see the administration rush into a WTO deal. The Chinese continue to keep many of their markets closed, particularly to our agricultural sector, our farmers, who are in such crisis. The Chinese have signed and blatantly disregarded the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and have engaged in a widespread crackdown on prodemocracy activists in China, effectively silencing all political dissent. We cannot give WTO membership in a vacuum, ignoring all other realities that face us. The 1999 State Department report on China, released in the last few weeks, demonstrably proves China's ignoring of the very covenant on civil and political rights that they signed last year. If we cannot trust them to live up to a human rights covenant that they signed, how can we assume they are going to live according to the rules and the obligations of the World Trade Organization? There is an issue of trust. They have not justified the trust we would show in placing them in the World Trade Organization. Article I of the Constitution gives Congress express power over foreign commerce. There is no question but that this is our right. There is no question in this Senator's mind that it is our responsibility to step forward and say: WTO membership for China will not be granted without a debate in the House and Senate and a joint resolution. There are serious questions that the House and the Senate need to address. For us to sit back and go off on our Easter vacation, to go off on recess, to hold our town meetings or to take our trips around the world, and to have been silent on this issue, I think, at this time, will be indefensible. I suspect there will be some kind of announcement on the U.S. position on China's membership in the WTO while we are gone. Then we would never have had the opportunity to debate very important questions. I do not have all of the answers to these questions, but I know they are serious questions and I know the Senator from Montana, the Senator from Alabama, who was on the floor just a moment ago, and myself ought to have a right, before we have the United States taking a position on WTO membership, to debate that on the floor of the Senate, to thoroughly examine the questions that have not yet been answered. One question I would have is this: Are we lowering the WTO bar for China, to rush them into membership? Since 1995, four countries have completed negotiations on accession protocol: Ecuador, Mongolia, Bulgaria, and Panama. All four of these nations were required to eliminate, on the date of accession or with very short transitions, trade practices that were incompatible with WTO rules. That has been the standard. Since 1995 the four nations that have sought to enter the WTO have been required to eliminate their trade practices that were incompatible with WTO rules. But China has firmly and continuously and repeatedly said they want a different standard. They want a longer transition period. They do not want to meet those WTO rules at the time of or soon after their accession to the WTO. That is a question I believe this body deserves the opportunity to investigate and debate thoroughly before we announce a national position regarding China's admission. Another question I think is a serious question for debate: Are we allowing China into the WTO before they have made the kind of market reforms to bring them into conformity with WTO standards? The administration argues if we will just let China in, we will have greater influence on China's reform efforts than we do now while they are outside of the World Trade Organization. I suppose that is debatable. But we ought to have the opportunity to have that debate. In my estimation, our influence on China would be far greater before they are admitted to the World Trade Organization than afterwards. Our ability to influence the kind of reforms the World Trade Organization would desire will be far greater if we say you are going to accrue the benefits of trade under the WTO only after these market reforms have taken place, these trade barriers have been lowered. Reforms should first be enacted, changes should first occur, and then membership should be granted --not vice versa. I think this question deserves debate: Can China be trusted on trade issues? When we look at our exploding trade deficit with China, can they be trusted on trade issues if admitted to the World Trade Organization, or will we admit them to the World Trade Organization and then find them cavalierly ignoring the standards and the rules of the World Trade Organization? Our administration's own Trade Representative Barshefsky stated in her testimony, a little over 2 years ago, in reference to China, that ``China imposes new import barriers to replace those it removed.'' In other words, there can be the appearance of reform taking place, but if there are new barriers that are being erected while the old ones are being brought down, you really have not achieved the reforms necessary for World Trade Organization membership. China has almost one-third of its industrial production controlled by the state. Almost two-thirds of urban workers are employed in state- owned enterprises. These state-owned enterprises are notorious for their ability to destroy wealth. Some economists estimate that it would be cheaper for China to close down their state-owned enterprises and keep paying the workers--close down the enterprises, go ahead and pay them their salaries, they would still come out ahead, than to keep operating. But because the state-owned enterprises would be vulnerable to foreign competition, the Chinese Government has a strong disincentive to the state-owned enterprises that are heavily subsidized through China's centralized and insolvent banking system. One of the pledges that the Chinese Government made was that they would rapidly privatize the state-owned enterprises, shutting down those that they had to, privatizing others, allowing them to create capital by selling stock, but because of the recent economic downturn in China in which their robust growth rate has dropped appreciably, China now has backed off that pledge and has once again begun a round of bank loans to these very unprofitable, state-owned enterprises to subsidize them and to keep them in business. This is backpedaling already on the kinds of reforms that would be expected if China were in fact ready for admission to the World Trade Organization. Another question that this body needs to debate is, Should China be admitted as a developing country with far less stringent expectations and longer transition than allowed for other nations? That is what they desire. They say we are a developing Nation; therefore, we should be treated more leniently. They base their claim primarily upon their per capita gross domestic product. By every other measure, China is a major economic power in the world today and they want to be treated as such. They want to be recognized as a major economic power. China will argue that as a developing country, they are entitled to use subsidies. They are entitled to put limits on exports and other policies to promote development of certain key industries such as automobiles and telecommunications and heavy industrial equipment. China maintains that such programs are a part of China's industrial policy and not related to its application to the World Trade Organization. Many trade officials simply disagree with that assertion by the Chinese Government. That is a question and that is an issue the Senate should have the opportunity to debate, not after the fact but before China is admitted to the World Trade Organization and before the U.S. Government announces its position on Chinese accession. A WTO paper, prepared in response to a request from Chinese negotiators, suggested that industrial policies in China and other countries could violate the basic principles of nondiscrimination and national treatment and other WTO rules. They are not in compliance. They are not ready to join the WTO. Political considerations should not be the driving force in rushing China into the WTO before they have made necessary reforms. Another question I believe we should debate is this: Should China be given membership in WTO before Taiwan, which is simultaneously seeking membership? Will it be the position of the U.S. Government that we support the admission of People's Republic of China to the World Trade Organization while not yet supporting Taiwan's admission? Which one should be admitted first? I think that is an important issue. I think that is one my colleagues in the Senate deserve to have the opportunity to discuss thoroughly. Many believe that once China is admitted, they will work feverishly to block Taiwan's entry, even though Taiwan is a much more developed Nation, has a much more developed economy, and an economy which is much more consistent with WTO rules. Yet without a vote of the Senate or a vote of the House, this administration is prepared to support the admission of China to the WTO before Taiwan's admission. I believe this question deserves debate as well: Will a premature entry by China into WTO hurt American business interests? I know that large corporate interests in this country support China's immediate accession to WTO, but many business people in this country have serious concerns as to how China's admission to WTO will impact them. U.S. business interests often want permanent MFN for China and would like to use an agreement on WTO, I believe, as a means to push for this goal, but many of these business interests are also concerned that China's WTO accession, without meeting market access and other requirements, would seriously limit U.S. business access to the Chinese market for a long time to come. The very access that American business wants so desperately, we would be locked out of that access permanently or for a long duration should they be admitted to the World Trade Organization before they have met market access rules. As a result, many U.S. interests are pushing U.S. negotiators to remain firm, to stand pat, and not concede on the conditions of China's entry into the World Trade Organization. I believe another question that this body needs to debate is, How will WTO admission for China affect jobs? Indeed, we should consider how it would affect our jobs here in the United States. I remind my colleagues, contained in this very supplemental appropriations bill, which we are soon prepared to vote on, is a measure to assist the U.S. steel industry and the jobs that go with it. Some of those jobs are in my home State of Arkansas, Mississippi County, Blytheville, AR, the No. 2 ranked county in the Nation in steel production. According to the Department of Commerce, last year alone the U.S.-China trade deficit in iron and steel was a $161 million loser for the United States. The year before that the U.S. realized a steel trade deficit of $141 million, and in 1996 the deficit was $140 million. Each year the deficit in iron and steel increases dramatically. My point is, this Congress should have a say in whether we allow an agreement to be made when our trade imbalance is what we experience, even without granting China World Trade Organization status. At the appropriate time, I would like to see China join the World Trade Organization and abide by its rules. I do not believe China is ready at this time to go beyond paying lip service to the fundamental changes necessary for accession, though I know some of my colleagues do believe that they are ready. However, I believe we can all agree that we ought not make this decision hastily. The consequences are too great and long lasting and, just as importantly, we ought not let the executive branch make this determination unilaterally. Article 1 of the Constitution gives to us, the Congress, the express power over foreign commerce. This decision is too important for us to cede that power, and this amendment is a means by which we can preserve our legitimate role in the legislative branch. Mr. President, I reserve the remainder of my time, and I inquire how much time remains?

