Tim Hutchinson

Mr. HUTCHINSON

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, yesterday, while millions of American households across the country were struggling to understand which of the 480 separate IRS tax forms applied to them, while they were trudging along, trying to read through the accompanying 280 supplemental explanatory IRS pamphlets, while their tax accountants and tax attorneys worked hard to keep them abreast of the more than 800,000 words which make up this country's Tax Code, and while families nervously anticipated the impending IRS deadline of April 15, which is now less than 6 weeks away, President Clinton had the audacity to call my efforts to sunset this country's incomprehensible maze that we call a Tax Code in the year 2001--irresponsible. Following his speech, President Clinton's chief economic adviser Gene Sperling equated my bill, the Tax Code Termination Act, with ``reckless river boat gambling.'' Worse yet, President Clinton's Deputy Treasury Secretary stated, ``We have a Tax Code today that works better for Americans as they do what is crucial to them in their lives.'' He said that the Tax Code works for Americans. No; Americans may feel they work for the Tax Code. They surely do not believe that the Tax Code works for them. In short, the President and his advisers were telling the American people in the midst of their ``tax season migraines,'' that this Tax Code works just fine. Are the American people to believe that President Clinton and his economic advisers do not see anything wrong with Americans spending a combined total of 5.4 billion hours--the equivalent of 2 full work weeks-- complying with tax provisions? Are Americans to believe that their President does not see anything wrong with the Tax Code that costs this country more than $157 billion per year? Is it possible that the President and his key advisers see nothing wrong with spending $13.7 billion per year enforcing the Tax Code, yet the IRS fails to provide correct answers to taxpayers seeking assistance almost one-quarter of the time? I think the American people will be able to decide who is being irresponsible and will be able to easily separate the ``river boat gamblers'' from the sincere legislators working to better their everyday lives. President Clinton's criticism of the Tax Code Termination Act centers around the notion that one should not set a date to sunset a law until a new law is written and ready to replace it. Doing so, in President Clinton's eyes, would be irresponsible. Well, is it irresponsible to sunset this country's transportation programs, which spend over $23 billion per year, before a new transportation program is written and ready to be put into law? Is it irresponsible to sunset this country's higher education programs before a new law is drafted? Of course not. In fact, right now this Congress is in the midst of debating a new transportation spending program and a new higher education program for one simple reason. When these major spending bills were passed and signed into law, they contained sunset provisions which terminated these programs 5 years after they were implemented. In fact, every major spending program currently on the books contains similar sunset language. The truth of the matter is that President Clinton doesn't mind sunsetting provisions when the law allows the Government to spend billions of dollars in taxpayers' money. The President does not mind sunsetting Head Start, doesn't mind sunsetting Pell grants or school lunches. Sunsetting only becomes irresponsible to this President when the law being sunset deals with provisions which take money from the pockets of hard-working Americans. The Tax Code Termination Act is anything but ``irresponsible.'' This act simply sets a date certain, well into the future, when the Tax Code will need to be reauthorized, which will simply place taxes and spending on equal footing. This bill will force Congress to completely rethink how we collect hard-earned taxpayer money and, as with major spending programs, it will allow a healthy debate to ensue on the merits, effectiveness and efficiency of the law as it is currently written. Why is the President afraid to treat taxes and spending equally? Why should sunset provisions only apply to one but not the other? Maybe it is because the President knows that this tax system cannot withstand close scrutiny--that it can't even stand cursory scrutiny. Maybe the President is afraid that Americans will feel empowered to force this Congress to rethink the amount and methods used to take their hard- earned money. Maybe the President is afraid that he will lose the power to hide tax provisions that benefit favored special-interest groups deep within this large and complex Tax Code? Finally, the President stated yesterday that the Tax Code Termination Act would create uncertainty--skillfully noting that ``uncertainty is the enemy of economic growth.'' Mr. President, is there any certainty in this system? Can one be sure that despite trying diligently to comply with this complex and incomprehensible tax system, one still won't be dragged into court and fined for failure to accurately comply with every jot and every tittle of the Tax Code? Can one be certain that they haven't overpaid or underpaid, that they haven't missed a deduction that is owed them or claimed a deduction for which they don't qualify? No; the only thing certain about this system is that it guarantees one's rights can be trampled by an overempowered IRS and that one's economic freedom can be jeopardized by overzealous tax collectors. While the President claims that his opposition to the Tax Code Termination Act is to protect business by ensuring them a long-term landscape on which to make major business investment decisions, most business-led tax organizations actually support our efforts to terminate this Tax Code. The National Federation of Independent Business, Citizens for a Sound Economy, and others know firsthand how many billions of dollars per year they waste trying to understand this Tax Code, much less comply with the Tax Code. They see their profits eaten up by tax lawyers and tax accountants. They know full well that the real uncertainty is in the current code, not in any distant sunset of the current code, and they know that the Tax Code Termination Act will create a clean slate on which a fairer, simpler Tax Code can be built. I am certain that when and if President Clinton attempts to take this debate outside the beltway, he will quickly learn who is being irresponsible; he will quickly see where the American people stand on this important issue. Finally, the Tax Code Termination Act, sponsored by myself and Senator Brownback of Kansas, is currently supported by the entire Senate Republican leadership and is being cosponsored by 26 fellow Senators. I urge the President to rethink his position, and I urge my fellow Members to get behind this effort and take the first step in simplifying our Tax Code by setting a date certain that this code will expire. It is one thing, Mr. President, to be cautious. It is one thing to be prudent. It is quite another to be controlled by timidity and frozen into inaction. As my colleagues have said, the Tax Code has had its place in history, now we need to make it a part of history. I ask my colleagues to join me in that effort. Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor.

