Kay Hutchison

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Thank you, Mr. President. I think we have taken a great step forward. I hope in the final bill this is a very big part of the reform we are all seeking in public education.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I thank all of my colleagues who have spoken so eloquently. I think Senator Wellstone, Senator Clinton, Senator DeWine, and I have each addressed a separate part of this bill. We have each addressed something from our own States that we have seen that caused us to come together to try to alleviate the critical teacher shortage that we have in public schools throughout our Nation. I think this is one more way that we will be able to add more creativity and more options to our arsenal of weapons that we have to combat the teacher shortage that we are seeing in our country. I thank all my colleagues. If there is no one else wishing to speak on this amendment, I urge adoption of amendment No. 534.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, amendment No. 534 is the Careers to Classrooms Act of 2001. I have several cosponsors who have worked very hard with me to put this amendment together because many of us had ideas along the same line. I thank very much my cosponsors: Mr. Wellstone, Mr. DeWine, Mrs. Clinton, Mr. Crapo, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Schumer, and Mr. Biden. We have all worked on this issue because probably every one of us has had some experience that caused us to realize we must do more to recruit teachers into our classrooms. I had the experience of having a very good friend in Greenville, TX, who was a Latin major in college. She taught Latin in a private school, but when she moved to Greenville, she did not have the teacher certification for public school, so she was not able to teach Latin. Well, they didn't offer Latin in Greenville High School, even though they very much wanted to do so. But she was not qualified to teach because she didn't have the teacher certification, even though she had taught Latin in private school and that was her major in college. So I started thinking, what are we doing, when we have a shortage of teachers, especially in rural classrooms, in urban classrooms, in high- growth areas, where we have subjects that are not being taught-- subjects such as math, science, languages--yet we have artificial barriers to bringing people who have expertise into the classroom? So I modeled the Careers to Classrooms Program--along with my cosponsors--along the lines of the Troops to Teachers Program, which Senator DeWine will speak about later, which has been so successful in taking retired military personnel who would like to have another career, who are 40, 45, 50 years old, and bringing them into the classroom with all of their myriad of great experience and giving the children in our country the chance to experience this kind of expertise. This is Careers to Classroom because now we have a number of people who have done very well early in their careers, and they would like to change careers, or they would like to retire from the computer industry. We want to lure those qualified people into the classroom. We want to target the classes that don't have teachers, where we have teacher shortages. So this amendment simply puts forward another opportunity for our school districts to give alternative certification, expedited certification, to encourage teachers to go into the classrooms in areas where we have teacher shortages. In this legislation, individuals with demonstrable skills in high- need areas would be given the chance to help a school that has a need for teachers in their field. It would provide limited stipend assistance for individuals involved in State alternative certification programs and will agree to teach in rural schools, schools with the most pressing teacher shortages, and schools with the highest percentage of students from low-income families. So we give incentives through stipends to help them get that teacher certification. Second, to help offset the additional costs these high-needs schools incur when they accept individuals in the Careers to Classrooms Program, the provision allows States to award grants to such schools to meet these costs. In other words, we are rewarding the school districts for creativity, for going the extra mile to bring qualified teachers into the classroom, and we are rewarding the person who is willing to go into the classroom by giving assistance for that alternative certification. I ask that we pass this bill. It is one more way our public schools can give every child an opportunity to reach his or her full potential. That is the goal of public education. It is why public education is so important. We want every child to reach his or her dreams with a public education. We like private schools. We like parochial schools. We think home schools are fine for many students. But we also want our public schools to be the foundation of our country, and that is exactly what adding more options and more incentives for creativity will do. I thank the Chair.

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

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, it almost seems to me as if we are not reading the same pages. To say that there is no new money in this budget for education is incomprehensible to me. In fact, this chart shows exactly what the increase in spending in education is. This is just the baseline. We are probably going to increase spending even above this. But this is the Clinton request. This is the Bush request. This is what we are voting on right now. The difference is $40 billion, and the Bush request we are voting on as a baseline is $44 billion. We probably have $6 billion on top of that. When we are talking about no spending increases when the President has clearly given an 11.6-percent spending increase, the largest of any Federal agency, I think it is just some vast miscommunication. Senators understand what is in this budget resolution. We are increasing spending 5 percent above last year's level. That is bigger than the rate of inflation. There is not a business or household in this country that considers a 5-percent increase a cut--a cut in our spending needs? I think what we have here is really a difference in basic philosophy and basic priority. The budget we will be voting on today increases spending in priority areas, such as education at the 11-percent increase. It will also increase defense. It will increase other high-priority areas. It will bright-line some areas; there is no doubt about that. Those are the kinds of choices that every American has to make in their own household budgets. Why shouldn't Government do the same thing with the American taxpayer dollars? Let's not forget whose money it is. Let's not forget our responsibility for the stewardship of other people's money. If we had our own choices, maybe we would spend it a little differently. But we must be careful stewards of taxpayer dollars. That is what this budget does. It also makes sure that we return some of the