Mr. HUTCHINSON. I suspect the others the Senator mentioned are going to speak in opposition. There are some who might want to speak in favor. If we are going to extend the time afforded Senators who want to speak against, I think we might have trouble extending the time with that restriction.

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, might I inquire as to how much time each side has remaining?

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Reserving the right to object.

Mr. HUTCHINSON. I think for my presentation I probably only need 15 minutes. If there are those who speak against the amendment, I would like to yield proportionally then.

Mr. HUTCHINSON

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, I rise to express my strong support, along with the distinguished Senator from South Carolina, for the National Missile Defense Act. It is, in my opinion, long overdue and will correct a serious deficiency in our defense policy, one that leaves us utterly defenseless against a threat that is real today and promises to get worse tomorrow. Last week, Thursday, in the Wall Street Journal, this headline greeted us: China Buys . . . Stolen information about the U.S.'s most advanced miniature W-88 nuclear warhead from Los Alamos helped the Chinese close a generation gap in the development of its nuclear force. This, of course, is a very abbreviated account of what the New York Times expanded on in great detail and great length. I think it describes for us not only a serious breach in our national security but a quantum leap in the ability of the Chinese Government to not only threaten the security of their neighbors in Asia but ultimately and eventually to threaten the security of American cities; thus, the importance of a National Missile Defense Act. Mr. President, the Clinton administration is in its sunset, but the effects of its failed, flawed China policy are clearly on the horizon. We are faced today with a very disturbing situation. At the same time that the administration is fostering what it calls ``constructive engagement'' with the People's Republic of China, the Government of China is increasingly posing a threat to the United States and its interests. This policy is nothing if not contradictory and inconsistent. It is no less than a threat to American security. China has made significant advances in its nuclear weapons program in recent years. By achieving the miniaturization of its bombs, the Chinese military can now attach multiple nuclear warheads to a single missile and hit several targets. China's technical advance means it can now deploy a modern nuclear force and pose an even greater threat to Taiwan, Japan and South Korea, not to mention the United States. The sad fact is that this technical advance was made possible by sensitive W-88 design information stolen from Los Alamos National Laboratory, a facility that we have discovered has very lax security. The details that I am going to recount in the next few minutes are those that have all been published and have been available to the public in news accounts in recent days. The W-88 is the smallest and most advanced warhead of the U.S. arsenal. It is typically attached to the Trident II submarine-launched ballistic missile. With smaller warheads, the Chinese military will be able to deploy intercontinental ballistic missiles with multiple warheads. In the last 2 days, I have attended two briefings with the Secretary of Energy. To me, the accounts that we heard were chilling and alarming. The secret information on the W-88 was probably stolen in the mid-1980s. This active espionage went undetected until April of 1995, when nuclear weapons experts at Los Alamos studying Chinese underground tests detected similarities to the W-88. The CIA found corroborating information 2 months later. The FBI and the Department of Energy's intelligence group, under Notra Trulock, investigated the matter and were able to narrow its list of suspects to five, including Wen Ho Lee, an employee of the Los Alamos National Laboratory with access to sensitive and classified information. Lee has since been dismissed but not arrested. The other four suspects remain employed. DOE briefed CIA officials and then Deputy National Security Adviser Sandy Berger on the espionage in early 1996. The FBI subsequently opened a limited investigation in mid-1996 and recommended improved security at DOE labs in April of 1997. But DOE, under Federico Pena, shelved Trulock's counterintelligence program and ignored FBI recommendations, and although some of these accounts in the press have been contested and all of the facts are not yet out, according to press accounts, they ignored FBI recommendations to reinstate background checks. Instead, Chinese officials continued to visit DOE facilities without proper clearances. Meanwhile, Trulock, aware of other possible spy operations at DOE facilities, sought to inform Secretary Pena. It was 4 months before he could get an appointment. Finally, in July of 1997, DOE briefed National Security Adviser Sandy Berger on the situation and the possibility of current espionage efforts, and Berger kept President Clinton informed. What was the administration's response? It was back in the 1980s when we believe most of the theft on the W-88 took place. When it became evident in the mid-1990s, what was the administration's response? Unfortunately, the administration swept the matter under the red carpet they were preparing to roll out for President Jiang Zemin of China. The National Counterintelligence Policy Board made recommendations for strengthening lab security in September of 1997. It was 5 months before President Clinton signed a Presidential decision directive in February 1998. The recommendations occurred in September as to the changes that should be made as to the strengthening of security requirements at our Laboratories. It was 5 months later when President Clinton finally signed a PDD February of 1998 mandating a more vigorous counterintelligence effort at DOE. It took 9 more months to implement those changes that were first recommended back in September of 1997, PDD in February of 1998, and then 9 more months before implementation occurs. In addition, it is alleged that Acting Energy Secretary Elizabeth Moler ordered Trulock to withhold information from Congress. That is an allegation, and it is an allegation that is a serious allegation. And it is one that needs to be investigated by this Congress. She reportedly ordered him not to brief the House Intelligence Committee on the espionage matter, and not to deliver written testimony to the House National Security Committee. It was only when Trulock testified before Congressman Cox' committee investigating this whole matter that Trulock was then able to fully inform Congress. If what Trulock claims is true--that he was hindered, that obstacles were placed before him and he was ordered not to testify, not to provide that vital information to Congress--then I think we have not just a security breach that resulted in stolen secrets, but it involves, in effect, a refusal to give vital information to Congress so that the administration's China policy could move forward without criticism-- significant criticism--from Congress. Only in the last several weeks was a lie detector test administered to Wen Ho Lee, the main suspect in this espionage. He has now been dismissed. Only now will periodic polygraph examinations be required of certain employees. The administration's response to this situation seems puzzling at best. But then--if you put it in context of what is going on with our relations with China--it at least raises troubling questions. The administration was fostering its policy of constructive engagement, engaging China by in part selling nuclear technology, supercomputers, and satellites to China. To bring up this vital issue of national security spying, espionage stealing of secrets--to have brought that up would have disturbed the flow of high-tech trade to China. And so it simply never was brought up. At the same time that the Clinton administration knew about Chinese efforts to steal nuclear weapons technology, it certified that China was no longer assisting other countries in their nuclear weapons program. It is amazing that when the administration knew that espionage was occurring at our Laboratories, that secrets were being stolen, it went ahead and certified that China was no longer assisting other countries in their nuclear weapons program. That certification lifted a 12-year ban on the sale of American nuclear technology to China. Why would we want to assist China in nuclear technology at the very time we are discovering their intensive efforts to infiltrate our Laboratories? At the same time that the Clinton administration knew about Chinese efforts to steal militarily sensitive technology, it loosened export control laws on supercomputers and satellites. Once again, it becomes not just a spy case. It becomes a situation in which the administration was pursuing a policy that to have disclosed what was happening in the security realm would have interfered with the pursuit of that policy goal by the administration. So it loosened export control laws on supercomputers and satellites at the very time the investigation was going on at Los Alamos. At the same time that the Clinton administration knew about Chinese efforts to steal nuclear weapons technology, President Clinton was seeking reelection, receiving donations from Chinese sources, and allowing White House access to military intelligence officials. At the same time that the Clinton administration knew about Chinese efforts to steal nuclear weapons technology, administration officials were preparing for a visit by President Jiang Zemin. At the same time that Congress was investigating illegal campaign contributions with Chinese sources, the Clinton administration withheld vital information regarding security breaches at our National Laboratories from Congress and the American people. How many briefs there were is yet in dispute. Who was providing the information and who was not, if anyone, is yet in dispute. But it is troubling that there is evidence of an effort on the part of administration officials to preclude those who should have known, those who had oversight responsibilities, those who had appropriations responsibilities, from knowing the full extent of the security breaches at our National Laboratories. President Clinton's China policy, I believe, has been a failure. And I believe that these most recent revelations fit into the broader context of the failure of this administration's policy toward the People's Republic of China. ``Constructive engagement'' has proven constructive, but it has been constructive only for the Chinese military. The implications of this policy extend beyond the United States. In East Asia, our allies, including Japan, South Korea and Taiwan will face a new and greater threat because of China's nuclear capabilities. It is ironic that the Chinese Government warns us not to develop a theater missile defense system while it aims more missiles at Taiwan and develops multiple nuclear warheads. The Chinese nuclear advancements will certainly inflame anxieties in India, which may lead to further proliferation in both India and Pakistan. So President Clinton has left us with a ``strategic partner,'' as he terms it, pointing 13 of its 19 long-range missiles at us--a strategic partner building new long-range missiles, the DF-31 and DF-41; a strategic partner well on its way to developing multiple warhead missiles. These are the bitter fruits of a policy borne out of warped motives. There were some in the administration who would like to dismiss this espionage case as a failure of the Reagan administration. I agree. There should have been greater security measures taken at that time. But this administration cannot blame its failure to uphold American security interests on past administrations. National security is a bipartisan issue. But it cannot blame its failure to adequately notify Congress on past administrations. This administration is responsible for a comprehensive policy failure in regard to China. The American people will be suffering the consequences long after the President has left office. Mr. President, it is a fact that, while there are many facts yet in dispute, and while there are many questions that have gone unanswered, and it is my sincere desire that the appropriate committees of the U.S. Senate will begin immediate hearings and fulfillment of oversight responsibilities--while there are facts in dispute, and while there are questions to be answered, there are some facts that are indisputable. It is an indisputable fact that the Chinese Government stole nuclear secrets allowing it to build smaller and more efficient warheads. We can argue and we can debate as to whether it was a 2-year loss of technology or a decade, whether it was a generation, or whether it was less than that, but it is not disputable that China stole nuclear secrets allowing it to build a smaller and more efficient nuclear capability. It is indisputable that the Chinese Government continues to aggressively seek to obtain technology from U.S. companies allowing it to better target their ICBMs. That is indisputable. Whether legitimate means, whether legal means, or whether serreptitious means, it is indisputable that China today continues on an aggressive pattern of seeking to obtain technology from the U.S. companies. It is an indisputable fact that the Chinese Government is engaging in an expensive modernization of their weapons system. While there may be much debate, that is a fact. That is beyond dispute. China today is expending vast amounts of its budget in order to modernize their weapons systems. Mr. President, while there is much in dispute, it is a fact beyond dispute that the Chinese Government continues to be a major nuclear proliferator in the world, giving North Korea the missile capability even to hit American cities. It is a fact beyond dispute that the Chinese Government continues to menace our allies in Asia with military threats. And it is a fact that the Chinese Government has again brutally clamped down on democracy advocates within China and seeks to extinguish free expression, whether religious or political. In the face of all these facts, the administration is still determined to give an irresponsible actor in the world arena a major role by offering to China World Trade Organization accession. It is my sincere desire, it is my sincere hope, that the administration will not seek to bring China into the WTO, will not bend the rules, will not allow China to enter as a developing nation as they desire, and that we will, in dealing with the largest, most populous nation on the globe, take our rightful place and we will regain our voice where, when it comes to the World Trade Organization, we will require that Congress approve China's membership in the WTO before they are allowed to enter. These facts, all incontrovertible and indisputable, reveal what I think is already obvious. The administration must reexamine its China policy and restore American security as its main priority. It must take responsibility for defending the American people, and it must commit to a national missile defense system. I applaud the efforts of the distinguished Senator from Mississippi, Mr. Cochran, for his leadership and his perseverance and his determination to bring this bill forward and to ensure its enactment. I yield the floor.