Mr. HUTCHINSON

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, our economy is doing well. Over 13 million new jobs have been created in the last 5 years and unemployment is at a 24-year low. The engine behind this growth is America's entrepreneurs. Last year, over 840,000 new small businesses were started in this country adding to the 22 million small businesses already in existence in the United States. Not only are new jobs being created at an astounding rate, but job satisfaction levels are on the rise as well. While these statistics are good news for America, they are a bitter pill for America's labor unions. Because of the strong employment conditions, unions are finding it increasingly difficult to identify workplaces that feel they need labor representation. In short, union membership is in a free-fall. Last month, the Bureau of Labor Statistics reported that unions lost 159,000 members in 1997 alone. Union membership has declined from 14.5 percent of the work force to 14.1 percent this year. This drop in membership is hitting the unions where it hurts most, their pocketbooks. Unfortunately, rather than fighting back with legitimate, honest organizing tactics, unions are lashing out against America's merit shop employers with tactics aimed at undermining their very existence. Mr. President, I am always reluctant to propose legislation that interferes in private matters, particularly matters that deal with contractual relationships between employers and employees. However, in this case, the Federal Government, through the National Labor Relations Board, is a coconspirator in this union attack on small businesses. For example, Little Rock Electrical Contractors, which is a merit shop contractor in my home State that hires both union and nonunion labor, has found itself on the barrel end of several unfair labor cases filed by workers the company has no record of ever even having hired or even interviewed. Last year, George Smith of Little Rock Electrical Contractors testified before the Senate Labor and Human Resources Committee, on which I serve, that they often settle these meritless cases simply because of the cost of litigating them through the NLRB and the courts, which is a very, very expensive process indeed. Mr. Smith said that his business cannot compete against the flood of cases that are filed against them and which are being litigated by Government lawyers working for the NLRB. Rather than fight, they simply pay. In the end, this not only hurts the employer but it hurts employees and consumers who bear the brunt of this cost in lower wages and in higher prices. Mr. President, unfortunately, this case is not unique. Both the House and Senate Labor Committees have been flooded with testimony showing similar efforts by unions across the country to harass and intimidate employers whose employees have chosen not to organize. Interestingly, this practice, which is known as ``salting,'' rarely, if ever, results in a formal petition to organize. In fact, the true nature and intent of salting was best explained by Mr. Gene Ellis, an IBEW organizer, who wrote in the Maine Labor Record the following words. And I quote: We've had members get monetary awards in the thousands of dollars just for applying for a job, just a couple hours of effort. At this writing, I'm pleased to announce that five of our members will be sharing in $32,000 of BE&K's profits. All for just filling out an application. On February 13, 1997, I introduced legislation that addresses the issue of salting. This legislation--called the Truth In Employment Act of 1997--would allow employers to reject an applicant that has no intention of actually working for the company but is instead solely interested in disrupting the workplace and harassing their employer and fellow employees. Today, I am introducing three new bills which seek to further protect small businesses from stern and intimidating union practices by forcing Government bureaucrats to seriously evaluate the actions they take against America's small businesses and requiring that the NLRB expeditiously resolve cases that are brought before it. First, I am introducing the Fair Access to Indemnity and Reimbursement Act. The FAIR Act will provide small businesses the incentive they need to fight back against meritless claims brought against them with the assistance of the NLRB and its team of lawyers. Simply put, the FAIR Act will allow small businesses to recoup the attorney's fees and expenses it spends defending itself should they prevail. So if a charge is brought against them, and they defend themselves and prevail, they will receive their attorney's fees. This will put some disincentive into the current practice of filing absolutely meritless cases in the hopes that they will tie up and disrupt the workplace and eventually destroy the employer. It ensures that those with modest means, the small company, the small business man or woman, will be able to fight frivolous actions brought before the NLRB--making the agency's bureaucrats closely consider each and every case before they initiate litigation. Mr. President, passage of the FAIR Act would be welcome news to small businesses across America. In particular, John Gaylor of Gaylor Electric from Indiana, who budgets $200,000 each year to combat frivolous labor charges brought against him, would finally be able to recoup a large portion of these annual costs and would be able to reinvest this money into his business and into the welfare of his employees. Mr. President, the second bill that I am introducing is the Justice on Time Act. This legislation eliminates another obstacle small business must cross before they can consider fighting meritless cases brought before the NLRB. It currently takes the National Labor Relations Board an average of 546 days--546 days--to process unfair labor claims. This delay compounds the back pay rewards that businesses must pay if they are found to be in violation of the National Labor Relations Act. Furthermore, it delays the reinstatement of employees who are in limbo waiting to learn if they will get their jobs back. The Justice on Time Act is reasonable legislation that will force the NLRB to resolve unfair labor cases involving the dismissal of an employee within 1 year. And 1 year ought to be long enough. Finally, Mr. President, I am introducing the Fair Hearing Act which will require the NLRB to conduct a hearing to determine the appropriate bargaining unit in cases where labor organizations attempt to organize employees at one or more facilities of a multifacility employer. The NLRB, at the behest I believe of organized labor, has recently considered regulations that would end the NLRB's decade-long practice of resolving disputes over what constitutes an appropriate bargaining unit in an open hearing. While the NLRB recently pulled its proposed rule ending the use of hearings, and replacing it with a fairly broad set of ``union favoring'' criteria, the Fair Hearing Act would ensure that this practice is never again jeopardized by bureaucrats at the National Labor Relations Board. Mr. President, these three bills simply seek to level the playing field on which organized labor and small employers compete. The strength of this country rests on the freedom of individuals to pursue their dreams, to pursue their ideas and risk their capital to open and operate a small business. With a level playing field, these dreams can continue to be met and can continue to be realized. The three bills that I am introducing today will help ensure that the efforts of small business men and women across this country are not hindered by intrusive and misused Government regulations. I ask my colleagues for their consideration and support of this legislation. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the texts of the bills be printed in the Record.

Mr. HUTCHINSON

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, I yield the floor. Mr. THOMPSON addressed the Chair.

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I might proceed as in morning business.

Mr. HUTCHINSON. I would also like to add my commendation to the distinguished Senator from Virginia for his outstanding leadership on the ISTEA II bill and on his commitment to the infrastructure of this country. It has been my privilege in my first year in the Senate to serve with Senator Warner on the Environment and Public Works Committee, and it has been an honor indeed to see his commitment to improving the infrastructure of this Nation and his willingness to work with me on our particular needs in my home State. I commend you for your leadership. (The remarks of Mr. Hutchinson pertaining to the introduction of S. 1684, S. 1685, and S. 1686 are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')

