Tim Hutchinson

Mr. HUTCHINSON

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, small businesses are under attack in this country, and the United States government, through the National Labor Relations Board and other regulatory agencies, is aiding in this unprecedented assault. This battle is being waged against small employers by paid and unpaid union operatives who get access to non- union workplaces by seeking employment in these companies. Because employers are not allowed to refuse to hire union labor, they are usually hired. Once on job, these union agents put economic pressure on their employers by causing workplace disruptions that increase their employer's cost of doing business. This union guerilla warfare against employers is known as ``salting.'' The weapon of choice for these union operatives is to file unfair labor charges against their merit shop employers at the National Labor Relations Board or to file complaints against their employers at the EEOC, OSHA, or other regulatory agencies. Defending against these charges and complaints costs the employers in both legal fees and in lost time. As an added benefit, these cases often net union employees large damage awards or settlements because their employers can ill- afford the expense of defending themselves against the barrage of frivolous charges being filed against them. Consider the following examples: Gaylor Electric of Carmel, Indiana has had 96 charges filed against it. While each and every one of these cases has been dismissed without merit, Gaylor Electric has had to bear the cost of these cases to the tune of $250,000 per year. Likewise, hth Companies in Union, Missouri has had 48 unfair labor charges filed against it. Again, while all but one of these cases was dismissed, hth Companies has wasted $150,000 defending itself against these frivolous charges. Bay Electric in Cape Elizabeth wasted over $100,000 defending itself against 14 unfair labor charges--each of which was dismissed without merit. Wright Electric in Delano, Minnesota has lost almost $500,000 defending itself against 15 unfair labor charges, 14 of which have been dismissed, and one of which is still pending. In my home state, Little Rock Electrical, of Little Rock, Arkansas has been flooded with 72 unfair labor cases in just one year, 20 of which have already been dismissed, and 45 which have been set for trial. Finally, R.D. Goss in Clearfield, Pennsylvania has suffered the worst, having been hit with 20 unfair labor cases, all but one of which was dismissed--but which forced them out of business after 38 years. Mr. President, I support the right of workers to organize, and I am always reluctant to propose federal legislation that interferes in private matters--particularly private contractual relationships between employers and employees. However, in this case, as the above examples show, the federal government, particularly through the National Labor Relations Board, is wreaking havoc on merit shop contractors through this unfair, but legal, practice. Evidence as to the true nature and intent of union salting was best explained in the Organizing Manual of the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (IBEW), which stated that the true goal of ``salting'' is to: . . . threaten or actually apply the economic pressure necessary to cause the employer to . . . raise his prices to recoup additional costs, scale back his business activities, leave the union's jurisdiction, go out of business, and so on. Or, more bluntly, in the words of an IBEW organizing flyer, the goal is: . . . infiltration, confrontation, litigation, disruption, and hopefully annihilation of all non-union contractors. On February 13, 1997, I introduced legislation that addresses the issue of salting. This legislation, The Truth in Employment Act of 1997, would have allowed employers to reject an applicant that has no intention of actually working for the company, but who was instead solely interested in organizing and harassing their employer and fellow employees. Earlier this month, the House of Representatives passed their own version of the Truth in Employment Act, under the able leadership of Chairman Bill Goodling of Pennsylvania and Chairman Harris Fawell of Illinois, both of whom I had the privilege of serving with when I was a Member of the House. Today, I am introducing new legislation to address this issue of salting. My new bill, the Truth in Employment Act of 1998 is identical to the House passed version. Mr. President, the strength of this country rests on the freedom of individuals to pursue their dreams and ideas, and to risk their own capital to open and operate small businesses. Likewise, this country is built on the principle that workers are free to sell their labor, and if they deem necessary, to join fellow workers to negotiate higher pay or better working conditions. This measure will not undermine either of these legitimate rights. This bill only seeks to stop the destructive practice of ``salting'' to protect employers who operate non-union shops, and to protect employees who freely choose to work for these non-union employers. I would urge my fellow Senators to join our colleagues in the House and pass the Truth in Employment Act. The survival of America's small businesses demand that we act.