Mr. HUTCHINSON

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, I want to associate myself with the remarks of the Senator from Alabama and thank him for his kind remarks concerning the Dollars to the Classroom proposal. I look forward to working with him on the committee. I am dismayed that a bill that has the kind of bipartisan support-- support in this Chamber, support across the country among educators, support among our Nation's Governors--would have been held up as long as this has been held up and would have had the kind of amendments, many of them worthy of debate but that would have been far more germane to the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, which, as the chairman has said, will be debated and will be marked up in committee later this year. I think it is unfortunate that we have had all of these amendments filed. As Senator Sessions said, I have a bill, that I feel very strongly about, that would go further than Ed-Flex. I have resisted offering that as an amendment. We could have brought that to the floor. We could have offered that to the Ed-Flex bill. However, it is important that this piece of legislation move forward uncluttered, clean, with the support of both parties, and be presented to the President for his signature. I want to especially address in the next few minutes one of those amendments which has been offered, an amendment that sounds so good: The 100,000 teachers funded at the Federal level over the next 7 years. I think it is kind of a cotton candy amendment: It looks good, it is sweet, it tastes good, but it is not very filling, it is not very satisfying, and it is not very good for you. The 100,000 teachers--when you say that at first blush to the average American, that sounds very, very appealing, but I think when you look in greater depth and you look more closely at what that amendment would do, then, I think in fact it is not worthy of our support. We have already decreased class size across this country. At the same time we have seen a dramatic reduction in class size across the United States, we have not seen a comparable improvement in achievement. Between 1955 and 1997, over 42 years, school class size has dropped in the United States from 27.4 students per classroom to about 17 students per classroom, according to the National Center for Education Statistics--a very dramatic drop, from 27 to 17. At the same time, the number of teachers has grown at a faster rate than the number of students. This chart illustrates that very clearly. We see a very dramatic increase in the number of teachers and the student ratio decreasing appreciably. While public school enrollment has decreased in Arkansas, in my home State, going from the broad international statistic to what it looks like in Arkansas, we have seen our public school enrollment drop slightly, by 1.3 percent, during the last quarter century. The number of teachers during that same period of time has dramatically increased in Arkansas, from 17,407 in 1965 to 29,574 in 1997. Now, that represents a 70-percent increase in teachers in the State of Arkansas. At the same time, we saw a slight decrease in the number of students in our public schools. What that represents is a very dramatic improvement in classroom size. We have smaller classes, we have more teachers teaching those classes, but studies have shown that unless the class is very, very large to begin with, modest reductions in the size of the class do not correlate with gains in student performance. Here is the point: Effective teachers can generally handle, studies indicate, an ordinary class of 19 students as easily as they can handle a class of 14 students. I want teachers to have smaller classes. I think that is a desirable goal. It is a goal that is being achieved in States all across this country. But I do not believe it is something we should mandate from Washington, DC, nor fund from Washington, DC. Senator Sessions said it better than I can: I don't believe we need the 100 Members of the U.S. Senate to become some kind of super school board making those kinds of decisions as to what schools need most. At the same time teacher-student ratio has dropped in Arkansas from 21.9, almost 22, in every class in 1970, to 17 per class in 1995, student achievement has failed to show a measurable increase during that same time period. I want to say that again: We have seen classes drop from about 22 per class to 17 per class over the last 25 years in Arkansas. It has dropped more dramatically nationally, but in Arkansas we have seen it drop from 22 to 17. We have not seen student achievement show comparable improvement during the time that classes got smaller. Now, the initiative that has been presented by Senator Kennedy, the amendment offered by Senator Kennedy and Senator Murray, is expensive indeed, and there is no demonstrable evidence that for what we will be paying for this new program, we will see a corresponding improvement in academic performance. If enacted, the President's teacher initiative will provide enough money to hire only 361 additional teachers in the entire State of Arkansas in the first 2 years. All of the hoopla, all of the excitement about the 100,000 new teachers--which sounds like such a dramatic number--over the next 2 years in the entire State of Arkansas, it means 361 additional teachers. Now, we have in Arkansas 314 school districts. Many have argued we need fewer. Perhaps that is true; perhaps we need to consolidate some. But we have 314 school districts. We are going to receive 361 new teachers. That is 1.15 new teachers per school district. If we want to break that down a little more, it amounts to about half a teacher per elementary school. Since the focus of the amendment and the initiative is supposed to be grades 1 through 3, when you calculate that, it means .18 new teachers. Here we have that clearly outlined: In the State of Arkansas, 1.15 new teachers per school district; a half a teacher per elementary school; or .18 new teachers for each grade 1 through 3. It is simply not enough of a commitment if that is what we are trying to do, it is not enough of a commitment on reducing class size, to make an appreciable difference in Arkansas or the Nation. If this initiative were carried out for the full 7 years, Arkansas would be able to hire only 939 new teachers for the whole State over the whole 7-year period. That equals 3 new teachers per school district, or 1.4 teachers per elementary school, or half a teacher in grades 1 through 3, to do the whole program for the whole 7 years. For such an expensive proposal, I believe Americans expect more results than that. This will do little to actually reduce the student-teacher ratio when there is only one new teacher in an entire school district, which is the result we would have under this initiative. Lisa Graham Keegan, one of the most innovative directors of public instruction in the country, superintendent of public instruction for the State of Arizona states: In the first year of the President's new program, Arizona will receive more than $17 million. $17 million is a lot of money; what do we get for that kind of investment? At $30,000 per year--a good, but not great wage--we can pay for a little over 500 new teachers, as the program asks. In Arizona, that comes to a bit under 2 teachers per school district. Not per school, but per school district. They would average two new teachers per school district in the State of Arizona. Not every school district--and I think this is so important--finds that their greatest need is having more teachers or smaller classes. Many school districts do not need more teachers. They may need more books or more computers. Maybe they just need better- trained teachers. A one-size-fits-all approach is not what States and school districts need or want. Again quoting Lisa Graham Keegan, she states: President Clinton made it abundantly clear that he had decided that 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. Nevertheless, because 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. Well, that is a pretty strong allegation. But I think it is accurate on the basis of effectively anecdotal evidence. The President concluded this sounds good, looks good, this is appealing, and this was going to be his education initiative: 100,000 new teachers, paid for by the Federal Government, without having the research to demonstrate that, in fact, it correlates to better academic performance. This program requires that the money be used for new teachers. Yet, many States have already implemented class size reduction programs on their own. At least 25 States, including California, Florida, Nevada, Tennessee, Wisconsin, Virginia, and Maryland, have either tried a class size reduction program or are currently considering a class size reduction program. What about the 25 States that, on their own, many times at the expense of their constituents and their school patrons, have implemented their own class size reduction programs? What about those who are ahead of the curve and have sought to address this at the local level? Are we now going to say we are imposing this upon you, that you have to hire these new teachers if you want the benefit of this Federal program? In his testimony before the Senate Health and Education Committee, on February 23, Michigan Governor John Engler said this. I know our Presiding Officer, the Senator from Michigan, will concur with this. Governor Engler has been one of the most creative and innovative Governors both in the area of welfare--pushing welfare reform a number of years ago and seeing a tremendous revolution in the welfare system in Michigan--and he has now been pushing hard for greater flexibility for the schools in Michigan and the schools across this country. He said in his testimony before our committee: Many Governors feel so strongly that the bureaucracy is the problem that we cannot imagine being unable to improve education with greater funding flexibility. He didn't say send us more money. He might not turn that down, I don't know; but he didn't say that was the greater need. He said the problem is the bureaucracy. Give us greater flexibility and we will improve education. Governor Ridge of Pennsylvania said in his testimony before our committee: We all care about teacher competency, social promotion and class size and many other things, yet, we must recognize that the States themselves are designing programs that meet their unique needs. The States themselves are