Mr. HUTCHINSON

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, our economy is doing well. Over 13 million new jobs have been created in the last 5 years and unemployment is at a 24-year low. The engine behind this growth is America's entrepreneurs. Last year, over 840,000 new small businesses were started in this country adding to the 22 million small businesses already in existence in the United States. Not only are new jobs being created at an astounding rate, but job satisfaction levels are on the rise as well. While these statistics are good news for America, they are a bitter pill for America's labor unions. Because of the strong employment conditions, unions are finding it increasingly difficult to identify workplaces that feel they need labor representation. In short, union membership is in a free-fall. Last month, the Bureau of Labor Statistics reported that unions lost 159,000 members in 1997 alone. Union membership has declined from 14.5 percent of the work force to 14.1 percent this year. This drop in membership is hitting the unions where it hurts most, their pocketbooks. Unfortunately, rather than fighting back with legitimate, honest organizing tactics, unions are lashing out against America's merit shop employers with tactics aimed at undermining their very existence. Mr. President, I am always reluctant to propose legislation that interferes in private matters, particularly matters that deal with contractual relationships between employers and employees. However, in this case, the Federal Government, through the National Labor Relations Board, is a coconspirator in this union attack on small businesses. For example, Little Rock Electrical Contractors, which is a merit shop contractor in my home State that hires both union and nonunion labor, has found itself on the barrel end of several unfair labor cases filed by workers the company has no record of ever even having hired or even interviewed. Last year, George Smith of Little Rock Electrical Contractors testified before the Senate Labor and Human Resources Committee, on which I serve, that they often settle these meritless cases simply because of the cost of litigating them through the NLRB and the courts, which is a very, very expensive process indeed. Mr. Smith said that his business cannot compete against the flood of cases that are filed against them and which are being litigated by Government lawyers working for the NLRB. Rather than fight, they simply pay. In the end, this not only hurts the employer but it hurts employees and consumers who bear the brunt of this cost in lower wages and in higher prices. Mr. President, unfortunately, this case is not unique. Both the House and Senate Labor Committees have been flooded with testimony showing similar efforts by unions across the country to harass and intimidate employers whose employees have chosen not to organize. Interestingly, this practice, which is known as ``salting,'' rarely, if ever, results in a formal petition to organize. In fact, the true nature and intent of salting was best explained by Mr. Gene Ellis, an IBEW organizer, who wrote in the Maine Labor Record the following words. And I quote: We've had members get monetary awards in the thousands of dollars just for applying for a job, just a couple hours of effort. At this writing, I'm pleased to announce that five of our members will be sharing in $32,000 of BE&K's profits. All for just filling out an application. On February 13, 1997, I introduced legislation that addresses the issue of salting. This legislation--called the Truth In Employment Act of 1997--would allow employers to reject an applicant that has no intention of actually working for the company but is instead solely interested in disrupting the workplace and harassing their employer and fellow employees. Today, I am introducing three new bills which seek to further protect small businesses from stern and intimidating union practices by forcing Government bureaucrats to seriously evaluate the actions they take against America's small businesses and requiring that the NLRB expeditiously resolve cases that are brought before it. First, I am introducing the Fair Access to Indemnity and Reimbursement Act. The FAIR Act will provide small businesses the incentive they need to fight back against meritless claims brought against them with the assistance of the NLRB and its team of lawyers. Simply put, the FAIR Act will allow small businesses to recoup the attorney's fees and expenses it spends defending itself should they prevail. So if a charge is brought against them, and they defend themselves and prevail, they will receive their attorney's fees. This will put some disincentive into the current practice of filing absolutely meritless cases in the hopes that they will tie up and disrupt the workplace and eventually destroy the employer. It ensures that those with modest means, the small company, the small business man or woman, will be able to fight frivolous actions brought before the NLRB--making the agency's bureaucrats closely consider each and every case before they initiate litigation. Mr. President, passage of the FAIR Act would be welcome news to small businesses across America. In particular, John Gaylor of Gaylor Electric from Indiana, who budgets $200,000 each year to combat frivolous labor charges brought against him, would finally be able to recoup a large portion of these annual costs and would be able to reinvest this money into his business and into the welfare of his employees. Mr. President, the second bill that I am introducing is the Justice on Time Act. This legislation eliminates another obstacle small business must cross before they can consider fighting meritless cases brought before the NLRB. It currently takes the National Labor Relations Board an average of 546 days--546 days--to process unfair labor claims. This delay compounds the back pay rewards that businesses must pay if they are found to be in violation of the National Labor Relations Act. Furthermore, it delays the reinstatement of employees who are in limbo waiting to learn if they will get their jobs back. The Justice on Time Act is reasonable legislation that will force the NLRB to resolve unfair labor cases involving the dismissal of an employee within 1 year. And 1 year ought to be long enough. Finally, Mr. President, I am introducing the Fair Hearing Act which will require the NLRB to conduct a hearing to determine the appropriate bargaining unit in cases where labor organizations attempt to organize employees at one or more facilities of a multifacility employer. The NLRB, at the behest I believe of organized labor, has recently considered regulations that would end the NLRB's decade-long practice of resolving disputes over what constitutes an appropriate bargaining unit in an open hearing. While the NLRB recently pulled its proposed rule ending the use of hearings, and replacing it with a fairly broad set of ``union favoring'' criteria, the Fair Hearing Act would ensure that this practice is never again jeopardized by bureaucrats at the National Labor Relations Board. Mr. President, these three bills simply seek to level the playing field on which organized labor and small employers compete. The strength of this country rests on the freedom of individuals to pursue their dreams, to pursue their ideas and risk their capital to open and operate a small business. With a level playing field, these dreams can continue to be met and can continue to be realized. The three bills that I am introducing today will help ensure that the efforts of small business men and women across this country are not hindered by intrusive and misused Government regulations. I ask my colleagues for their consideration and support of this legislation. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the texts of the bills be printed in the Record.