excess money back to the people--$1.5 trillion in tax relief for the American people, which is about 25 percent of the projected surplus. It is not the whole surplus; it is approximately 25 percent of the surplus. Social Security is going to be kept totally intact. All of the money that comes into the Social Security fund is going to stay with Social Security because we are going to need to reform Social Security to keep it from going into a deficit in the year 2038. We are going to keep the money in the Social Security trust fund, just as we said we would do, in order to prepare for the reform that will keep Social Security secure. And the downpayment on that is to keep the money that is coming in, in Social Security, right there and not allow it to be spent for any other purpose. Yes, there is a difference in philosophy. We will see that coming forward. The difference is we believe the money that is coming into the coffers of the taxpayers of America should be carefully managed, should not be overspent, and should not be thrown around but should be carefully spent and carefully prioritized, just as the people who earned the money and send it to Washington do in their own budgets. That is our responsibility. That is what we are producing in this budget today. Senator Domenici has been the most bipartisan and cooperative chairman of the Budget Committee I have ever seen. When I heard some of the comments about Democrats not having a role in this budget, I couldn't believe my ears because I have been watching Senator Domenici for the last month. I know he has been in meeting after meeting after meeting with the Republicans and the Democrats on the committee and, yes, with the White House to have the total input and, yes, with Members of the House of Representatives to try to see what we could do to pass a bill in a very evenly divided Senate. I think what was produced by the Budget Committee under the leadership of this great chairman is a wonderful budget that shows we respect the taxpayers of this country and we are going to manage their dollars wisely. We are going to spend more on public education, on Medicare, and on defense. We are going to spend money in high-priority areas. We are not going to spend more money in every area. I think it would be irresponsible to do that. Let's argue about those priorities. That is legitimate. That is a legitimate debate. But to say that we aren't increasing spending when we are increasing spending 5 percent, which is more than the rate of inflation and more than the spending increases in most households in this country, I think we have to get the truth on the table. The fact of the matter is, in the area of education, we see the largest increase and the highest level of funding for education for disabled children. We are making a commitment to the disabled children in this country. We are increasing Pell grants for low-income college students. It is a clear priority in this bill that we would try to make sure every young person in this country will have the ability to go to college if that is his or her desire. If that is a goal of a young person in this country, through Pell grants, low-interest loans, we want to make it possible for those children to have that opportunity. We have increased Pell grants every year I have been in the Senate. In fact, I submitted the amendment that made sure Pell grants went to needy students first rather than being peeled off by other interests. New reading program: That is the basis of the increase in spending in the education bill, $1 billion, tripling current funding, because we believe that if a child can't read at grade level in the third grade, that child is going to fall behind. There is no doubt about it. If you wait until that child drops out of junior high school or high school, of course, the child is lost. Of course, the child is frustrated. In fact, that is exactly the cause of many high school dropouts today--not that the young people aren't smart. It is not that they can't learn. It is that they cannot read. If they cannot read, of course, they can't comprehend the math and the history and the geography: Of course, they can't. That is why we are prioritizing getting to those young people at the early stages and finding out what the weaknesses are and correcting those weaknesses while they still have a chance to have the full benefit of their education. There is $472 million to encourage school choice and innovation. We are increasing the spending for historically black colleges and Hispanic-serving institutions. That is an area where I have been involved since I have been here. We have been year after year after year increasing the spending in both of those areas, and this is going to increase what we have increased by 30 percent by the year 2005 because that is a priority. Under the National Science Foundation, there will be $200 million for new K-12 math-science partnerships to try to encourage our young people to go into science and math because we know that is where the future is. I commend the Senator from New Mexico. I appreciate that he has been a responsible steward of taxpayer dollars in our country. I would not want someone in the Senate who thought that just because the money was there it should be spent whether or not the program warranted the added expenditures. And continuing spending is still something that should be worth applauding. If we are continuing the spending for a program, if we are increasing it, then I think that we have determined it is a priority. I think we should look at this budget from the eyes of the people we are representing to determine what the priorities should be, and knowing that perhaps we did not increase in some areas, and we might have decreased in some areas, but that does not mean we will not be able to come back and do something later. But it does mean we are going to keep our eye on the ball, and we are going to increase education spending, we are going to increase defense spending, we are going to increase Medicare, we are going to keep Social Security secure, and we are going to do the things that people elected us to do; that is, to represent them and their tax dollars with respect for their hard work to earn that money. The people of this country are hard working. They are productive. They should be able to keep as much of their money as we do not need for Government, to spend as they wish on their families. I do not think that is a bad priority. So, Mr. President, I thank the Senators. I thank them for this budget. I hope we will have a budget adopted by a large majority because I think they have done a good job. I yield the floor.