designing programs. Once again, it is a matter of trust. Who are we to conclude in the U.S. Senate that we can be trusted to know what is best for local schools in Michigan, Arkansas, Vermont, and Washington State, but the Governors don't, the school superintendents don't, or that the local elected school boards can't be trusted? I think that is a misconception and an insult to those local leaders who care as much about the welfare and the education of children as we do here in the Senate. Reducing class size simply does not necessarily mean we are going to have improved performance. It does not deliver the results. States performing exceptionally well on achievement tests do not have an extraordinarily high number of teachers per student. For example, the State of Minnesota ranked third in the 1996 NAEP test scores for eighth grade mathematics. They ranked third on the NAEP test in eighth grade math. They rank 42nd in students per teacher. If lowering class size were the panacea, then Minnesota, I think, would have a hard time explaining why they rank third in the Nation in eighth grade math and 42nd in class size. There simply is no clear correlation. Without the research, without the hearings, without the evidence, why would we want to pass it? Is it because, like cotton candy, it looks good and sweet? On the other hand, schools that have a low student/teacher ratio do not necessarily have a high achievement score. Example: The District of Columbia has the lowest number of students per teacher--13.7--of any State or Federal jurisdiction. It is 13.7. Yet, it ranked 41st in its 1996 NAEP test scores for eighth grade math. In contrast, we have Minnesota. I know there are a lot of factors that can be involved, but that tells me there is not a clear correlation between class size and academic performance. Eric Hanushek, an economics and public policy professor at the University of Rochester, maintains that teacher quality ``has 20 times the impact of class size. Teacher quality just swamps all the evidence we have on class size. If I had a choice between a large class with a good teacher and a small class with a lousy one, I'd take the large class any day.'' The teacher quality is far more critical in ensuring the quality of the education of our children than the student/teacher ratio, the class size. I remember, vaguely, when I was in the second grade we had too many second graders; we had 37. And so the superintendent decided we were going to take 7 of the second graders--me being one of them--and put them in a joint class with second and third grade. Mrs. Hare was the teacher. Some of the parents expressed concern that we were going to have a combined class because the class was too big. But we had an extraordinary teacher, a quality teacher, in a combined class of 7 from one grade and 20 from another grade. But it worked. It worked not because the class size was perfect, or because the student/teacher ratio was perfect, but because, as Senator Sessions referred to it, the magic of learning in a classroom was taking place. We had a quality teacher who cared about the kids and instilled in us students a desire to learn. That is what we can do about education--improve the quality of teachers in the classroom, not some feel-good measure of hiring 100,000 teachers, whether that be the need or not. Mr. President, about 1,100 studies have been made of class size. Out of those 1,100, only a very small few made any link at all between small classes and improved achievement. The research and the evidence is simply not there. The proponents of this measure keep mentioning that we need to fulfill the promise made last fall in the omnibus appropriations bill, which funded the Class Size Reduction Program, at a price tag of $1.2 billion. What I would ask is this: What happens at the end of the 7 years when this authorization expires? We then have a new mandate that must be funded, or the States and localities will bear the burden of continuing the program which we started. Hiring 100,000 new teachers with the spending schedule to expire at the end of 7 years will result in one of two things: Either a new heavier tax burden upon our States in trying to pay for these teacher salaries, or a permanent entitlement established at the Federal level, and another step in nationalizing education control in this country. What happens with new Federal education programs? Once in place, they grow. They grow. Year after year, they grow. And this will become a new prescriptive program that places more regulations on the localities and further contributes to a Federal oversight of what should be and has always been a local issue. Some Members have been talking about the urgency with which we must enact class size legislation. But, before we create a new Federal program, shouldn't we, I ask my colleagues, fully fund the mandates that Congress has already placed on school districts? Every time I meet with parents, teachers, principals and local school board members from across Arkansas, they have one common theme and one common complaint. And it is this: Senator Hutchinson, please fully fund special education. When we placed that mandate upon the schools, we made a commitment and a pledge that we were going to provide 40 percent of the funding of that mandate at the Federal level. Now, before we have even gotten close to meeting that commitment, we start a host of new programs, including the initiative to hire 100,000 new teachers. During the 1995-1996 school year, 53,880 students in Arkansas were served under IDEA. That is about 12 percent of all students in the State served under IDEA special education. Funding for special education affects all schools and all school districts. It is not a problem limited to Little Rock, or Rogers, AR, or to the State of Arkansas. Every State has to deal with this critical funding problem. We are failing to miss a critical point: If we provide more funding for special education, then schools will have more money available to hire more teachers, create afterschool programs, or build new schools, whatever the need is at the local level. If we would, rather than funding 100,000 new teachers ``one size fits all'', whether that is the need at the local level or not, if we would instead take that funding, place it in IDEA special education funding, it then would allow the local school districts to determine with the resources that are now free where the greatest need is--computers, books, tutors, or even school construction. But the decisions would be made locally. In 1975, Congress first mandated a free appropriate public education for school-age children with disabilities. We have, Mr. President, not fulfilled the responsibility to which we committed. The formula for providing grants to States is authorized at 40 percent, the national average per-pupil expenditure. Congress has never provided more than 12\1/2\ percent of IDEA funding, and that was back in 1979, 20 years ago. For fiscal year 1999, allocations to States represented only 11.7 percent of average per-pupil expenditures. Schools get only 11 percent of the funding, but 100 percent of the Federal mandates, and what an expensive mandate it is. This shortfall in funding does not just affect special education students. Because schools are mandated by Federal law to provide a free and an appropriate public education, they must provide these services. As Fort Smith public schools superintendent, Dr. Benny Gooden, wrote in a letter last week--one of our outstanding superintendents in Fort Smith, AR, who writes regularly about the burden that IDEA places upon local resources: For almost 25 years, local elementary and secondary schools and their governing boards of education have attempted to deliver essential educational services to children with disabilities under these Federal guidelines. During this time period, the costs associated with providing these services have escalated dramatically, while the level of Federal support has never approached the promised 40 percent of applicable costs which accompanied the initial passage of the legislation. While providing an education to disabled students is necessary and desirable, we must recognize the effect of imposing unfunded mandates on our school districts. The more that we fail to pay our fair share of the cost of educating disabled students, the more we force local school districts to take money away from other programs to fulfill their duty to special education students. With all of the talk about the importance of enacting class size reduction programs now when school districts are working on their budgets, it is important to fully fund IDEA and allow school districts to free up more money for other uses. The costs for educating a special education student can be 5 to 10 times the district average. In addition, as we all are aware, the U.S. Supreme Court recently ruled that the related services provision in IDEA includes medical services. This is going to dramatically increase this figure even more. Whether this was the intent of Congress or not, we made a commitment to fund 40 percent of IDEA costs. And we simply have not kept our promise. How can we in good conscience make more promises? We are going to give you 100,000 new teachers across this Nation. In Arkansas, it is about one per school district. How can we think of making more promises when we have not fulfilled the ones we already made to them in regard to special education? We are imposing an undue burden on school districts. And, if school districts had to spend less money on special education, they could use the available funds in the way they see fit. If that is entirely for teachers, so be it. If it means professional development, so be it. If it means buying new computers, we ought to let those local districts make those decisions. I see Senator Coverdell, who has been one of the great leaders on educational reform in meeting our Republican vision for education, and I have spoken quite a while on this at this point. I hope my colleagues know how strongly I feel about this. This is an important bill. It is an important step that we are taking. Senator Jeffords did an outstanding job. I can't say enough about the leadership of Senator Frist on this. We need not clutter this bill with amendments. We certainly don't need to start a new mandate on our schools. I hope that we will pass the bill quickly, pass a clean bill and send it to the President. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. HUTCHINSON