Mr. HUTCHINSON

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, small businesses are under attack in this country, and the United States government, through the National Labor Relations Board and other regulatory agencies, is aiding in this unprecedented assault. This battle is being waged against small employers by paid and unpaid union operatives who get access to non- union workplaces by seeking employment in these companies. Because employers are not allowed to refuse to hire union labor, they are usually hired. Once on job, these union agents put economic pressure on their employers by causing workplace disruptions that increase their employer's cost of doing business. This union guerilla warfare against employers is known as ``salting.'' The weapon of choice for these union operatives is to file unfair labor charges against their merit shop employers at the National Labor Relations Board or to file complaints against their employers at the EEOC, OSHA, or other regulatory agencies. Defending against these charges and complaints costs the employers in both legal fees and in lost time. As an added benefit, these cases often net union employees large damage awards or settlements because their employers can ill- afford the expense of defending themselves against the barrage of frivolous charges being filed against them. Consider the following examples: Gaylor Electric of Carmel, Indiana has had 96 charges filed against it. While each and every one of these cases has been dismissed without merit, Gaylor Electric has had to bear the cost of these cases to the tune of $250,000 per year. Likewise, hth Companies in Union, Missouri has had 48 unfair labor charges filed against it. Again, while all but one of these cases was dismissed, hth Companies has wasted $150,000 defending itself against these frivolous charges. Bay Electric in Cape Elizabeth wasted over $100,000 defending itself against 14 unfair labor charges--each of which was dismissed without merit. Wright Electric in Delano, Minnesota has lost almost $500,000 defending itself against 15 unfair labor charges, 14 of which have been dismissed, and one of which is still pending. In my home state, Little Rock Electrical, of Little Rock, Arkansas has been flooded with 72 unfair labor cases in just one year, 20 of which have already been dismissed, and 45 which have been set for trial. Finally, R.D. Goss in Clearfield, Pennsylvania has suffered the worst, having been hit with 20 unfair labor cases, all but one of which was dismissed--but which forced them out of business after 38 years. Mr. President, I support the right of workers to organize, and I am always reluctant to propose federal legislation that interferes in private matters--particularly private contractual relationships between employers and employees. However, in this case, as the above examples show, the federal government, particularly through the National Labor Relations Board, is wreaking havoc on merit shop contractors through this unfair, but legal, practice. Evidence as to the true nature and intent of union salting was best explained in the Organizing Manual of the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (IBEW), which stated that the true goal of ``salting'' is to: . . . threaten or actually apply the economic pressure necessary to cause the employer to . . . raise his prices to recoup additional costs, scale back his business activities, leave the union's jurisdiction, go out of business, and so on. Or, more bluntly, in the words of an IBEW organizing flyer, the goal is: . . . infiltration, confrontation, litigation, disruption, and hopefully annihilation of all non-union contractors. On February 13, 1997, I introduced legislation that addresses the issue of salting. This legislation, The Truth in Employment Act of 1997, would have allowed employers to reject an applicant that has no intention of actually working for the company, but who was instead solely interested in organizing and harassing their employer and fellow employees. Earlier this month, the House of Representatives passed their own version of the Truth in Employment Act, under the able leadership of Chairman Bill Goodling of Pennsylvania and Chairman Harris Fawell of Illinois, both of whom I had the privilege of serving with when I was a Member of the House. Today, I am introducing new legislation to address this issue of salting. My new bill, the Truth in Employment Act of 1998 is identical to the House passed version. Mr. President, the strength of this country rests on the freedom of individuals to pursue their dreams and ideas, and to risk their own capital to open and operate small businesses. Likewise, this country is built on the principle that workers are free to sell their labor, and if they deem necessary, to join fellow workers to negotiate higher pay or better working conditions. This measure will not undermine either of these legitimate rights. This bill only seeks to stop the destructive practice of ``salting'' to protect employers who operate non-union shops, and to protect employees who freely choose to work for these non-union employers. I would urge my fellow Senators to join our colleagues in the House and pass the Truth in Employment Act. The survival of America's small businesses demand that we act.