Mr. HUTCHINSON

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, I join Senator Brownback in the introduction of the Tax Code Termination Act today and will explain a little bit about our motivation and our rationale for what I think will prove to be very historic legislation. I heard it said that a tax form is a lot like a laundry list, either way you are going to lose your shirt; and a lot of folks have lost their shirts dealing with this code right here, the Tax Code that we believe needs to be terminated, needs to be eliminated, needs to be pushed over the cliff, giving us a clean slate to start over again. Today's laundry list of tax provisions which now comprise 480 separate tax forms, requiring an additional 280 supplemental, explanatory pamphlets, is causing taxpayers to not only lose their shirts but to lose their patience. So what we have here is only the beginning. Because, in addition to this, there are the tax forms and there are the 280 supplemental explanatory pamphlets that accompany and explain and try to make rational, try to make understandable, what to most is incomprehensible. Taxpayers are frustrated that they must spend a combined total of 5.4 billion hours complying with the provisions of this Tax Code--5.4 billion hours. That's just a number to most people. Most people can't conceive of the number ``billion'' or exactly what that means. It is the equivalent of 20 hours a year for every man, woman, and child in America to comply with this Tax Code. A family of four will spend the equivalent of 2 work weeks, just for Tax Code compliance. I think you begin to understand how expensive it is, what a drag it is upon the American economy, and how much wasted time there is for productive Americans who could be using that time in better ways. The American people are troubled that mere compliance with tax laws is costing the economy over $157 billion a year, and they find it absolutely incredible that the Federal Government itself spends $13.7 billion per year enforcing this code, enforcing the tax laws. Yet, in spite of the fact that we are spending, on the Federal level, $13.7 billion enforcing the tax laws, one out of every four calls to the IRS will get a wrong answer. The Internal Revenue Service itself doesn't understand this Tax Code that we are asked to operate under. Unfortunately for taxpayers, and even for overburdened IRS employees, the Tax Code continues to grow and become more Byzantine every year. As the chart to my right shows, the number of words comprising the Tax Code grew from 235,000 words back in 1964, to almost 800,000 words in 1994. That is an increase of over 300 percent. This complexity has led to a veritable cottage industry of high-priced lobbyists. In fact, it is interesting, as you look at the chart, to see the parallel between the increase in lobbyists--in 1964, about 10,000, between 10,000 and 20,000--to almost 70,000 lobbyists that we have in Washington, DC now. So as we have seen the explosion in the words of the Tax Code, we have likewise seen an explosion in the number of the lobbyists up here who are lobbying on behalf of one particular provision or another that benefits their particular special interest. Even the Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997, which I supported because of the sizable substantive real tax cuts that it provided to middle-income families, continues the trend to complexity of the Tax Code. This act added several new forms and resulted in over 830 changes to the Tax Code. So it is no coincidence, when the Taxpayer Relief Act was signed into law last year--a bill that I voted for that provided the first tax cut in 16 years--but when it was signed into law, H&R Block, the national preparation service, saw their stock jump 20 percent. Since then it has increased 50 percent; to a great extent, I think, because of what we did here in Congress in the passage of a bill that further complicated an already overcomplicated Tax Code. Worse yet, as this chart indicates, the marginal tax rate for typical families with a child in college varies widely under the current Tax Code. As it was pointed out by two economists for the American Enterprise Institute, for typical families with incomes between $10,000 and $120,000, the marginal tax rates bear a strong resemblance to the New York City skyline. If you use your imagination, you can see the skyline of New York City in this chart. The results of this system are unacceptable. Taxpayers making between $11,000 and $30,000 should not pay higher marginal tax rates than those earning between $30,000 and $40,000. Likewise, taxpayers making between $80,000 and $100,000 should not pay higher marginal tax rates than those earning above $120,000. It is fundamentally unfair. Yet, while we in Washington debate the merits in the flat tax, the tiered progressive tax, the national retail sales tax, the modified flat tax, the VAT tax, all the various tax proposals that have been presented to Congress with all their various advocates and all their pros and cons, the New York City skyline tax continues unfettered. Today, I am glad to join Senator Brownback in the introduction of legislation that will force this Congress to address this inequality. Like a city block that has fallen into disrepair well beyond the patchwork repairs of urban developers, our legislation would level the current skyline tax and leave a clean slate on which to build a new, fairer, and simpler Tax Code. It is not enough for us to continue to tinker with this Tax Code. It is not enough for us to merely pass IRS reform legislation, though I support that and I will support further legislation to protect the rights of American taxpayers. But all of that is really incremental. All of that is really just nibbling around the edges. We must be much more fundamental in our approach to comprehensive tax reform, and it begins with establishing a sunset date, a date certain in which the American people can with certainty understand and realize that the unfairness and undue complexity and Byzantine nature of the current Tax Code will be eliminated once and for all. Many have claimed that this national movement to terminate the Tax Code is irresponsible, in spite of the fact that millions of Americans have joined this movement. Hundreds of thousands have already signed petitions, called, e-mailed, written letters to their Representatives demanding that we terminate this Tax Code or ``scrap the code,'' as some have said, or ``explode the code,'' as others have even more graphically expressed themselves. There are those who would say that in spite of that, that the move to terminate the existing Tax Code is an act that is irresponsible. These critics have warned that the Government cannot just scrap its Tax Code without knowing how it is going to be replaced. I believe what these critics fail to realize, is that almost every major spending program of the U.S. Government terminates every 5 or 6 years. Part of the wisdom of how we operate in this Congress is that when we establish a spending program it is for a certain period of time with a termination date, a sunset date; and subsequent to that termination date, it follows that there will be a debate and there will either be reauthorization or the termination of that program. Whether it's Head Start, whether it's the school lunch program, the student loan program, or the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act, ISTEA legislation, which we are going to right now on the reauthorization--all of them expire, all of them terminate, and must be reauthorized. So, far from being irresponsible, this termination process forces Congress to reconsider the effectiveness and efficiency of these major spending programs before they can be replaced. In short, the Tax Code Termination Act places Federal taxes on the same footing as Federal spending. It will allow us to clean the slate, and on that clean slate, Congress will be able to write a smaller, simpler, fairer Tax Code for the American people. In the end, the Tax Code will be taken to the cleaners and the taxpayers will get to keep their shirts. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. HUTCHINSON