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Yes.

Mr. HUTCHINSON. The five amendments that have been proposed add billions and billions of dollars in costs when the first obligation, the commitment the Senator speaks of, has already been made to the educators in IDEA, in providing the full funding for special education across this country. Reclaiming my time, to vote for this cloture is to vote to cut educational bureaucracy. In Arizona, 165 employees--nearly half of the whole workforce of their Department of Education-- oversee only Federal programs accounting for only 6 percent of the funding. I say that is where we can take a step in the right direction in the passage of this bill. We should not be funding new programs. This amendment that Senator Kennedy refers to is a $12.635 billion amendment. That is the kind of amendment that will destroy the possibility of passing this bill into law and ensuring better education for our children. We don't need new spending programs until we have made the commitment that we made to the Nation's Governors in providing a full 40 percent of funding for special education. If there is a complaint from local schools, it is not that we are not starting enough new programs, it is that we are not funding the programs that we already mandated to them. I look forward to debating the amendment for 100,000 new teachers-- $12 billion. Let me just refer to my home State of Arkansas where, between 1955 and 1997, class size dropped from 27.4 students per classroom to 17 students per classroom. We are doing the job on cutting the size of classrooms, but we have not seen a comparable improvement in academic performance. Why do we assume that this is the only great need that schools have and we are going to decide it in Washington, DC? While public school enrollment in Arkansas has decreased by 1.3 percent in the last 26 years, the number of teachers has grown by over 12,000-- from 17,000 to 29,000. We don't need to give them the .3 teachers per classroom that they will get under this amendment. We need to give them greater flexibility so they can do a better job. I ask my colleagues: After 7 years, if we do this, after we fund this, if we fund these 100,000 teachers for 7 years, what then? How will the schools fund those teachers then? I suggest to you that it will be the COPS Program all over again. I had a call this week from the director of the State police in Arkansas who said, ``We hired 90 State police officers under the COPS Program, and now the money is ending. What do we do? How do we pay for them? You have to keep the money coming.'' After 7 years, what we will have done is either pull the rug out from under local educators, where they have to come up with additional local funding--schools that are already strapped--or they are going to look to Washington, as they have before, and we will have created another new entitlement in permanently funding teachers from Washington, DC. That is not what we need to do to improve education in this country. That is not what we need to do for the children of this country. What we do need to do is to pass this bill, eliminate some of the hoops we currently make the States jump through, allow them greater flexibility in doing reforms, and improve education creatively at the local level where the decisions can best be made. Let's reject the ``one-size-fits-all'' solution from Washington. Let's approve this cloture motion and move on to provide educational flexibility for the schools of this country. I thank the Chair. I yield the floor. Mr. VOINOVICH addressed the Chair.