Mrs. HUTCHINSON

Mrs. HUTCHINSON. Title IX of the 1964 Civil Rights Act prohibits sex- based discrimination by any school receiving federal funds. However, by explicit omission, Title IX does not apply to admissions at same-gender public schools. This is confirmed by Department of Education regulations that allow public, same-gender schools, as long as comparable courses and facilities are offered to both sexes. That word, ``comparable,'' is the precise word used by the Department in their own regulations. They do not say ``equal''--they say ``comparable.'' My guess as to why they chose not to use the word equal is they came to the same conclusion as I did when drafting my amendment--that ``equal'' means ``the same,'' and that requiring two or more schools or two or more classrooms, (same-gender or coed), to be exactly the same would pose a nearly impossible administrative and legal burden for any school official to meet. It also simply misses the point that in some respects the educational needs of boys and girls are different, and that these differences cannot and should not be ignored. An all-girls or all-boys school that simply ignored the fact that they were teaching only boys or only girls would be an exercise in futility, and educators know it. Enforcing some ``equalness'' standards, then, would not only fail to clear the way for schools to try same-gender programs, it would very likely ensure the end of such efforts in the future. I would also note that the language of Title IX simply exempts admissions to same-gender public schools; it does not go on to say that this exemption only applies if a school meets either a comparability or an ``equalness'' standard. So ensuring that same-sex schools afford comparable opportunities for both sexes, as my amendment does, in fact strengthens the existing protections of Title IX against gender discrimination in schools. With regard to same-gender classrooms within co-ed public schools, the Department of Education requires that there be a sufficient showing that a single-sex class is necessary to overcome past discrimination against one sex. But this purely agency-created requirement is nowhere to be found in the language of Title IX, and is in fact contrary to the language and intent of the statue. It seems clear that Congress would not allow same-gender schools but prohibit same-gender classrooms, absent some onerous and ambiguous showing of past discrimination. This defies logic and the legislative history of Title IX. So, at least with regard to the use of the education reform funds identified in my amendment, I would seek to reverse this unnecessary and overly burdensome department-imposed requirement. In fact, it was our colleague, Senator Collins, who pointed out how burdensome this requirement really is. She recounted how she had visited an all-girls math class in Presque Isle, Maine. Despite the tremendous results she described in terms of watching girls really excel at mathematics, the school was forced to undergo a host of, as she described them ``regulatory hoops'' in order to be allowed by the Department of Education to continue to foster this success among girls in math. This is both unnecessary and unwise if we truly want to encourage achievement.

Mr. HUTCHINSON

Mr. HUTCHINSON. I thank the Senator from Georgia. I rise to speak in opposition to the Boxer amendment. My concern is that while there is, without doubt, an acknowledged need for after- school care and an acknowledged need for mentoring and tutorial-type programs, this would be taking the wrong step in the wrong direction and would create another Federal program, which, in my estimation, would be highly duplicative of existing programs, a multiplicity of Federal programs that already have been created for this purpose. School districts already have the authority to establish after-school learning centers, many already financed, and will benefit from additional provisions of this year's budget for after-school programs. Let me give just a few examples. The 21st Century Community Learning Centers Act provides $40 million for rural and inner-city public schools to establish after-school programs. The Safe and Drug-Free Schools Act allows money to be spent on after-school programs with a drug and violence prevention component. The child care development block grant and the community development block grant also provide money for child care, including after-school care. The Juvenile Justice Act will also target millions of dollars on prevention programs, including mentoring programs and after-school programs. It has already passed the House. These are just to give a few examples. So I, once again, must object to the philosophy underlying the Senator's amendment to create another Federal program. While I agree that one-on-one mentoring and tutoring is valuable, it will help improve educational achievement of students, such tutoring is already allowable under at least 19 other Federal programs. So I have listed a number of programs in which we have after-school care provided. There are 19 programs that have tutoring and mentoring components: AmeriCorps, Learn and Serve, VISTA, JUMP, the Juvenile Justice Mentoring Program, CAMP, the Migrant Education Mentoring Program, TRIO, are all examples of existing mentoring and tutoring programs that are out there already. The Senator's amendment, in my estimation, would simply duplicate these existing programs. In addition, we find there are a great many volunteer organizations that are providing and supplying after-school care currently. We are going to prohibit them, exclude them from the possibility of even applying for, competing for these grants. And so I think that is a serious, serious weakness in the amendment as well. Organizations like the YMCA would be ineligible to compete for the grants even though they currently are doing a tremendous job in providing after-school care in many cities and many school districts. So to say it has to be school-based, run through the school, I think would unfairly exclude those that are currently doing such a great job. The application described in Senator Boxer's amendment is a laundry list of paperwork. Read the amendment: identify goals, provide evidence of a collaborative effort, describe how the program would be administered, demonstrate how the activities will utilize or cooperate with programs, describe sources of other funds, provide a fundraising plan. All of these will require more bureaucrats, more administration, more reports, additional costs, and it would in all of that duplicate what we already have out there. I think it is the wrong thing for us to establish another Federal program when we have good programs there that need additional resources. We do not need to dilute that, diminish that by starting another Federal program for after-school care for tutoring and mentoring. So I ask my colleagues to consider this, do not just vote for an amendment because it has a good purpose, because it has a good goal in mind. Consider seriously that this program will be competing with a whole host of Federal programs already designed to meet this need in our schools and among our young people. I think that need is being met, and it would be a mistake for us to create more bureaucracy and a new Federal program. I hope my colleagues will oppose the Boxer amendment. I thank the Senator from Georgia for yielding this time.