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, I join Senator Brownback in the introduction of the Tax Code Termination Act today and will explain a little bit about our motivation and our rationale for what I think will prove to be very historic legislation. I heard it said that a tax form is a lot like a laundry list, either way you are going to lose your shirt; and a lot of folks have lost their shirts dealing with this code right here, the Tax Code that we believe needs to be terminated, needs to be eliminated, needs to be pushed over the cliff, giving us a clean slate to start over again. Today's laundry list of tax provisions which now comprise 480 separate tax forms, requiring an additional 280 supplemental, explanatory pamphlets, is causing taxpayers to not only lose their shirts but to lose their patience. So what we have here is only the beginning. Because, in addition to this, there are the tax forms and there are the 280 supplemental explanatory pamphlets that accompany and explain and try to make rational, try to make understandable, what to most is incomprehensible. Taxpayers are frustrated that they must spend a combined total of 5.4 billion hours complying with the provisions of this Tax Code--5.4 billion hours. That's just a number to most people. Most people can't conceive of the number ``billion'' or exactly what that means. It is the equivalent of 20 hours a year for every man, woman, and child in America to comply with this Tax Code. A family of four will spend the equivalent of 2 work weeks, just for Tax Code compliance. I think you begin to understand how expensive it is, what a drag it is upon the American economy, and how much wasted time there is for productive Americans who could be using that time in better ways. The American people are troubled that mere compliance with tax laws is costing the economy over $157 billion a year, and they find it absolutely incredible that the Federal Government itself spends $13.7 billion per year enforcing this code, enforcing the tax laws. Yet, in spite of the fact that we are spending, on the Federal level, $13.7 billion enforcing the tax laws, one out of every four calls to the IRS will get a wrong answer. The Internal Revenue Service itself doesn't understand this Tax Code that we are asked to operate under. Unfortunately for taxpayers, and even for overburdened IRS employees, the Tax Code continues to grow and become more Byzantine every year. As the chart to my right shows, the number of words comprising the Tax Code grew from 235,000 words back in 1964, to almost 800,000 words in 1994. That is an increase of over 300 percent. This complexity has led to a veritable cottage industry of high-priced lobbyists. In fact, it is interesting, as you look at the chart, to see the parallel between the increase in lobbyists--in 1964, about 10,000, between 10,000 and 20,000--to almost 70,000 lobbyists that we have in Washington, DC now. So as we have seen the explosion in the words of the Tax Code, we have likewise seen an explosion in the number of the lobbyists up here who are lobbying on behalf of one particular provision or another that benefits their particular special interest. Even the Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997, which I supported because of the sizable substantive real tax cuts that it provided to middle-income families, continues the trend to complexity of the Tax Code. This act added several new forms and resulted in over 830 changes to the Tax Code. So it is no coincidence, when the Taxpayer Relief Act was signed into law last year--a bill that I voted for that provided the first tax cut in 16 years--but when it was signed into law, H&R Block, the national preparation service, saw their stock jump 20 percent. Since then it has increased 50 percent; to a great extent, I think, because of what we did here in Congress in the passage of a bill that further complicated an already overcomplicated Tax Code. Worse yet, as this chart indicates, the marginal tax rate for typical families with a child in college varies widely under the current Tax Code. As it was pointed out by two economists for the American Enterprise Institute, for typical families with incomes between $10,000 and $120,000, the marginal tax rates bear a strong resemblance to the New York City skyline. If you use your imagination, you can see the skyline of New York City in this chart. The results of this system are unacceptable. Taxpayers making between $11,000 and $30,000 should not pay higher marginal tax rates than those earning between $30,000 and $40,000. Likewise, taxpayers making between $80,000 and $100,000 should not pay higher marginal tax rates than those earning above $120,000. It is fundamentally unfair. Yet, while we in Washington debate the merits in the flat tax, the tiered progressive tax, the national retail sales tax, the modified flat tax, the VAT tax, all the various tax proposals that have been presented to Congress with all their various advocates and all their pros and cons, the New York City skyline tax continues unfettered. Today, I am glad to join Senator Brownback in the introduction of legislation that will force this Congress to address this inequality. Like a city block that has fallen into disrepair well beyond the patchwork repairs of urban developers, our legislation would level the current skyline tax and leave a clean slate on which to build a new, fairer, and simpler Tax Code. It is not enough for us to continue to tinker with this Tax Code. It is not enough for us to merely pass IRS reform legislation, though I support that and I will support further legislation to protect the rights of American taxpayers. But all of that is really incremental. All of that is really just nibbling around the edges. We must be much more fundamental in our approach to comprehensive tax reform, and it begins with establishing a sunset date, a date certain in which the American people can with certainty understand and realize that the unfairness and undue complexity and Byzantine nature of the current Tax Code will be eliminated once and for all. Many have claimed that this national movement to terminate the Tax Code is irresponsible, in spite of the fact that millions of Americans have joined this movement. Hundreds of thousands have already signed petitions, called, e-mailed, written letters to their Representatives demanding that we terminate this Tax Code or ``scrap the code,'' as some have said, or ``explode the code,'' as others have even more graphically expressed themselves. There are those who would say that in spite of that, that the move to terminate the existing Tax Code is an act that is irresponsible. These critics have warned that the Government cannot just scrap its Tax Code without knowing how it is going to be replaced. I believe what these critics fail to realize, is that almost every major spending program of the U.S. Government terminates every 5 or 6 years. Part of the wisdom of how we operate in this Congress is that when we establish a spending program it is for a certain period of time with a termination date, a sunset date; and subsequent to that termination date, it follows that there will be a debate and there will either be reauthorization or the termination of that program. Whether it's Head Start, whether it's the school lunch program, the student loan program, or the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act, ISTEA legislation, which we are going to right now on the reauthorization--all of them expire, all of them terminate, and must be reauthorized. So, far from being irresponsible, this termination process forces Congress to reconsider the effectiveness and efficiency of these major spending programs before they can be replaced. In short, the Tax Code Termination Act places Federal taxes on the same footing as Federal spending. It will allow us to clean the slate, and on that clean slate, Congress will be able to write a smaller, simpler, fairer Tax Code for the American people. In the end, the Tax Code will be taken to the cleaners and the taxpayers will get to keep their shirts. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. HUTCHINSON

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to proceed as in morning business for a period not to exceed 10 minutes.

Mr. HUTCHINSON. I thank the Chair. (The remarks of Mr. Hutchinson pertaining to the introduction of S. 1631 are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')

Mr. HUTCHINSON

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, imagine, if you will, that your daughter is given an assignment by her teacher which requires her to keep a journal, not just a journal of her own intimate and very private thoughts, but of answers to questions that have been posed to her by her teacher. Should you as a parent have a right to know what questions the teacher has posed, what questions the teacher has asked? Now imagine that a research team from a local university is given permission by your child's school to perform psychological exams on your son or daughter. Should you as a parent in that situation have a right to approve of this exam before it takes place? Should you as a parent at least be informed about the impending exams? Finally, Mr. President, imagine that your son is required to take a class in ``decisionmaking'' which you are concerned may include discussion of issues that might violate or be contrary to the teachings you have espoused and inculcated in your children in the home.Should you, in that circumstance, as a parent have a right to review the classroom material prior to enrolling your children in that particular class, in that decisionmaking class? In each of these three examples, the clear and, I think, the obvious answer is yes, parents, as those to whom primary responsibility for the education of their children is entrusted, should be allowed to know what questions their children are being asked; parents should have the right to decide whether or not their children are examined psychologically; parents should have the right to review their children's curriculum. Unfortunately, the above examples are not just random hypotheticals that I dreamed up or that I had my staff dream up. These are real-world examples of how public schools are currently usurping the rights of parents to be informed about the education of their children. Mr. and Mrs. Robinson from Sheridan, AR, have yet to learn what questions were posed to their daughter by her teacher in an in-class journaling assignment. Parents in Monroeville, PA, have yet to obtain their children's records maintained as a part of a research project run in their children's school by the University of Pittsburgh. Parents in California have been forced to go to court to view the curriculum being used in their local school for a class that they fear may delve into deeply personal matters. How can this be the case? How can we have this situation in a country founded on the principles of freedom, in a country that has always respected the parents' ultimate authority in the rearing and education of their children? How can parents be denied basic information relating to their children's education? The answer may lie in a book recently published by Eric Buehrer entitled ``The Public Orphanage.'' In this book, Mr. Buehrer points out that public schools have become ``one-stop social service agencies'' attempting to address the needs of children that were traditionally the responsibility of the children's parents. Whether this trend is the errant result of a legitimate attempt to fill the void left in children's lives with the breakdown of the American family, or whether this trend is part of a more sinister philosophy based on belief that ``Washington or Government knows best,'' it is a trend that is leading to lower educational achievement and to less clearly defined standards of right and wrong for our Nation's children. In short, I think it is a trend that we should not allow to continue. The importance of parents in the education of their children was clearly emphasized in 1994 by Secretary of Education Richard Riley in testimony before the Committee on Labor and Human Resources. In this testimony, Secretary Riley, I think very powerfully and poignantly, emphasized that ``Thirty years of research tells us that the starting point of American education is parental expectations and parental involvement with their children's education'' and that schools must ``establish a supportive environment for family involvement.'' Despite this important parental role, Secretary Riley pointed out that ``many parents feel that their right to be involved in school policy--to be full participants in the learning process--is being ignored, frustrated or even denied.'' In short, Secretary Riley noted that many parents simply do not feel ``valued'' by the schools that educate their children. So today, I am introducing legislation that will value the role of parents in educating their children. It will help to establish a supportive environment for families by guaranteeing parents a place at the table in decisions central to the creation and implementation of education policies within their local schools. This legislation builds on the already well-established principles outlined in the 1974 Family Education Rights and Privacy Act, which ensures that parents have access to all records which public schools maintain on their children. The Parental Freedom of Information Act, which I am introducing today, will strengthen the rights of parents by guaranteeing them access to the curriculum being used to teach their children. Current law, the 1974 law, ensures that parents will have access to the records and files that are maintained on their children. But we need to go a step further. We need to build on that successful 1974 legislation by ensuring that parents also have the right to access the curriculum being used to teach their children. I think it is a reasonable provision which allows parents to review their children's textbooks, audio-visual materials, manuals, journals, films and any other supplemental material used to educate their children. On the surface, one would think this legislation shouldn't be necessary. I think most Americans assume that parents already have the right to go into the school and ask to see the books, ask to see the curriculum materials, ask to see the supplemental materials, ask permission to view a film that might be shown to their children, to look at the journals that are in the library, and to have basic access to all of the information and all of the curriculum materials being used in the education of their children. But unfortunately, the record is now replete with examples of where parents have run into a stone wall and have met stiff resistance when they have tried to obtain that kind of basic educational information. Information which is so essential to the education of their children. So we say on one hand, we want parents to be supportive, we want parents to be involved, we want parents to attend PTA, we want them to attend parent-teacher conferences, we want them to show by their actions that they are actively involved in the education and upbringing of their children. We don't want our public schools to be social orphanages that take care of the children from breakfast until supper. Then, on the other hand, we allow policies to be enacted in local schools across this country that resist that very desire by many parents, that make it difficult, if not impossible, to access critical materials being used in the education of their children. The Parental Freedom of Information Act will provide parents access to curriculum and to the testing materials administered to their children, and it will require parental consent prior to any student being subjected to medical, psychological or psychiatric examinations, testing or treatment at the school. This legislation is very basic and straightforward and, I think, is just plain common sense. This legislation will empower parents by providing them access to the information they need to oversee and direct the education of their children and will slow, and hopefully reverse, the establishment of schools as public orphanages. I look forward to pursuing this legislation in committee and with my colleagues in the Senate. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. HUTCHINSON