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce, along with Senators Bayh, Hutchinson, and several other distinguished colleagues, the American Hospital Preservation Act. Our hospitals are the very foundation of our health care system, a system that is considered the best in the world. To ensure this quality of care remains at this high level, we cannot ask yet more cuts of our financially troubled hospitals. Two such cuts currently being faced by our nation's hospitals are a reduction in the annual inflation update hospitals receive for their Medicare payments, and a reduction in the Medicare adjustment teaching hospitals receive to support their medical education programs. Both of these issues are critical to the long-term stability of hospitals, and to maintaining the scope and quality of the care they provide. We do have the best health care in the world. Why should we put it at risk? Especially when the savings we have achieved already are far in excess of what was originally estimated. In other words, the cuts that were enacted have more than achieved their goals. There is no more fat left to trim. Last year, through enactment of the Medicare, Medicaid and SCHIP Benefit Improvement and Protection Act, BIPA, we were successful in getting approximately half of the annual market basket update restored for our hospitals. In addition, we delayed further reductions in the indirect medical education, IME, adjustment for teaching hospitals. This legislation would build upon that success, and would help to ensure hospitals' long-term financial stability. In effect, it would preserve the ability of American hospitals to continue to provide the highest level of health care to be found anywhere in the world. With respect to the IME provisions of this bill, all of the evidence points to the fact that the financial health of major teaching hospitals continues to deteriorate. In fact, with projections that Medicare margins could drop to negative 3.8 percent by 2005, it is becoming an increasingly common phenomenon that when a Medicare patient walks in to a hospital, he or she represents a money loser for that institution. While our hospitals must remain committed to providing care no matter the patients' circumstance, that sort of monetary shortfall will logically result in many hospitals closing down. Or, as we have seen happen many times recently, many hospitals will dramatically scale back their outpatient and other services for those in need. Particularly in the rural areas of our nation, having a hospital close down would mean losing access to life-saving medical services. It would also have a dramatic effect on the community's economy. Hospitals are often the core components of the local community. To have the hospital close down would mean the loss of jobs and of businesses. It would have a ripple effect on the neighborhood, destroying its sense of stability and community. This legislation addresses the unique situation of teaching hospitals. These hospitals, which are centers of experimental, innovative and technically sophisticated services as well as routine care and services, tend to incur much higher costs. We must recognize the higher costs these teaching hospitals incur to provide adequate learning experiences and faculty support to medical students. To do this, we must increase the indirect medical education adjustment one percentage point to 6.4 percent for FY 2003 and the future. In addition, this legislation will reverse cuts previously enacted by Congress regarding the annual market basket updates. These cuts are unnecessary and harmful. For a hospital to effectively compete for skilled workers, especially in these days of tight labor markets, it is critical to have an adequate overall revenue stream. Medicare's measure of inflation, the market basket update, plays a key role in determining the adequacy of these payments from year to year. As hospital costs increase rapidly in every area from labor to pharmaceuticals to blood and blood products to the costs of compliance with new regulations, the market basket update must keep pace. This legislation eliminates the update reductions mandated earlier. It is critical that we not neglect our health care system and that we continue to invest in the very foundation of that system, our hospitals. I look forward to working with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to ensure that this bill meets that objective yet still fits within our overall budgetary constraints. This legislation represents our obligation to not only our most vulnerable citizens, but also to all Americans. Our hospitals provide the highest level and quality of care in the world. This bill ensures that they will be able to continue to do so, and I urge my colleagues to cosponsor and support it.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce, along with Senators Bayh, Hutchinson, and several other distinguished colleagues, the American Hospital Preservation Act. Our hospitals are the very foundation of our health care system, a system that is considered the best in the world. To ensure this quality of care remains at this high level, we cannot ask yet more cuts of our financially troubled hospitals. Two such cuts currently being faced by our nation's hospitals are a reduction in the annual inflation update hospitals receive for their Medicare payments, and a reduction in the Medicare adjustment teaching hospitals receive to support their medical education programs. Both of these issues are critical to the long-term stability of hospitals, and to maintaining the scope and quality of the care they provide. We do have the best health care in the world. Why should we put it at risk? Especially when the savings we have achieved already are far in excess of what was originally estimated. In other words, the cuts that were enacted have more than achieved their goals. There is no more fat left to trim. Last year, through enactment of the Medicare, Medicaid and SCHIP Benefit Improvement and Protection Act, BIPA, we were successful in getting approximately half of the annual market basket update restored for our hospitals. In addition, we delayed further reductions in the indirect medical education, IME, adjustment for teaching hospitals. This legislation would build upon that success, and would help to ensure hospitals' long-term financial stability. In effect, it would preserve the ability of American hospitals to continue to provide the highest level of health care to be found anywhere in the world. With respect to the IME provisions of this bill, all of the evidence points to the fact that the financial health of major teaching hospitals continues to deteriorate. In fact, with projections that Medicare margins could drop to negative 3.8 percent by 2005, it is becoming an increasingly common phenomenon that when a Medicare patient walks in to a hospital, he or she represents a money loser for that institution. While our hospitals must remain committed to providing care no matter the patients' circumstance, that sort of monetary shortfall will logically result in many hospitals closing down. Or, as we have seen happen many times recently, many hospitals will dramatically scale back their outpatient and other services for those in need. Particularly in the rural areas of our nation, having a hospital close down would mean losing access to life-saving medical services. It would also have a dramatic effect on the community's economy. Hospitals are often the core components of the local community. To have the