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Madam President, I urge my colleagues to vote for cloture on this bill. This is an important piece of legislation in which there is bipartisan support. I just plead with my colleagues on the other side of the aisle--who are being obstructionists and are holding up a piece of legislation that the National Governors' Association supports, Republicans and Democrats support, educators across this country support, and which makes good sense--let's vote for cloture and move on to the debate so that we can give the American people what they deserve in better education. In voting for cloture, we will be voting to cut educational bureaucracy and ensure greater resources going to the children. In the State of Arizona--

Mr. HUTCHINSON

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, I commend the Senator from Minnesota. I don't know of a Senator who has been more consistent, more persistent, more determined, more resolute in trying to reduce the tax burden under which the American people labor, trying to simplify this very onerous Tax Code under which we operate, than Senator Rod Grams of Minnesota. I am glad to associate myself with his comments today. I suppose it is inappropriate to say, ``Happy anniversary,'' because the anniversary we remember today is not one that is a source of happiness. Mr. President, 86 years ago today--March 8, 86 years ago today--the Federal Government implemented the 16th amendment, ratified in 1913, and began at that point eating away at the income of the American worker. Perhaps that date, March 8, is a day that ought to ``live in infamy.'' But, then, maybe we should not be too hard on those who enacted the income tax amendment. I believe they could never have envisioned, they never could have imagined, what would have happened under the guise of the income tax. In fact, I understand there was actually a proposal during the time that was being debated in Congress to cap what the income tax could ever reach--a ceiling--and it was dismissed because it was concluded that Congress would never raise the income tax to such an exorbitant level. During the 1930s, Federal income taxes never, never were more than 1.4 percent of the Gross National Product--1.4 percent. In the 1990s the income tax now represents, as a percentage of the GNP, about 9 percent. So it has just skyrocketed. The amendment originally passed said this: The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several states, and without regard to any census of enumeration. That is the way it began--just a little sliver, just a small portion from Americans' wallets, at the turn of the century. That has turned into an enormous chunk of the pie, of the American family's reward for a hard day's work. According to the Office of Management and Budget, individual income taxes constituted only 14.6 percent of the total revenue of the Federal Government in 1935. Less than 15 percent of all revenues generated for the Federal Government came from the Federal income tax in 1935. Today, individual income taxes constitute a whopping, staggering 45 percent of the total Federal revenue, better than three times what it was in the 1930s. The rate has grown so rapidly, the Tax Code has become so onerous, that Senator Grams and I are black-marking this day in American tax history. It is only a prelude to the dreaded date, April 15. It is only in May, on or about May 7, that hard-working Americans can breathe a sigh of relief, on what is called Tax Freedom Day. Only on that day, May 7, can Americans begin to keep their hard-earned money, after having spent 4 months working to pay Uncle Sam's tax bill. It is for no small reason that Alexander Hamilton, in Federalist Paper No. 36, stated: Many spectres have been raised out of this power of internal taxation, to excite the apprehensions of the people. That was written 210 years ago. Today, we know exactly what Alexander Hamilton meant. The Federal Government has used the power of internal taxation to create broad distrust in the American people and create a Tax Code 7,500 pages in length containing over 800,000 words. We in the Senate have an opportunity to replace these dreadful anniversaries with a new one--the elimination of the present Tax Code on December 31, 2003. The Tax Code Termination Act, which I will, as Senator Grams alluded, introduce in the near future, would eliminate, terminate, sunset the existing Tax Code by December 31, 2003. Congress, the President, and the American people would then replace the current Tax Code with a leaner, simpler, fairer, and more honest tax system by no later than Independence Day, July 4, 2003, the beginning of a new era of freedom in this country. Senator Grams will be introducing a simpler, fairer tax system; others have proposed other alternatives. I will make my decision. I say this: The Tax Code Termination Act, the sunsetting of the Tax Code, is not relying upon which kind of solution, it does not determine which direction we should go, but, I assert, we cannot do worse than the current inexplicable, incomprehensible Tax Code by which we are governed. I applaud and commend Senator Grams for being bold enough, creative enough and, I might add, courageous enough to introduce a very broad, comprehensive proposal to replace the current, clearly inequitable tax system. For too long the American people have suffered under the heavy chains of the oppressive regime we call our Tax Code. Each year, Americans spend over 5.4 billion hours slaving away to comply with tax provisions. That 5.4 billion hours is the equivalent amount of time it takes to produce all the cars, all the trucks, and all the airplanes in this country in 1 year. All of that energy, all of that productivity going to comply with the Tax Code. A humble family of four will spend the equivalent of 2 weeks for Tax Code compliance. Ironically, every year $13.7 billion of the money that taxpayers struggle to pay the Federal Government is expended in enforcing the code. They pay their taxes. They pay their tax bill, $13.7 billion of which goes to enforce that code. Yet the IRS, a bureaucracy of 110,000 people in over 650 offices around the country, provides misinformation one out of every four times a taxpayer calls to seek assistance. It is time that we act. We have made the Tax Code ever more complex. In 1997, Senator Grams was very much involved in this. I am sure if Senator Sessions had been in the U.S. Senate at the time, he would have been involved in it. We made a serious attempt to ease the tax burden on the American people. Senator Grams and I, on the House side, introduced the $500-per-child tax credit. We said working families deserved to have that; that the cost of rearing a child has increased and was never indexed for inflation. The per-child tax deduction nowhere near compensated for what it cost. We, in effect, said public policy did not really value families, and we didn't really value children. We pushed for that, not only the $500-per child tax credit, but this Senate and this Congress, for the first time in 16 years, reduced the tax burden on working Americans. Even after that successful effort, the tax burden remains so high that the average American family will spend more on taxes at the Federal, State, and local level than they will spend for food, for clothing, for housing, education and recreation all combined. That is how much we are taking. Even in 1997, when we sought to reduce the tax burden on the American people, we had an undesired consequence. We were unwitting contributors to the complexity of the Tax Code, and we created even new complications, new deductions, new credits at that time when we were trying to reduce taxes. Mr. President, in the Senate we have a number of options before us in 1999. We can ignore the plight of the American taxpayer, continue to celebrate, so-called, these tax anniversaries. That is one option that we have. No one has suggested we should not meet a full commitment to Social Security. Sixty-two percent of the projected revenue surplus should be set aside for Social Security. There is no debate about that. Both parties agree about that. We need to do much more. We need to take the opportunity with the remainder not to create new spending programs, but to lessen the burden upon the American people. We cannot ignore the plight of the American taxpayer. We can continue with the status quo, or we can implement incremental reforms and try our best to make repairs to a house built on shifting sand, as we have almost every year for the last 12 years. Finally, we can lay a solid foundation for a new house by voting for real reform. We can sunset the existing Tax Code, and we can pass a fairer and simpler and more understandable tax system, one that the American people deserve. I thank my colleague for his leadership. I yield the floor.

Mr. HUTCHINSON

Mr. HUTCHINSON. I did have a question for the Senator from Minnesota, but if the Senator is about to conclude, I know there will be plenty of debate and time to debate, so I don't want to further hold up proceeding on the bill. I thank the Senator for yielding.