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Labor and Human Resources Subcommittee on Public Health and Safety be authorized to meet for a hearing on Agency for Health Care Policy and Research during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, February 11, 1998, at 9:30 a.m.

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources be granted permission to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, February 11, for purposes of conducting a Full Committee business meeting which is scheduled to begin at 9:30 a.m. The purpose of this business meeting is to consider pending calendar business.

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources be granted permission to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, February 11, for purposes of conducting a full committee hearing which is scheduled to begin at 9:30 a.m. The purpose of this hearing is to receive testimony on S. 1069, a bill to designate the American Discovery Trail as a national trail, a newly established national trail category, and S. 1403, a bill to establish a historic lighthouse preservation program, within the National Park Service.

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, the Finance Committee requests unanimous consent to conduct a hearing on Wednesday, February 11, 1998 beginning at 10:00 a.m. in room 215 Dirksen.

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, February 11, 1998 at 10:00 a.m. to hold a hearing.

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Select Committee on Intelligence be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, February 11, 1998 at 10:00 a.m. to hold an open hearing and at 2:30 p.m. to hold a closed markup.

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Financial Institutions and Regulatory Relief of the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, February 11, 1998, to conduct a hearing on bankruptcy reform.

Mr. HUTCHINSON

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, imagine, if you will, that your daughter is given an assignment by her teacher which requires her to keep a journal, not just a journal of her own intimate and very private thoughts, but of answers to questions that have been posed to her by her teacher. Should you as a parent have a right to know what questions the teacher has posed, what questions the teacher has asked? Now imagine that a research team from a local university is given permission by your child's school to perform psychological exams on your son or daughter. Should you as a parent in that situation have a right to approve of this exam before it takes place? Should you as a parent at least be informed about the impending exams? Finally, Mr. President, imagine that your son is required to take a class in ``decisionmaking'' which you are concerned may include discussion of issues that might violate or be contrary to the teachings you have espoused and inculcated in your children in the home.Should you, in that circumstance, as a parent have a right to review the classroom material prior to enrolling your children in that particular class, in that decisionmaking class? In each of these three examples, the clear and, I think, the obvious answer is yes, parents, as those to whom primary responsibility for the education of their children is entrusted, should be allowed to know what questions their children are being asked; parents should have the right to decide whether or not their children are examined psychologically; parents should have the right to review their children's curriculum. Unfortunately, the above examples are not just random hypotheticals that I dreamed up or that I had my staff dream up. These are real-world examples of how public schools are currently usurping the rights of parents to be informed about the education of their children. Mr. and Mrs. Robinson from Sheridan, AR, have yet to learn what questions were posed to their daughter by her teacher in an in-class journaling assignment. Parents in Monroeville, PA, have yet to obtain their children's records maintained as a part of a research project run in their children's school by the University of Pittsburgh. Parents in California have been forced to go to court to view the curriculum being used in their local school for a class that they fear may delve into deeply personal matters. How can this be the case? How can we have this situation in a country founded on the principles of freedom, in a country that has always respected the parents' ultimate authority in the rearing and education of their children? How can parents be denied basic information relating to their children's education? The answer may lie in a book recently published by Eric Buehrer entitled ``The Public Orphanage.'' In this book, Mr. Buehrer points out that public schools have become ``one-stop social service agencies'' attempting to address the needs of children that were traditionally the responsibility of the children's parents. Whether this trend is the errant result of a legitimate attempt to fill the void left in children's lives with the breakdown of the American family, or whether this trend is part of a more sinister philosophy based on belief that ``Washington or Government knows best,'' it is a trend that is leading to lower educational achievement and to less clearly defined standards of right and wrong for our Nation's children. In short, I think it is a trend that we should not allow to continue. The importance of parents in the education of their children was clearly emphasized in 1994 by Secretary of Education Richard Riley in testimony before the Committee on Labor and Human Resources. In this testimony, Secretary Riley, I think very powerfully and poignantly, emphasized that ``Thirty years of research tells us that the starting point of American education is parental expectations and parental involvement with their children's education'' and that schools must ``establish a supportive environment for family involvement.'' Despite this important parental role, Secretary Riley pointed out that ``many parents feel that their right to be involved in school policy--to be full participants in the learning process--is being ignored, frustrated or even denied.'' In short, Secretary Riley noted that many parents simply do not feel ``valued'' by the schools that educate their children. So today, I am introducing legislation that will value the role of parents in educating their children. It will help to establish a supportive environment for families by guaranteeing parents a place at the table in decisions central to the creation and implementation of education policies within their local schools. This legislation builds on the already well-established principles outlined in the 1974 Family Education Rights and Privacy Act, which ensures that parents have access to all records which public schools maintain on their children. The Parental Freedom of Information Act, which I am introducing today, will strengthen the rights of parents by guaranteeing them access to the curriculum being used to teach their children. Current law, the 1974 law, ensures that parents will have access to the records and files that are maintained on their children. But we need to go a step further. We need to build on that successful 1974 legislation by ensuring that parents also have the right to access the curriculum being used to teach their children. I think it is a reasonable provision which allows parents to review their children's textbooks, audio-visual materials, manuals, journals, films and any other supplemental material used to educate their children. On the surface, one would think this legislation shouldn't be necessary. I think most Americans assume that parents already have the right to go into the school and ask to see the books, ask to see the curriculum materials, ask to see the supplemental materials, ask permission to view a film that might be shown to their children, to look at the journals that are in the library, and to have basic access to all of the information and all of the curriculum materials being used in the education of their children. But unfortunately, the record is now replete with examples of where parents have run into a stone wall and have met stiff resistance when they have tried to obtain that kind of basic educational information. Information which is so essential to the education of their children. So we say on one hand, we want parents to be supportive, we want parents to be involved, we want parents to attend PTA, we want them to attend parent-teacher conferences, we want them to show by their actions that they are actively involved in the education and upbringing of their children. We don't want our public schools to be social orphanages that take care of the children from breakfast until supper. Then, on the other hand, we allow policies to be enacted in local schools across this country that resist that very desire by many parents, that make it difficult, if not impossible, to access critical materials being used in the education of their children. The Parental Freedom of Information Act will provide parents access to curriculum and to the testing materials administered to their children, and it will require parental consent prior to any student being subjected to medical, psychological or psychiatric examinations, testing or treatment at the school. This legislation is very basic and straightforward and, I think, is just plain common sense. This legislation will empower parents by providing them access to the information they need to oversee and direct the education of their children and will slow, and hopefully reverse, the establishment of schools as public orphanages. I look forward to pursuing this legislation in committee and with my colleagues in the Senate. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. HUTCHINSON