Mr. HUTCHINSON

Mr. HUTCHINSON. How much time do I control?

Mr. HUTCHINSON. There is no doubt we are facing a crisis in American education, a crisis that is putting us at risk economically. While it has been 15 years since the education alarm was sounded in this Nation with the report, ``A Nation at Risk,'' most indicators show that U.S. education is still desperately in need of repair. As I have suggested, mandating the hiring of 100,000 new teachers at the Federal level is not the right answer. I further suggest there is a better way, and that is the dollars to the classroom. If we can take the limited Federal dollars--and I think that is about 67 percent of local funding of the schools right now--if we can take those dollars and assure they actually reach the classroom, we will be far better off. Keep the local control. It will mean more money at the local level. So the sense-of-the-Senate resolution that I am offering as a perfecting second-degree amendment would simply say that we will make our efforts to ensure that 95 cents out of every dollar actually reaches the classroom. Right now, money does not reach the classroom. It is estimated between 15 percent and 35 percent of Federal funds spent on education never reaches the classroom. My colleagues, that is absolutely amazing. That is astounding, that 15 to 35 percent of Federal funds spent on education never reach the classroom. That is as much as $5.4 billion of taxpayer money targeted to education that will get lost in nothing but bureaucracy. School systems waste their own money on Federal paperwork. Federal paperwork burdens account for 50 percent of paperwork completed at the State education agencies, yet only 6 percent of their funds come from the Federal Government. Federal money is wasted--wasted over and over again. If we can take a look at this chart, we have a little example of where some of those Federal dollars are wasted. There are 21,922 publications listed by the Department. What are some of those publications that our tax dollars are being spent on? They include: 140 studies on checklists; 13 studies on welding; 260 studies on surveys; 100 studies on education researchers researching their research techniques; and 3 studies entitled ``Cement: The Concrete Experience.'' If there were any other evidence necessary to demonstrate that the solution doesn't come from Washington, DC, I don't know what it would be. This should be sufficient. Is it any wonder that only 65 cents out of every dollar actually reaches the classroom when we are spending Federal education dollars in these ways? Again, three studies were entitled, ``Cement: The Concrete Experience.'' We also spend Federal education dollars for closed captioning of programs like Baywatch, Jerry Springer, Jenny Jones, Hard Copy, and MTV's Real World. Those are some of the areas where I believe we are currently wasting valuable and precious tax dollars. So we find that between 15 and 35 percent of these funds are consumed at the Federal bureaucracy. So $5.4 billion of taxpayer money targeted to education will get lost in the bureaucracy. Federal money is wasted time and time again. The fact is that a large portion of Federal education dollars support this huge and growing Federal and State education bureaucracy. The question boils down to how we spend the money, not how much we spend. We throw money at problem after problem and find that the problems simply get worse. Even the President said this: ``We cannot ask the American people to spend more on education until we do a better job with the money we have got now.'' So I believe the solution--or at least a step in the right direction is the dollars-to-the-classroom proposal. The fact is that those closest to the students are the parents. That is the first and best ``department of education'' that has ever existed. And the teachers who spend every day in that classroom with those children and the school administrators know best the individual needs of the students. That is why I am offering this sense-of-the-Senate resolution. Under the sense-of-the-Senate resolution, we urge that 95 percent of Federal funds should go to the classroom. If 95 percent went to the classroom, each class would have an additional $2,094 to spend on their particular needs. I will show this chart to my colleagues. Under the dollars-to-the- classroom amendment, simply go through the figures. The number of students in K through 12 in the United States is 51.7 million. Elementary and secondary Department of Education outlays for fiscal year 1997, according to CBO, were $15.04 billion. The current estimate of above-mentioned dollars to the classrooms, the 65 percent that actually make it to the classroom under current policies, is $9.78 billion. The goal of the above-mentioned dollars to the classrooms, 95 percent, would be $14.29 billion that would get to the classroom. So the added dollars for use in the classroom are over $4.5 billion. That is without any new taxes. Without any new appropriations necessary, we would free up $4.5 billion for use in the classroom to be determined by the local school boards as to how that money could best be spent. That could be the hiring of additional teachers. It could be that in some school districts the great need is to lower classroom sizes. It could also be that they need to build a new school building or purchase some computers. It could be that they need to hire a tutor to help in a particular academic area. Additional dollars per student under this formula of 95 percent would be $89.23 per student. Average class size is 23.2 for teachers in departments, 25.2 for self-employed-- approximately 24 children per class. If you multiply by 24, you come out with over $2,000 per classroom. I suggest to my colleagues that that is a far wiser approach than starting a new Federal program. The classroom is where learning occurs. It is where knowledge grows. It is not in some stuffy office in Washington where 35 cents out of every dollar is currently being spent. Thus, we should get the money away from Washington and drive it to the classrooms through that block grant approach that has been so ridiculed. We would be able to accomplish that, where local school boards or the States would be able to make those decisions. This resolution--it is only a sense of the Senate--lays the groundwork for getting education dollars to the schools, where local officials and parents and teachers can decide how best to spend the money. The question is, whom do we trust? Do we trust Washington, or local school boards, local schools, teachers and parents? A vote for this perfecting second-degree amendment is a vote for the classroom in your States and a vote against bureaucracy. That is the question. Do you want it down in the classroom or do you want to have another Federal bureaucracy hiring more teachers, another overlay, another step in federalizing education in this country? I ask my colleagues to support this sense-of-the-Senate resolution on dollars to the classroom, where the money can best be used, where the decisions can best be made. I reserve the remainder of my time, Mr. President.