hospital close down would mean the loss of jobs and of businesses. It would have a ripple effect on the neighborhood, destroying its sense of stability and community. This legislation addresses the unique situation of teaching hospitals. These hospitals, which are centers of experimental, innovative and technically sophisticated services as well as routine care and services, tend to incur much higher costs. We must recognize the higher costs these teaching hospitals incur to provide adequate learning experiences and faculty support to medical students. To do this, we must increase the indirect medical education adjustment one percentage point to 6.4 percent for FY 2003 and the future. In addition, this legislation will reverse cuts previously enacted by Congress regarding the annual market basket updates. These cuts are unnecessary and harmful. For a hospital to effectively compete for skilled workers, especially in these days of tight labor markets, it is critical to have an adequate overall revenue stream. Medicare's measure of inflation, the market basket update, plays a key role in determining the adequacy of these payments from year to year. As hospital costs increase rapidly in every area from labor to pharmaceuticals to blood and blood products to the costs of compliance with new regulations, the market basket update must keep pace. This legislation eliminates the update reductions mandated earlier. It is critical that we not neglect our health care system and that we continue to invest in the very foundation of that system, our hospitals. I look forward to working with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to ensure that this bill meets that objective yet still fits within our overall budgetary constraints. This legislation represents our obligation to not only our most vulnerable citizens, but also to all Americans. Our hospitals provide the highest level and quality of care in the world. This bill ensures that they will be able to continue to do so, and I urge my colleagues to cosponsor and support it.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from West Virginia. I so appreciate the remarks he made about my friend, Bob Schieffer, and ``Face the Nation.'' I, too, have known Bob Schieffer for a long time. He grew up in Fort Worth, TX. His brother and I served together in the Texas Legislature. I have known him and his family for a long time. There is not a more principled, fair person in the entire news media than Bob Schieffer. I certainly appreciate the kind remarks made by the Senator from West Virginia. I know Bob Schieffer is very happy tonight, celebrating the anniversary of ``Face the Nation.'' He has taken it to new heights just by being a person who is trusted and respected by the American people. Both Presidential candidates choosing Bob Schieffer to be the moderator of a debate shows he is well regarded by Republicans, Democrats, and Independents throughout our country.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I want to talk about the education bill that is so important to all of us. We are hopefully very close to agreement on bringing the bill before the Senate. We are all a little frustrated because we have been waiting for the bill for about 10 days. There have been a lot of negotiations. There are some very key issues that need to be discussed, and I hope they will be discussed in the open. I hope they will not be negotiated away. Reform is the key to success in education. We are going to spend more money on education. In fact, President Bush has put forward a budget that provides an 11.4-percent increase in spending in education. That is warranted because we do need to add emphasis to certain areas of public education. What is going to determine success or failure is whether we reform our system, whether we make it accountable, whether we give parents the ability to know what their children are doing and how they are doing. If a child comes home with A's or B's and is promoted to the next grade, and you, as a parent, find out 5 years later the child did not read at grade level, that is a failure in the system. If a parent does not have the tools to find out if there is a weakness in the child's education, the parent is at a significant disadvantage, and the child is doomed forever. We need to make sure parents have the knowledge of how a school is doing. A lot of people say we should not have tests. If we do not have tests, how will we have a benchmark? How will we know where the weaknesses are? If we have tests, even if the test is not perfect, it will show a red flag and we will see the weakness. We can determine if the test is not right, if the failure is not real. At least we will check on it to make sure, but most of the time the failure is real. If we catch the failure at third grade instead of eighth grade, we will save that child's future. We will save that child's productive life because we can make sure that every child can read at grade level in the third grade. If we do that, then every child will have the chance to absorb the rest of his or her educational experience. But that child will never be able to absorb the history, the geography, the math, and the science if that child cannot read at grade level in the third grade and have the chance to progress. That is why we are trying to set a standard, not a mandate to every State about the test that is given but a mandate that there be some kind of accountability, some kind of test so parents know where the weaknesses are. In addition, we want to take the schools that are doing well in the same socioeconomic area and give that information about what works to the school that is not doing well. That is the purpose of accountability: to find out what does work so we will have a chance to help those that are not performing up to speed by showing them what has worked in schools with the same weakness areas. If it is reading that is a weakness, or math, or computer sciences, we will have some examples to show what does work because we do want to make sure no child is left behind. We are talking about reforms that include accountability, some kind of testing to see where they are and where the weaknesses are. We are talking about creativity to make sure schools that have teacher shortages have a bigger pool from which to choose. If we do not have a teacher who can teach French and the students are not able to learn French in that school district, why not go the extra mile to certify a person who majored in French in college but does not happen to have a teacher's certificate? Why not expedite the teacher certification so the young people in that particular school district will be able to learn French? That is what we are trying to do: give creativity incentives so there will be more teachers available to teach French, Russian, Japanese, or the Chinese language; more teachers who can teach math, science, and computer skills where there are teacher shortages. We must be creative. We must leave no stone unturned to make sure every child will get the chance to succeed with a public education. We are going