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, as I listened to the speeches and the various tributes to Ronald Reagan and the speeches that are in favor of this legislation to name the Washington National Airport after former President Ronald Reagan, I had not intended to speak today. But I was moved by some of the tributes that I have heard. I was dismayed by noticing the opposition to this legislation--surprised and dismayed. And I thought there was little I could add to some of the glowing tributes that we have heard except my own personal experience because I think in many ways I like many of my generation owe to Ronald Reagan the inspiration and the motivation to go into the whole sphere of the political arena. In 1964 I was in junior high school living in the northwest corner of Arkansas. My parents were not particularly political. But I watched the news and followed closely the political events that year and the election campaign between Lyndon Johnson and Barry Goldwater. I remember--I think it was about 10 days before the election that year-- watching on our black-and-white television in Arkansas a speech by an actor by the name of Ronald Reagan. I remember sitting on the floor in front of the black-and-white television mesmerized as I listened to what later became known to a whole generation of young people as ``The Speech''--``A time for choosing,'' it was called--in which Ronald Reagan so eloquently laid out for the Nation the choice that faced America in that campaign and a philosophic choice that faced Americans down through the ages. And there is a junior high schooler listening to Ronald Reagan make that speech, a speech that historians say was the launching pad, if you will, for his political career, a speech that propelled him to a meteoric rise in politics, from the Governorship of California to the Presidency of the United States. I think it also propelled a whole generation of young people to look at politics as something noble, as something of a great adventure, as an arena in which truly a difference could be made in the lives of our fellow citizens and the future of our Nation. And so when young people write me today, and I so frequently get asked by elementary students and high school students: Senator, how did you get started in politics and who is your favorite President? I answer it in reverse order. I say, ``My favorite President is Ronald Reagan, and let me tell you how I got started in politics.'' And then we enclose in that letter a copy of the speech, the 1964 address by Ronald Reagan that started his political career and that started the political careers of a host of other individuals as well and made a great difference in America. I will not take time to read all of the speech, ``A Time for Choosing.'' I ask unanimous consent to have it printed in the Record.

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for up to 5 minutes.

Mr. HUTCHINSON. I would like to read just the closing two paragraphs of Ronald Reagan's speech in 1964 on behalf of Barry Goldwater, a speech that obviously did not turn the tide in that election but a speech that started his political career, a speech that inspired me to become involved in the political process. He concluded that speech, the speech in 1964 with these words: They say the world has become too complex for simple answers. They are wrong. There are no easy answers, but there are simple answers. We must have the courage to do what we know is morally right. You and I have a rendezvous with destiny. We will preserve for our children this, the last best hope on Earth, or we will sentence them to take the first step into a thousand years of darkness. If we fail, at least let our children and our children's children say of us we justified our brief moment here. We did all that could be done. I cannot say it as Ronald Reagan said it, but his words still have the power of great meaning, and what an inspiration it was to a Nation. And so when he became President of the United States, this great communicator and great optimist infused in us again the feeling that America can be and is a great Nation. With the Reagan tax cuts, the economic recovery that it spawned, with his repair of our neglected defenses, with his courageous and bold stand to say the words that everybody criticized him for when he called communism, ``The Evil Empire,'' as a result of that and his willingness to stand at the Berlin wall and say to Mr. Gorbachev, ``Tear this wall down,'' it sewed the seeds for what became the collapse of the old Soviet Union and most of communism in the world. And then perhaps no incident I think reflects the greatness of this man and his impact upon us and how he buoyed us as a people: Republicans, Democrats, and Independents, all Americans how he raised our spirits, inspired us and inspired a Nation than when on January 28, 1986, the space shuttle Challenger exploded just after takeoff, disintegrating into a ball of flame before a world television audience. The disaster understandably stunned America. Never before had the dangers of space exploration been brought home as graphically and as visibly as they were that day. The intensive prelaunch media attention had caused the world to know these seven crew members as we knew few other astronauts. We knew them with an unusual intimacy, and now they were gone. The Nation was staggered. Then Ronald Reagan took to the airwaves. The President of the United States delivered a 5-minute speech, and he concluded his 5-minute speech by quoting the words written by a Royal Air Force pilot shortly before his death in the battle of Britain, those words that we will remember: For I have slipped the surly bonds of Earth and touched the face of God. President Reagan's short speech of 5 minutes, concluding with those words, unified and uplifted and encouraged a heartbroken America. Tip O'Neill, who was Reagan's political adversary, tough political adversary, with whom he had many fierce arguments and disagreements, later that very day described the moment in which Reagan made that inspiring speech to America. He said, and I quote Tip O'Neill, ``Reagan at his best.'' It was a trying day for all Americans and Ronald Reagan spoke to our highest ideals. May I say, Tip O'Neill said it right because Ronald Reagan always spoke to our highest ideals. This is a very small tribute but a very fitting and appropriate tribute that we name this airport after one of our greatest Presidents and one of our greatest living Americans, Ronald Reagan. I thank Senator Coverdell for his leadership and his willingness to take on this project, and I yield the floor. Mr. COVERDELL addressed the Chair.