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

Mr. HUTCHINSON. I yield that back.

Mr. HUTCHINSON. I have a second-degree amendment that I send to the desk.

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Let me respond to a couple of points. The Senator from Washington said the figures I used speak of a number of adults in the school system. That is not the fact. The Department of Education has provided these figures, and it speaks of class size. Average class size has dropped from 27 in 1955 to 17.3 today. That is class size. It has dropped dramatically. And while it has dropped dramatically, student achievement has decreased. Twenty-one countries tested in the 12th grade math and science competency; the United States ranked 19th. There is no disputing our schools have problems, but it is also very evident that simply reducing class size, as we have done over the last 40 years, will not be the magic bullet. It will not be the panacea that suddenly is going to give us great academic achievement. What we do need is, in fact, greater local control, greater flexibility. The issue is not, as my colleague tried to make it, whether we will eliminate the Department of Education; that is a red herring, a straw man. The issue and the debate is whether we are going to provide greater flexibility and greater control at the local level, or whether we continue down the path that Washington, DC, is the fount of all wisdom, have all our solutions float from the Nation's Capitol, and it is so evidently demonstrated we don't solve the problem, and in many cases we simply exacerbate them. I suggest this is a sense-of-the-Senate resolution that is, while well motivated, ill conceived and takes us down the road of further federalizing education, placing greater mandates and greater burdens upon local teachers while not appreciably addressing the educational problems we face in this country. I ask my colleagues to consider there is a better way.