to increase spending. We are going to triple the funding for children's reading programs to over $1 billion next year. We will have a 30-percent increase in funding for Hispanic-serving institutions and historically black colleges because these programs, which have been increased for the last few years at a very large rate, are doing a great service for our country. They are nurturing students in those schools to keep them in school to get those degrees to be eligible for the good jobs that a college education can give them. We are adding an additional $1 billion for Pell grants next year. At colleges and universities where I have made commencement addresses, I have had so many students tell me it is Pell grants that are responsible for their ability to get an education because their parents never could have afforded to send them. The Pell grants are an added incentive for them to go to college. In fact, one of the creative parts of this bill is increasing Pell grants by $1,000 to any low-income student who will enter the math or science field in college. That would be an exciting opportunity for our minority students, for our low-income students, for students who have not had a chance to have that extra Pell grant. If that extra Pell grant will give them an incentive to go into the field of math and science, then that student is going to have a bright future. We are going to increase by $412 million teacher professional development, making sure teachers have the tools they need to teach, that the best techniques are given to the teachers teaching our young people. We are going to have a $90 million increase in the National Science Foundation, the math and science partnerships program, so we can assure quality opportunities in math and science to nurture our potential inventors. There is a $40 million increase in school construction funding for impact aid schools. An impact aid school is a school that is near a military base. These are school districts that do not have the same tax base because a military installation does not pay local taxes. Many of these schools have been starved over the years. We are going to give them a boost to try to upgrade the school construction in these heavily impacted school districts where there are large Federal institutions. There is a lot of increased spending in this bill. But that is not all this bill is. If we just increase spending, we don't need to debate the issues of reform; we don't need to talk about accountability; we don't need to talk about vouchers or choice for parents or charter schools or trying to get more teachers to take up the teaching profession. Why would we do that if we just throw money at it and not do anything more? We could just pass an appropriations bill. That is what we have been doing. That is what hasn't worked. What we are hoping to do is to now reform the system. We want to give individual attention to every child. We are trying to give the Federal money in block grants to the State and local governments with benchmarks--not mandates, not heavy books of regulations they have to thumb through before they can take a step. That is not what we are trying to do. We are saying: Here is the standard we want you to meet. We want every child to read at grade level at the third grade. How you do it is your choice. We will give you extra money for teaching teachers how to teach reading for Pell grants, for the added emphasis on math and science classes, all of those things that would go toward making sure each individual student has the opportunity to reach his or her full potential with a public education. That is the point of this bill. Increased accountability. Focus on what works. Look at the other schools to see what they do that works. Talk to people who have made it work. I visited a school in my hometown of Dallas, TX, an elementary school. I have never seen so much creativity. The students have parents who are interested. The PTA is very active in the school. The principal welcomes the PTA. Stonewall Jackson Elementary School has a diverse student body. They are excited about learning. The teachers are pumped up; the principal is open and creative; the parents love working for the school. It works because everyone comes together to try to make sure every child has the most opportunity that child can have. This particular school also has a number of deaf students. They are integrated into the elementary school. Deaf students and hearing students are in the same classes, so the hearing students know how to function with the deaf students; the deaf students know how to function with the hearing students. It is wonderful to see it work because of the interest of the parents, the teachers, the principal, the school superintendent, and school trustees. It is a teamwork effort. That is what we are trying to foster in every school in our country. We want to reduce bureaucracy in Washington and increase flexibility. We want school districts to do what fits them best. Maybe they need a single-sex school in part of an urban area where they have problems with discipline. Why shouldn't they be able to offer an all-boys school or an all-girls school in a public school environment, if that is what the parents believe will focus their children on education. Why don't we open our horizons and look at what we can do to be more creative? Most of all, we are trying to empower parents. We are trying to give parents the information they need to make the best decisions for their children. We are trying to make sure parents will be able to get their children out of a bad environment and into an environment where their child can learn and progress and do better. That is exactly what this bill is trying to do. I am very pleased we have a President whose major priority is education. I am very pleased we have a bill that will put some creativity into the schools. I am very pleased we will have some amendments that I hope will add to the creativity and the choices parents will have. The bottom line is, if parents know what their children are learning and if they have an interest in their schools, they are not going to let their children stay in a bad environment; they are not going to let their children stay in an environment that is not serving the needs of their children. I hope we can start the amendment process on this bill because I think we have a chance to recreate public education in our country. It needs to be recreated. It has fallen down in the last 25 years. It is time we brought it back up. It is time we do not take no for an answer. It is time we do not allow someone to say that some children just can't learn. Every child can learn. We just must make sure we fit that child's individual needs and every child will learn. The key is catching the child early enough that we can give the child the full chance to have a quality public education. If we find out in the ninth grade that the child is reading at the third grade level, 6 years will have been lost for that child's development. That is not fair. We can do better. That is what I hope we will do. I yield the floor.