Mr. HUTCHINSON. You earlier said you might yield for a question.

Mr. HUTCHINSON

Mr. HUTCHINSON. I am happy to rise in support of the Ed-Flex legislation. I want to commend Chairman Jeffords and Senator Frist for their outstanding work, as well as Senator Wyden for his bipartisan efforts on behalf of this legislation which I think takes a tremendous step--a bold step--toward improving education in our Nation's schools. I listened closely to some of those who spoke earlier today and yesterday in opposition to this legislation. Time and time again, I heard the advocacy of greater spending, as if spending were the sole gauge for our commitment to better education in this country. I heard time and time again that Ed-Flex was nothing or that it did nothing. The fact is that providing greater flexibility for our State departments of education, providing greater flexibility for local school districts, is the single best thing that we can do to untie their hands, to take the straitjackets off local educators and ensure that they, in fact, have the ability to make the decisions that are going to be in the best interests of the students in this country. I remember well when I came to the House of Representatives, the U.S. Congress, in 1993, and the great debate was on what we should do about welfare reform. We had established across this country a process by which States could apply for waivers from the burdensome welfare regulations mandated on the Federal level. While not all of the analogy between welfare reform and education reform today fit--there are many differences--there are also a number of similarities. The first step toward what became comprehensive welfare reform was the ability for States to apply for waivers and escape the heavy-handed mandates coming out of Washington, DC. That first step on waivers led us to the much broader step of block grants and comprehensive welfare reform, which has worked, and which has taken thousands and thousands of people who were living lives of dependency on welfare to now lives of independence, lives of hope and greater prosperity. It has worked in spite of the dire predictions about giving the States the flexibility to enact what they believed would work in their States in welfare reform; it has, in fact, accomplished the stated goals. I believe that while this, as has often been said, is not an end-all, it is not a cure-all for educational woes in this country, providing the States an ability to escape Washington mandates so long as they are accomplishing intended purposes with proper accountability is an important first step to take. I hope we will go further. I hope we go to dollars to the classroom that will consolidate a number of Federal education programs. But this is bold and this is important. I commend the bipartisan efforts to bring us to this point. I think what we are addressing in this legislation is the tragedy of bureaucratic waste. We have heard repeatedly the statistics that have been cited, and I think accurately cited, that we have 760 Federal education programs; that those 760 Federal education programs spend approximately 6 or 7 cents on the dollar in funding for our local schools, while mandating 50 percent of the paperwork required for our educational programs. When Pete Hoekstra in the House of Representatives began his Crossroads Project, looking at education in America, one of the first things he did was to try to catalog the number of Federal education programs. I have the transcript of Secretary Riley before Congressman Hoekstra's committee. Chairman Hoekstra: How many education programs do you estimate that we have throughout the Federal Government? [A rather straightforward question to ask of the Secretary of Education.] Secretary Riley: We have--what is the page? It's around 200. I've got it here. One thing that I do think is misleading is to talk about 760-- Chairman Hoekstra: Well, how many do you think there are? Secretary Riley: We have--I've got a page here with it. Chairman Hoekstra: Just the Department of Education alone or is this including all other agencies? Secretary Riley: It is just a couple less than 200. Chairman Hoekstra: Is this just the Department of Education? Secretary Riley: Just the Department of Education. Chairman Hoekstra: Well, how about including other agencies and those kinds of things. Secretary Riley: Well, that is where I was going to get into the 760. It goes on. Congressman Hoekstra explains the process they had to go through to actually come up with the figure 760 Federal education programs, and, in fact, it is quite well verified. So 760 programs that had never even been cataloged, when you asked the Department, they didn't even know how many there actually were. What we are suggesting is that those 760 education programs place an enormous paperwork burden on classroom teachers, local educators, and on a State's department of education. It is in that area that we can address the enormous bureaucratic waste. Now, it was said repeatedly that this bill is nothing. I want to quote a man I admire greatly, and he is quoted in the Fordham Foundation report entitled ``New Directions.'' That individual is the Rev. Floyd Flake. Many of you will recognize that name because Floyd Flake was a Congressman from New York State for many, many years, representing his constituents very well, but who was willing to step outside of the box and, in fact, he was so committed to education reform and improving the lives of the children of his constituents in New York, he left the U.S. Congress--a safe seat for sure--and went back to his home district to run a school and pastor a church. This is what Rev. Floyd Flake said, an African American pastor who served in the U.S. House as a Democrat: While over $100 billion in title I funds have been expended on behalf of these children-- that is, children at risk-- these funds have not made much difference. Study after study has shown that this important Federal program has failed to narrow the achievement gap. The result for America's neediest girls and boys is nothing short of tragedy. Real education reform will transform the future prospects of America's minority and low-income children, but this cannot come primarily from Washington. What the Federal Government can do is get out of the way of States and communities that are serious about pursuing real education reform of their own devising. I believe Reverend Flake, Congressman Flake, has hit the nail on the head. We have heard much very strong, emotional and passionate talk about the needs of disadvantaged children. I don't believe anybody can question Pastor Flake's commitment to disadvantaged children. He said the best thing we can do is get Washington out of the way. So I believe we can address the tragedy of bureaucratic waste by passing Ed-Flex. Secondly, we address the logic that one size fits all; that wisdom flows only from Washington, DC; that the U.S. Congress has the wisdom and ability to micromanage our schools. So we hear much about accountability and that somehow by providing States broad, new flexibility we are going to water down or minimize accountability. Well, I believe it is a very high form of arrogance to say that we don't trust local elected officials, we don't trust local school superintendents who are hired by that local school board, that we don't trust the Governors of our States, that, in fact, only we can make those decisions about what accountability should be. ``One size fits all'' rarely works in a country as diverse as the United States of America. To believe that we can micromanage local schools from Washington, whether they are in inner-city New York City or Desha County, AR, or whether it be in Detroit or in Miami, the differences in our cultures, our social backgrounds, and our needs across this country are so great, we are so diverse, that to believe that we can properly diagnose and then treat educational problems from Washington, I think, is foolish, indeed. In fact, as you look over the history of the last 30 years of education in this country, we have seen, by every objective measurement, a deterioration in academic success. I suggest to those who oppose this bill that they are attempting to defend a status quo that is demonstrably flawed. We can address the tragedy of ``Washington knows best'' and that we don't trust those local officials. What brings us to the floor today--what brings this legislation to the floor today is the crisis that exists in American education. I listened to the distinguished Senator from Minnesota. He used many of the same statistics that I quote. He quoted many of the same reports that I have before me, which emphasize and underscore the crisis we face in American education. But it seems to me that the opponents are saying it is a terrible crisis and therefore we need to keep the status quo, we need to fund current programs at higher levels, when what we have been doing has clearly failed. So what this bipartisan bill does is to say, let's try a new approach, and that innovation, creativity, and new ideas are coming from the States and local schools. Let's give them the flexibility to enact those reforms, and I believe we will see education truly improve. The federally funded National Assessment of Educational Progress, the NAEP report, reports that 38 percent of 4th grade students do not even attain ``basic'' achievement levels in reading. In math, 38 percent of 8th graders score below basic level, as do 43 percent of 12th graders in science. I point out that there is an obvious trend there. In the lower grades, we do better; in the higher grades, we do worse. That reality was further emphasized in the TIMSS test report, which is the best measurement of an international comparison of student achievement. The TIMSS report shows that while we do quite well in math and science in grade 4, compared to students in other countries, by the time those students reach the 12th grade, they are almost at the bottom, internationally. So something has clearly gone awry between grade 4 and grade 12. I believe that is a strong incentive for us to change the direction of education in this country. The Fordham Foundation report is well named: New Directions. It is high time that we find new directions in education, and that is what Ed-Flex does. It is a first step, but it is an important step, freeing us from bureaucratic waste and inefficiency. As President Ronald Reagan used to say, ``The only thing that saves us from bureaucracy is its inefficiency.'' The tragedy is when you look at the inefficiency in the education bureaucracy, those whom it is hurting are those who are most vulnerable--our children, our students. Lisa Graham Keegan, Arizona State Superintendent of Public Instruction, recognizes this. She has stated that it is ``the lure of Federal dollars tied to programs with hazily defined goals,'' and compliance with those Federal programs is a big cause of the problems we face in education today. Keegan specifically indicates that 165 employees in the Arizona Department of Education are responsible for one thing, and one thing only, and that is managing Federal programs--165 employees just to manage the Federal programs, which account for 6 percent of Arizona's total spending on education. Now, those 165 employees work out to be 45 percent of her total staff. She has 45 percent of her educational staff in the educational department in Arizona doing nothing more than complying with Federal programs that account for only 6 percent of the funding for Arizona schools. Something is badly out of kilter when that happens. And it happens not only in Arizona, but you can echo those same sentiments by directors of education across this country. This is an opportunity for us to move in a new direction. President Clinton has made it very clear that he decided the problem with education is class size; that smaller class size is a good thing, and that even if the Federal Government has to step in and do it, that is what we should do. No research indicates what the impact of class size is going to have on a child's ability to learn. Despite this there is a $1.2 billion proposal to spend tax dollars to reduce class size. That will be a debate for another time. But I think once again it reflects the traditional thinking that we can only solve education problems with Washington solutions. In 1996, then-Governor Voinovich of the State of Ohio who is now our colleague in the U.S. Senate noted that local schools in his State had to submit as many as 170 Federal reports totaling more than 700 pages during a single year. This report also noted that more than 50 percent of the paperwork required by a local school in Ohio is a result of Federal programs; this despite the fact that the Federal Government accounts for only 6 percent of Ohio's educational spending. One-hundred and seventy Federal reports, Governor Voinovich said, 700 pages in length, and 50 percent of the paperwork, and once again only 6 percent of the educational spending in Ohio. Then I think the experience in Boston illustrates this need for Ed- Flex as well. I quote again from this very important report. It states: Unfortunately, even this estimate is likely to underestimate the true paperwork burden to local schools and universities across the country. According to the President of Boston University, John Wesley, Boston University spent 14 weeks and 2,700 employee hours completing the paperwork required to qualify for Federal title IV funding. They were slowed by repeated corrections and clarifications requested by the Department of Education. And, in the end, the university spent the equivalent of 1\1/2\ personnel years compiling what turned out to be a 9-pound application. I wish that were unusual. It may be unusual. But they actually compute it where it can be quantified. But I am afraid that reflects the experience of the education establishment all across this country. I know that there are many others who want to speak on this bill. I, once again, applaud so much of the efforts of Senator Frist, Senator Wyden and Chairman Jeffords. My sister is a public schoolteacher in Rogers, AR. She, right now, I suppose is teaching her third-grade class in Reagan Elementary School in Rogers, AR. I was thinking last evening about my experience in elementary school in a little town with a population of less than 1,000. And I can to this day name every elementary teacher I had. The first grade, Ms. Jones; the second grade, Ms. Harris; the third grade, Ms. Miller; the fourth grade, Ms. Shinpaugh; the fifth grade, Mrs. Allen; the sixth grade, Mrs. Comstock. I can't do that with junior high school or college. But the impact that an elementary teacher makes upon those students is beyond exaggeration, I think. Most of us, I suspect, can look back at those elementary teachers who had an incredible impact upon our lives. There is a kind of magic that takes place in a classroom. Chairman Jeffords sees it every time he goes over and reads to those disadvantaged children. All of us who have taught, whether it was in junior high teaching civics, as I did, or whether it is teaching third grade in the public schools just like my sister does, have experienced that magic where the light comes on, where those students connect with their teacher, the thrill of learning and where the experience of education catches on in a classroom. I suggest to those who want to talk about the need for greater control in Washington and who want to oppose providing flexibility to local schools that they remember that the magic happens in the classroom. I want my sister, Geri, spending her day teaching those students, creating the magic, inspiring those kids to learn and to appreciate the value of education rather than spending her day filling out forms for the 6 percent of funding that comes from Washington, DC. I don't want her having to spend her prep hour filling out more forms for bureaucrats in Little Rock and Washington. Mr. President, I believe this is a bold step. I hope it is not the last one that we take. But it is an important step. I applaud, once again, and am glad to be a part of supporting this effort today. I thank the Chair. I yield the floor. Mr. FRIST addressed the Chair.