Mr. HUTCHINSON. I thank the Senator for yielding. While no one questions the sincerity of the desire of my colleague from Washington to lower the class size and the student-teacher ratio, I think it once again reveals the huge philosophic chasm that has been evident time and time again during this debate on education and the amendments that have been offered on the floor of the Senate, the difference between the approach and the philosophy that we can best do things controlled out of Washington, DC, that knowledge and wisdom flows from this city and this institution, and that we want to concentrate the power and the control over education in this country in Washington. The effort here to support the President's plan for hiring 100,000 new teachers at the Federal level, I think, is once again evidence that those of us who believe that there needs to be flexibility with local control cannot accept this as moving in the right direction. One size does not always fit all. While some schools may benefit from reduced class sizes, other schools may not benefit from reduced class sizes. In fact most teachers--most teachers --in this country are satisfied with current class sizes. For example, according to a survey by the Department of Education, 79 percent of the teachers in my home State of Arkansas are satisfied with current class sizes--79 percent. My sister teaches in public school in Rogers, AR. There are many things that my sister is not satisfied with about education in Arkansas. I know that is true of public school teachers all across the State of Arkansas. There are many things they would like to change and improve. But 79 percent said that that is one area that they currently are satisfied with, that the student-teacher ratio is not the big problem in education in Arkansas. Over three-quarters of the teachers in Connecticut, Kansas, Montana, Nebraska, Oklahoma, South Dakota, and Wyoming are satisfied with the current class size ratio. Nationally--I would call the attention of my colleagues--nationally 65 percent of teachers are satisfied with current class sizes. So I suggest if there is a crisis in class size, if there is one group in this country that would know, it would be the teachers of this country. And the teachers of this country are saying that is one area where there is not a crisis. Thus the Washington-knows-best proposal to hire 100,000 new teachers does not make any sense. Class size does not always mean better education. Many schools with small class sizes have poor achievement results, and vice versa. For example, once again according to the Department of Education, Washington, DC, schools have one of the lowest average class sizes in the Nation but ranks near the bottom in academic achievement; while Utah ranks near the bottom in class size ratio but ranks very high in student achievement. There is not a direct and definite correlation. I further point out that average class size has already dropped significantly over the past 40 years and we have not seen a corresponding improvement in student achievement. Average class size has dropped from 27 to 1 in 1955, to 21 in 1975, to 17.3 today. Isn't it interesting that over the last 40 years, while we have seen class sizes consistently drop from 27 to 21 to 17.3, that student achievement scores--student achievement--have been dropping during that same 40- year period? Average elementary class size has dropped from 30.2 in 1955 to 18.5 today, a dramatic drop in class sizes on the elementary level, and once again we have student achievement scores falling at the same time. According to the Department of Education, most States already have average class sizes of 18 or less. Although elementary classes are a little bit larger, the national average now is 17.3, with the lowest being in New Jersey and Vermont at 13.8, and the highest being in California at 24 and Utah at 23.8 and Washington State at 20.4. The average elementary class size--18.5--due to demographics alone, is projected to fall over the next 10 years without any massive infusion of teachers from the Federal level. We will, because of demography, see the class sizes at the elementary level continue to drop. Many States, independent of the Federal Government, independently of anything we do, are already taking actions to reduce class size. My point being, we do not need a new Federal program to hire teachers when the States are already addressing this problem. We should not be imposing this from the Federal level. Five States--California, Virginia, Massachusetts, Connecticut, and Wisconsin--have already taken dramatic steps to reduce class size by hiring thousands of new teachers in their States. These States are hiring teachers, and they are doing it with State dollars. Senator Moseley-Braun yesterday shared convincing pictures that her State needs to use Federal money, if it gets it, for school construction and repair. I do not agree with a Federal program to do that. But Illinois has an average class size of 17. Their great need, according to Senator Moseley-Braun, is not for an infusion of teachers. Their great need is actually in school construction. That is the beauty of the Gorton approach. That is the beauty of the dollars-to-the-classrooms approach. I have a bill we introduced that would ensure that the money actually reaches the local level and that the local decisionmakers have the right to decide where the need is and how that money should be spent. Washington, DC, needs funds for school repair, textbooks and other supplies in the District right here. The great need is not for more teachers in the Nation's Capital. The great need is school repair, textbooks, other supplies, perhaps computers. They already have an average class size of 15 in the District. And so what do we say? ``Well, let's hire 100,000 new teachers.'' That is not the great need here in our Nation's Capital. That is not the great need in the State of Arkansas. There are many needs in education, some of them being resource oriented. But for us to have a one-size-fits-all solution from Washington is not the direction we need to be going. A new Federal teacher program would further add to the paperwork burden that our teachers already complain about, thus increasing the true cost of this program and reducing its effectiveness. As we have heard so often in this debate, we provide 6, 7 percent of local school funding but we provide 50 to 60 percent of their regulations and their paperwork burden. So what do we come up with? Another Federal solution with more paperwork and more regulations on that local level. New Federal programs require new Federal bureaucrats to administer the program. We have already placed an enormously heavy burden upon those local teachers, and we don't need to siphon off scarce Federal dollars going to the States currently to start a new program hiring large numbers of teachers with Federal dollars. My sister, Gerri, teaches at the Reagan Elementary Public School in Rogers, AR. She reflects the attitude of 79 percent of the teachers in Arkansas that class size is not the big problem that she faces. Discipline, yes; many other needs, yes. Class size is not at the top of the list. Arkansas has made great strides. I think we rank 28th in student-teacher ratio nationally. Twenty-eighth is not great, but it is far better than we are in many other categories, including academic scores and the percentage going on to college and so forth. So while we have many challenges, we wouldn't put class size at the top of the list. We couldn't. I have never heard my sister complain once about the size of her class. I believe the Gorton amendment that we will vote on later today--the dollars to the classroom bill, legislation that I have introduced, that would ensure that 95 cents out of every dollar, Federal dollar, would actually reach the classroom and local control--is a far better approach. Allow local school boards, allow classroom teachers, greater discretion, greater flexibility on how those dollars are used, greater flexibility with fewer Federal mandates. Perhaps they need to paint the classroom. Perhaps they need to buy a computer. Perhaps they need to hire a tutor. Perhaps they have another local need. But what we don't need to do is to start a new Federal program and to hire massive numbers of new teachers from the Federal level. I reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the last minute of our time be reserved for Senator Coverdell from Georgia.