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Yes, that is correct.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. I yield up until 4 o'clock to Senator Byrd, but I would not want it to come from the Republican time if others come and want to speak on the Republican time.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I understand our time would start in about 10 minutes. I am going to yield time to Senator Byrd, the time up to 4 o'clock, and then we will reclaim our time because we have speakers coming at 4. So such time as he may consume, until 4, I yield to Senator Byrd.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. I ask unanimous consent the period for postcloture debate be extended until 4:40 p.m. with the additional time equally divided between the majority and the minority parties, and the time be deducted from each individual Senator as provided under rule XXII.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Will the Senator yield? The distinguished Senator from Alabama mentioned Rod Paige was the superintendent of schools in Houston before he became Secretary of Education. What struck me most about Rod Paige's attitude was that he wanted testing. He wanted parents to have a choice. He wanted parents to be able to send their children wherever they thought they could get a better chance. He was open to it. Because he was open, the public schools ended up winning the competition. More students came into public schools rather than into private schools because he said, I want parents to have the freedom. He has had the experience at the grassroots level. He is not somebody reading about it out of the book. He has been there. He had a troubled school system, and he turned it around by seeking creativity, by seeking openness, by seeking choice, by seeking more opportunities for parents, because he wants parents to know they are getting the very best chance for their children. That is what struck me about Rod Paige's style of leadership.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Madam President, I thank the Senator from Tennessee for his leadership in the area of education. We do have an opportunity to reform the system. What Senator Frist was discussing on the issue of accountability is the key. We can pass all the laws in the world. We can pass all the regulations that fill the books, but if we do not have accountability, it will not work. We know that because it has not worked so far. We have poured in more money. We have tried to give mandates; we have given them red tape; we have given regulations; but that has not helped. What we need to do is have accountability. We need parents, teachers, and principals to work together to determine what is best in any particular area. Then we need to test to see if it is working, not so we can point fingers. We need to test so we can identify weaknesses and strengthen those weaknesses. That is the difference. We have 15 more minutes of our time, but I understand the Democrats would like to start a little early. I ask Senator Sessions to take up to 10 minutes, and then we will allow the Democrats to take the rest of the time until we determine the next amount of time that we will have on the subject.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Madam President, I rise to speak again on the education bill that I hope will be before the Senate very shortly. We have been talking about this bill off and on for 2 weeks. It is time for the Senate to get down to the real debate. Let us bring the bill forward, propose amendments, let everyone have their say, and send a bill to President Bush he can sign. We have the opportunity in this debate to change the course of public education in this country, and I believe it needs changing. We have seen year after year, in the last 25 years in this country, more spending going into public education from the Federal level but not improvements in the overall education of our children. I do not think throwing more money at education is the only answer. We are going to put more money into education, but we are going to do it in a reformed education system. In fact, we need to shake up the system. We have some very good public schools in our country, but we don't have a uniform standard of public schools where we can say all of them meet the test of giving every child the chance to reach his or her full potential with a public education. That should be the standard. We must be able to help each individual child learn in the best way that child possibly can, if that child is going to reach his or her full potential. That is exactly what we are trying to do with the bill we hope to bring up soon. I will talk about a couple of amendments I want to include in the bill that are not included now. One is to help bring more good teachers into the classroom. Every Member knows of a teacher shortage in a public school in their area. Rural schools have problems, urban schools have problems getting qualified teachers in some of the core subject matters, and especially math and science are lacking in qualified public teachers. We are trying to add some creativity into the process by giving incentives to school districts to bring more people into the teaching profession. We must be a partner with the States. It is the States that set the salaries and the benefits and the hours for the teachers. That is first and foremost what needs to be improved. I don't know of one public school teacher making enough money--not one. Not even in our best public schools are teachers making what they are worth. Our teachers should be making what our major corporate CEOs are making. What they are doing is more important than what any corporate CEO could possibly do. They are determining if our democracy is going to stay intact. We should pay them more. Most States are trying to do that. My home State of Texas is in its legislative session now and they are looking for ways to augment what teachers are paid, as well as benefits for teachers. I imagine most States are trying to do it because I think we all agree, public school teachers are not being paid what they are worth. We can do more at the Federal level where we can't set the salaries and we can't set the hours and we can't set the school days. We can be creative. We can reach out, and we have done so, as in the Troops to Teachers Program which would go for the many wonderfully qualified military personnel who are retiring, sometimes at the age of 40, 45. They are looking for a second career. We want them to go into teaching. Many of them have skills where there are teacher shortages. For instance, a military person is fluent in French, Spanish, Chinese, or Japanese. We have schools all over our country that cannot teach these courses because they don't have qualified teachers. We are offering incentives for alternative certification to get those people into the classrooms in their areas of expertise, although they don't have educational certification or educational degrees. Someone has a math degree, but they didn't get an educational degree. However, they are