Mr. HUTCHINSON

Mr. HUTCHINSON. I thank the Senator from Georgia for yielding. First, I want to associate myself with the remarks of the Senator from Nebraska and his excellent analysis of the efforts by our government to federalize not only education, but many other programs as well. And I applaud Senator Coverdell from Georgia for his efforts in the area of education, and in particular, his leadership on the Better Opportunities for Our Kids and Schools Act, the BOOKS Act. I believe this bill demonstrates that we, as Republicans, have a deep concern about education in this country. We have a deep concern about improving education for our children, who are precious to us. And we recognize that this is best done at the local level, where teachers know the names of our kids, and can pick up the phone and call the parents when the need arises. These decisions are better made at the local school district level, the State level, and not by a greater and bigger Federal bureaucracy. Last evening, in his State of the Union Address, the President proposed ``the first ever national effort to reduce the class size in the early grades . . . by hiring 100,000 new teachers.'' So I ask, is this really a genuine effort to reduce the size of our children's classes? Or is it just another exercise of ever bigger Government, and a move in that gradual effort toward federalizing education in this country? Why are new teachers, mandated from Washington, the ticket to smaller class sizes? It is well-documented that many States across this Nation have taken on the responsibility of reducing the size of their classrooms; namely, California, Virginia, Massachusetts, Connecticut and Wisconsin. The Governors of these five States have proposed hiring thousands of new teachers using, not Federal dollars, but State dollars. This makes sense, allowing individuals closest to our children to make these kinds of decisions. Madam President, I trust those individuals in the thousands of cities and towns across this country who know your child's name, to make the important decisions that impact the very classrooms in which our children learn much more than I trust bureaucrats in our Nation's capital. In an effort to allow States and localities to make these decisions, I, as part of the BOOKS legislation, will be introducing the Dollars to the Classroom Act, that will redirect about $3 billion of K- 12 education dollars to the States, requiring only that 95 percent of that money actually reach our children's classrooms. This money can be for books, it can be for teachers, it can be for computers--whatever the local education officials deem necessary and important to the education of our children. While no one can deny the importance of providing the best possible education to our children, we also must implement these programs in the most responsible manner: by returning control over the education of our children to the place that it belongs, the parents and teachers and local communities and local school boards. By doing that, we will ensure that education dollars are spent wisely on programs and activities which really benefit our children in the classroom. Currently, the vast majority of all Federal education funding does not go to school districts or classrooms. In fact, in 1995, of the $100 billion the Federal Government allocated for education programs, only about 13 percent actually got to the local level from the Department of Education. That is a travesty, and a national nightmare. Madam President, the current system of Federal bureaucrats attempting to administer hundreds of education programs to our children is, to say the least, highly inefficient, as reflected in falling test scores and increased illiteracy rates. Many students are not adequately prepared to meet the challenges of life beyond high school, whether they go on to college, take a job, or attend a trade school. In fact, last year alone, 43 percent of high school seniors scored below the basic level in science, while 29 percent of all college freshmen were required to take at least one remedial course. Most alarming is that 68 percent of employers say that high school graduates are not prepared to succeed in the workplace. These statistics paint a very sad picture in a country which prides itself on having the best education system in the world. When limited Federal funding is spread so thin over such a wide area, the result is ineffective programs that fail to provide students with the basic skills they need to succeed. So I ask my colleagues to join Senator Coverdell and my good friend from Nebraska, Senator Hagel, and I, in asking hard questions. Which do our constituents really prefer? In whom do the citizens of America really place their confidence? The real question is--is it going to be BOOKS, or is it going to be bureaucrats? So why not let those on the State level, why not let those on the local level, who best know the needs of our children, make those decisions, make those determinations? Perhaps it is books, perhaps it is computers, or perhaps it will be a need for more teachers so that children will have smaller class sizes. But I truly believe that those decisions must be made at the local level. I believe the alternative, the Dollars to the Classroom Act, demonstrates not only our commitment to the education of our kids, but also proves that there is a better way to implement this commitment rather than creating an ever-growing Federal bureaucracy and appropriating ever-larger sums of money which are failing to provide for the real needs that our schools have. So, once again, I applaud Senator Coverdell for his leadership in education, his leadership on our efforts to improve education for all of the children in this country. I yield the floor.

Mr. HUTCHINSON

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the Department of Veterans Affairs Employment Discrimination Resolution and Adjudication Act. As we approach Veterans Day, it is indeed fitting that this important legislation will soon become an integral part of title 38, of the United States Code. This legislation addresses the critical issue of sexual harassment within the Department of Veterans Affairs and ensures that the rights of all employees will be protected. I would like to recognize the leadership of Chairman Specter and the support of Senators Rockefeller and Graham in the development of this necessary legislative remedy. Specifically, this bill creates within the Department an Office of Employment Discrimination Complaints Resolution which will be headed by a director who shall be solely responsible for resolving complaints of unlawful employment discrimination within the Department. It requires that those employed in handling the complaints be properly trained and that complaints are handled in a fair and objective manner. The legislation further ensures that those individuals in top management positions are held to the same standards concerning equal opportunity employment law as those individuals that they manage and supervise. The legislation requires that the Secretary of Veterans Affairs submit to Congress three reports on the implementation and operation of the equal opportunity employment system. These reports are due April 1, 1998, January 1, 1999, and January 1, 2000. In addition to the reports required of the Department, the legislation further stipulates that an assessment of the Employment Discrimination Complaint Resolution system be conducted by an independent contractor who has been approved by both the House and Senate Veterans' Affairs Committees. The first independent assessment is due June 1, 1998 with the second report due June 1, 1999. Mr. President, our Nation's veterans and the over 200,000 Federal workers who support the nationwide network of the Department of Veterans Affairs programs and services must be assured that they can put veterans first in an environment that has zero tolerance for any type of sexual, emotional, or physical harassment.