Mr. HUTCHINSON. I yield 2 minutes to the Senator from Oklahoma.

Mr. HUTCHINSON. I have 2 minutes remaining?

Mr. HUTCHINSON. I appreciate the Senator from Oklahoma and his clarification on the amendment, the sense-of-the-Senate resolution of the Senator from Washington, because it is not clear whether these are Federal teachers, federally funded or not. It is clear now that it is Senator Murray's intention that this fulfill the President's request in his budget; that is $7.3 billion. We all want smaller class sizes. My point has been that we have been getting that. Mr. President, 27 was the average class size in 1955, 21 in 1975, 17.3 today. Class sizes are dropping. They will continue to. Demographically, we are told class sizes will continue to decrease. Furthermore, we know as well that many States are already addressing this problem. California, Virginia, Massachusetts, Connecticut, and Wisconsin have taken dramatic steps to reduce class size on their own. Our whole point has been that 100,000 new teachers hired at the Federal level is not the best use of $7.3 billion. We would be far wiser in use of limited Federal resources to ensure that that money gets to the classroom, as opposed to starting another Federal initiative, another Federal effort. We know that our schools have problems. Mr. President, 25 percent of 12th grade scores were below basic reading in the 1994 NAPE test. The literacy level of young adults, 15 to 21, dropped 11 points between 1984 and 1994. That has happened simultaneous with smaller class sizes. We all want smaller class sizes. I think that is wonderful. But is that the best use of scarce resources? The answer is no. What is the correct answer is to provide maximum flexibility with the fewest possible mandates, ensuring that the highest percentage possible of those dollars gets to the classroom. That is what my amendment does. That is what the ``dollars to the classroom'' proposal is all about-- more money to the classroom with fewer regulations and fewer controls from the bureaucrats in Washington, DC. I think most Americans agree with that, I think most schoolteachers agree with that, and I am sure most parents agree with that proposal. So I ask my colleagues to vote for this sense-of-the-Senate resolution. It expresses their reluctance, skepticism about another Federal program hiring another 100,000 teachers for our local schools.