very qualified to teach math. Why not give them an incentive to come into the classroom and teach the area in which they are expert? My amendment will be called careers to classrooms. It is modeled after the Troops to Teachers Program. It says to a retiree of a computer firm, perhaps one of the wonderfully successful computer firms that has done well and the person can retire at the age of 40, 45, 50, or 55, if they would like to do something else, they are not ready to retire, why not encourage them to teach computer skills to our young people in the classroom by offering an incentive for an alternative certification for that teacher to be able to come into the classroom with a minimum of hassle, a minimum of bureaucratic red tape. Let's break the red tape. Let's get the qualified people into our classrooms, targeting the schools that have teacher shortages--rural schools and urban schools. My careers to classrooms amendment will be just such an incentive that we hope will reach out to more teachers or more potential teachers and bring them into the classroom and enrich the experience of the young people in the classroom. The second amendment I am planning to offer, along with Senator Susan Collins, with the help of Senator Barbara Mikulski and others, is the single sex option for public schools. I believe if our public schools are going to compete, we are going to have to give every option to parents. Many parents can afford to send their children to private schools. So they have their young girl attend a girls' school, or their boy attend a boys' school. However, if you go to public schools or you cannot afford to send your children to private schools, you probably don't have that single sex option. It has proven, time and time and time again, some young people at certain ages, usually in that junior high school to high school age range, and not later than elementary school, some young people do so much better in a single sex atmosphere. It was found girls do better in math in a single sex atmosphere in those age levels. It was found that rowdy boys do better in a single sex atmosphere, particularly in an urban setting. Why not allow parents the options? We are not talking mandate. Many parents prefer to have their children in coeducational schools. Some parents might want to give a special needs child that single sex atmosphere. They can't afford to send their children to private schools, so why not let them have the option of going to their school board and saying they would like to have a single sex math class in the fifth grade in the elementary school. Why not give them the option? We want to take away the barriers being put in front of the parents, putting schools in fear they may be sued if they have a single sex educational opportunity. There would be a requirement for a comparable opportunity for young people of the other sex. That is fair. We want that to be allowed, also. We want to offer all the options a parent could possibly have if the parent had the opportunity to go to parochial schools or private schools for their children. We want those options to be available in public schools. I will offer the single sex amendment to this bill because I want to grow the opportunities; I don't want to kill them. I want public schools to be the best. I always like to proudly say I am a total product of public schools. I grew up in a small town of 15,000. I went to public schools. I graduated from the University of Texas and the University of Texas Law School. I want every child to have the same opportunity I had. I want every child to be able to go to public school and compete in any arena. I have competed in debates, I have had opponents who have had a wonderful Harvard education, and I won. I couldn't have done that without the quality public education. I want every child to have the same opportunity I had so that young people with private school degrees and public school degrees will have the equal opportunity to reach their full potential. Madam President, the choices are what make our country great. The basis we must provide is quality public education. I am excited about the opportunity to reform education, and I am excited about the President's plan. I am excited about what Congress will be able to do to make sure that future generations have the quality public education that has been the foundation of our democracy. That is what I want for every child for the future in our country. I hope we can get on to the bill. I think it is time. We have talked about policy and all the priorities that we have for a long time--about 10 days now. It is time for us to start amending this bill and going forward so we will have the winds of change in this country in public education. I urge my colleagues to come together and make it happen. Madam President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent, with the agreement of the minority, that Senator Frist be given 10 minutes of the next 30 minutes of divided time, that then Senator Gordon Smith be given up to 5 minutes, following which the minority would have their 15 minutes, following which Senator Bunning from Kentucky would have 20 minutes, following which the minority would have 20 minutes.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. No. Mr. President, the Senator very kindly gave his time last night to the Senator from Vermont. So I ask unanimous consent that he be allowed to use the 29 minutes.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I yield the remainder of the time on the Republican side to the Senator from New Hampshire.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. I respond to the Senator from Virginia and mention that he, as a very senior member of the Senate, asked to go on the Education Committee because of his interest in improving our public schools. I appreciate he made that a priority. His contribution is very much one that has helped this process this year.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. I thank the Senator from Oregon. I am pleased that he, too, is committed to reform. All of us know that if we are going to give every child a chance, we are going to have to make some changes. And some of those are going to be hard changes, there is no question about it. Some of the people who are in the system today don't want testing. They don't like testing. I can understand that. But what is the alternative to accountability? What is the alternative to finding out what is wrong in our system? If we can't admit that we have some weaknesses in the system and try to correct them, we will never get any better. What we want to do is find the weaknesses in the system and correct them while there is still a chance. Let's correct the reading weaknesses in the third grade rather than in junior high school because we will have wasted years if we are not able to give a child a chance with the full capability to read in the third grade. Instead, if we wait until junior high school, we have wasted 6 years--6 years. Why would we do that? It is time to take the bold steps. The President has asked us to do so. We