Mr. HUTCHINSON

Mr. HUTCHINSON. I have a little problem in that Senator Wellstone has yielded his time.

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Absolutely. Certainly.

Mr. HUTCHINSON

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, I rise today to submit a resolution which is very much related to the educational crisis in our country. This resolution will designate March 24 as National School Violence Victims' Memorial Day and encourage the citizens of our Nation to honor and remember the victims of school violence on that day. The resolution also will encourage our school administrators to conduct programs on that day designed to prevent any further occurrences of school violence. I am deeply saddened that the introduction of such a resolution is even necessary. No words can ever adequately express the incredible shock, horror, and grief that struck me when I heard the news reports of the tragedy which left 5 dead and 11 wounded at the Westside Middle School in Jonesboro, AR. No words will ever be able to completely convey the cruel and senseless loss that the families and friends of Natalie Brooks, Paige Ann Herring, Stephanie Johnson, Brittheny Varner, and Shannon Wright experienced on March 24, 1998. And no words will ever be able to sufficiently honor Shannon Wright's memory and her heroic sacrifice. I know that the actions she took to protect her students at the cost of her own life will forever be remembered. Her actions were motivated out of love for her students and touched the lives of thousands of Arkansans, one of whom, Ms. Jennifer Morris, a student in Harrisburg, AR, was so inspired by Ms. Wright's loving and courageous sacrifice that she wrote and asked me to introduce legislation which would create a National Shannon Wright Day. Tragically, other communities, other families, and other friends know the pain of such senseless losses as well. Paducah, KY, Pearl, MS, Richmond, VA, Springfield, OR, Edinboro, PA, are just a few of the communities that will forever remember the tragic results of school violence. According to the Departments of Education and Justice, over the course of the 1996-1997 school year 10 percent of all public schools reported at least one serious violent crime to a law enforcement agency; and in 1996, 225,000 of our students between the ages of 12 and 18 were victims of nonfatal violent crime in our schools. Between 1992 and 1994, 76 students and 29 nonstudents lost their lives in murders or suicides committed in American schools. Finally, Mr. President, the percentage of our students who are afraid that they will be attacked or harmed at school is rising dramatically. I am not here today to discuss the causes and solutions to school violence. Rather, I am simply here to honor and remember the victims of school violence. Many of my colleagues who cosponsored this resolution have differing approaches on what we do to solve the problem. Many have different ideas on what the causes and solutions to school violence are. However, we all agree that we must end this violence in our classrooms and restore the peace that our children once had in their hearts and are entitled to enjoy once again. Accordingly, I now introduce this resolution to create National School Violence Victims' Memorial Day to ensure that we remember and that we honor those who have been victims of school violence and do all that we can to remove violence from our schools and restore peace in the hearts of our students.

Mr. HUTCHINSON

Mr. HUTCHINSON. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.