Mr. HUTCHINSON. That is correct.

Mr. HUTCHINSON. I believe I have control of the floor. I ask the Senator from Georgia if he would be agreeable to me offering this as a first-degree amendment with a recorded vote and removing this as a second-degree amendment, in my effort, in my desire to be as agreeable and cooperative as possible to the Senator from Washington?

Mr. HUTCHINSON. It is agreeable to the Senator from Arkansas. Mrs. MURRAY addressed the Chair.

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Any implication that somehow I have wronged the Senator from Washington in offering this would be inaccurate?

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Is it your understanding that my offering of the second-degree amendment is any violation of comity as to the agreement that was entered into?

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

Mr. HUTCHINSON. I have not made that point, as we all well know. Let me say again, what I think I demonstrated very, very clearly is that there is no evidence that simply lowering class size is going to improve academic achievement. That's been the assertion from the other side. I yield to the Senator from Georgia.

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on the Hutchinson amendment.

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, as I began my remarks, I was not trying to play dirty pool, or something, as the Senator from Massachusetts has suggested. The rules are the rules. The rules allow me to offer a second-degree amendment. As I expressed at the very beginning, I think there is a big philosophic difference as to how we improve education in this country because I don't believe that a Federal program of 100,000 new teachers is the best way to do it. It doesn't mean that I somehow am playing dirty pool. We have a great difference of opinion as to what is the best approach. Everybody stands up and says what we want in this case is to just lower the class size and we are going to have better schools. No one deals with the figures. No one deals with the facts that I have given. I wish somebody would. The Department of Education gives us figures saying from 1955, when the class size average was 27 in this country until the current time when the average size is 18.5 in elementary, 17.3 overall, that we have seen class size drop now by over 10 per class size. During the same 40-year period, we have seen academic achievement decrease. Furthermore, I wish somebody would explain this to me. Here in Washington, DC, we have one of the lowest average class sizes in the Nation--13. Yet, our Nation's Capital ranks near the bottom in academic achievement. If this is the solution, why 100,000? Let's hire 200,000, if the solution to education in this country is getting class sizes down. Let's get it down to 10. But the fact is we have seen class sizes drop and drop and drop, and at the same time we have seen academic scores--nationalized achievement tests--drop and drop and drop. What do we do? Let's hire more teachers. That is bound to help. Yet, no one wants to deal with the issue. They just want to say this isn't right, that you should offer a second-degree amendment. By the way, I am so glad about the endorsement of the 95 cents out of every dollar going to classrooms. There is legislation that would do that. I expect now--as Senator Dorgan says--I don't think they actually will but I hope that we get the dollars for the classrooms and allow us to get that money to the classrooms. It is a better approach. In Utah, the State of Utah ranks near the bottom in class size. In fact, I think it was 48th in class size. Yet, they are at the top nationally in student achievement. But the way we are going to solve the school problems in this country is hire more teachers.

Mr. HUTCHINSON

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Thank you, Mr. President. Mr. President, this is a dollars-for-the-classroom amendment that expresses the sense of the Senate that we will do our best to ensure that 95 cents out of every dollar actually gets to the classroom where the needs are the greatest. Unfortunately, studies indicate that right now as little as 65 cents of every Federal education dollar actually gets down to the classroom. Where does it go? Much of it goes to bureaucracies, Federal and State. We have 307 Federal education programs. This simply says let's give 95 cents out of every dollar to the classroom. That will be $2,000 per classroom for every classroom in America--additional money that the teachers and the local school boards can determine how it should be spent. It maximizes local control. States' needs are different. To say 100,000 teachers or to say let's spend Federal dollars for construction isn't the wisest approach. It is better to let those decisions be made locally where the needs differ across the country. The question on this sense-of-the-Senate amendment is, Are you for bureaucrats, or are you for books? I think we want it to go to the classroom. Let's support this sense of the Senate. Mr. KENNEDY addressed the Chair.