have a bipartisan, general consensus in Congress, and I think it is time for us to act. I don't see any reason to start saying, well, if we amend one bill, then maybe we are going to have a substitute and what would that do to the amendment? Come on, can't we figure that out? Can't we say that all of the amendments passed by this Senate will go on to the final bill after the amendments are made, and if there is a substitute, they would go to that substitute? That is not rocket science. If we can't figure that out, then we have no business being here. So I think it is time for us to act. We are wasting time. We have been talking about going to the education bill now for a week and 2 days. We are going to lose another day today if we don't start immediately to actually debate this bill. I hope that we will do that. I want to outline a few more of the points of the bill, and I think this is a very important one. The plan is going to allow students who are trapped in failing schools to leave those schools by using title I funds to transfer to a higher performing public school or a private school if that is passed. I would like to see that because I want a parent to have all of the options. I don't want only parents who can afford private schools for their children to have the best. I want every parent to have the best. What could be more frustrating for a parent than to see their child in a school that is not performing and know that that child is never going to have the full chance in life and the parent can't change the school because the parent can't afford a private school or a parochial school. Why would we do that? We have the alternative. In addition, education savings accounts will be increased to $5,000 and expanded from K through 12, not just college anymore. We also include additional dollars for States to use to control violence and other crimes in schools because there is no doubt that in our country, if children are not safe and secure in their schools, they are not going to have the optimum learning environment. No doubt about it, they must have secure schools and drug-free schools. Parents will be given a greater flexibility for their child's best interest. School districts will be given greater flexibility. This will be accomplished by decreasing administrative costs and paperwork. When I do townhall meetings in my State, teachers come in and say: Get rid of the paperwork. Let me teach. Let me spend my time with the students finding out what they need and helping them learn. One teacher came to a townhall meeting that I had with a stack of papers this big and said that is what she had been working on all week. Instead of being in the classroom or counseling children after class, she was filling out forms this thick. That is not what is going to improve public education. It is the attention a teacher can give to children, to assess what their weaknesses are and bring them up to speed. We are going to provide technology assistance, and math and science instruction will be reemphasized, as well as basic literacy. Partnerships between schools and higher education institutions will be encouraged, and new Federal initiatives such as Reading First K through 12, and Early Reading First Preschool will offer States incentives to implement rigorous literacy education. We have solved a problem in my home State of Texas. The University of North Texas has an accelerated math course for high school math prodigies, so that high school students with math aptitude can go to the University of North Texas and take college courses and get their high school degree with accelerated capabilities to go into college. This is so that you don't hold back the students who are already beyond high school competency. You give the child a chance to grow at his or her level and competency capability. It is quite exciting. I would love to see that happen all over our country, where an innovative, higher education institution would offer programs for high school students. I hope we will be able to encourage that by passing the bill that is before us. We are also going to try to help teachers help themselves. They deserve recognition and assistance. The President's plan will allow teachers to make tax deductions of up to $400 to help defray costs associated with out-of-pocket classroom expenses. I don't know a teacher that doesn't spend money from his or her own pocket to try to help the child get the tools the child needs in class, the crayons, or a ruler, or a tablet to write on, because the child comes to school without the proper school supplies. Many times, the child's family doesn't have the money for the school supplies. The teacher digs in her pocket and puts the money out and buys the supplies for the kids. That teacher does it because that teacher is dedicated. But we want to help defray those out-of-pocket costs. We want to give those young people the opportunity to have everything they need but not at the personal expense of the teachers. We don't pay teachers enough for the work they do anyway. The last thing we should expect is for them to defray the cost of their young people's school supplies out of their own pocketbooks. Mr. President, as I close today, I want to say that there is nothing more important that we will do in this session of Congress than to reform public education, to make sure that public education gives every child the opportunity to reach his or her full potential. Yes, we think private schools are great and, yes, parochial schools are great, and they are a part of the option that a parent might have. But what we are responsible for is to make sure that every child has access to a public education that is quality and that competes with any other school in the world. That is what will keep our democracy strong, and that is what will fulfill our responsibility as Members of the U.S. Senate. I can't wait to get to this bill because I have some amendments I want to offer that would provide creativity for our school districts, that would try to encourage more people to come into the classroom with expertise in an area--maybe not a teaching degree but someone with an expertise. I want to offer single-sex school classes in public schools as another option, which is now available in private schools but not in public schools to any great degree. I am going to talk about those amendments later. I want to get on to this bill so that we can pass these reforms and so that the next school year that starts in September will be a school year that is different from the past 25 years and will have more options and more creativity and more capabilities for the young people of our country to excel. I thank the Chair. I yield the floor.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. I thank the Senator from Oregon. That is why President Bush has worked so hard to make this a priority to say that there is nothing more important we can do than to provide a quality public education for every one of the young people in our country. I ask the Senator from Oregon if he would like the floor. If so, I am happy to yield.