Craig Thomas

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I believe we are in an hour of time allocated to the Senator from Wyoming.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I rise to talk, again, about taxes. The legislation now before the Senate includes education, which we will be debating this afternoon and which we will be working on until the tax bill comes from the committee, and taxes--probably two of the most important issues the Senate will address this year. Certainly everyone is most interested in education, and there are a number of broad topics within education that are legitimate to discuss. One of them is the role of the Federal Government in financing education. Most would agree that the basic responsibility for elementary and secondary education lies with local government and State government. Traditionally, the Federal Government has provided about 7 percent of the total financing for education. It is an important contribution but certainly a relatively small one in terms of the total cost. One of the other issues will be that of deciding how much flexibility there will be in terms of expending Federal moneys made available, whether or not, as was the case in the last administration, where the dollars which were allocated to education were generally assigned to the purpose for which they were allocated, either for smaller classrooms or for building improvements, new buildings, in reality, the real decision as to how moneys are used by local districts ought to be what the way local leaders believe they should be. The needs are quite different in one place or another. I come from a State of small communities. The needs there are quite different often than they would in be in downtown Pittsburgh, PA. We need flexibility. There will also be and there have been, in fact, great discussions about the amount of money that ought to be spent and, more importantly, how we are able to have accountability in terms of the dollars that are spent to see, in fact, if those dollars that are being spent are creating a better education opportunity for children. We will be back on that later. We should be. Of course, with any program we discuss comes the question of taxes. We find ourselves in an interesting position, a somewhat enviable position of having a projected surplus over time, a substantial surplus over the next 10 years, a surplus each year during that time. There is some question if that can be counted on. Whenever you project into the future, there is always an element of uncertainty. Nevertheless, we have to make decisions in the future. Whether one is in business, whether it is a family, whatever, we have to make decisions for the future. Sometimes they are not exactly the same, but I feel confident, as do the people who make the projections, that this is a fairly modest projection in terms of the surplus over time. There are broad issues involved, and great detail in taxes, obviously, but there are also some concepts that ought to be debated: What kind of taxing limits should be placed on people; should we have taxes that offset what we believe are the fundamental costs, the necessary activities of the Federal Government? To be sure, not everyone would agree on what those necessary activities are. Nevertheless, if you have a surplus in Washington, beyond the needs the Congress has adjudicated to these items, you can bet your life it will be spent. Then you ask: What should be the concept? Where do we want to be down the road? Do we want more and more Federal Government? Do we want to spend on all the programs? Do we want to be somewhat conservative and try to make a decision as to which programs are best done at the Federal level and which decisions are best left to local governments and people and taxpayers themselves? These are some of the philosophical issues that lie behind the debate. We argue all the time as to whether or not it will be $20 million or $50 million or $1 billion for this. Before that, we ought to establish in our own minds what the role of taxation is at the Federal level. Are we there to support the needed programs? If not, there is no end to the amount of money that can be spent. Then there is the question of simplification, particularly around April 15. How can we make tax laws more simplified; how can we make it easier; how can we get away from all of the pages of activities taxpayers have to go through? But at the same time we talk about that, we will have 20 or 30 different ideas on this floor during the next couple of weeks as to how we ought to have a tax break for this or a tax incentive for that, to the point where we almost become more involved in using taxes as a method of impacting behavior and directing behavior than we do to using it as an income source to pay for basic services. Again, there is a difference of view about that. We will see a great deal of that. The other area, of course, is, as we look into tax reductions and surpluses, we have to ask: What are the things we really need to be careful about? One, obviously, is to have the money to fund those programs that are decided to be essential programs: defense, education, and all of those. Recall that almost two-thirds of the budget is nondiscretionary. Almost two-thirds of the budget is already predetermined. It is Social Security, health care; it is Medicare. It is those things for which there are not alternatives to be decided each year. Out of a $1.9 trillion budget, we make determinations for about $661 billion. So there are some basic things we talk about. The President has put forth a plan. He has, obviously, indicated the two areas of his highest priority: education and tax reductions, with the general concept that taxpayers ought not to send more of their money to Washington than is necessary to carry out the functions of the Government. His plan is to give a tax cut to every family that pays income taxes. He replaces the current tax brackets by reducing them to lower rates: 39 to 33, 15 to 10, and so on, so everyone who pays taxes would have a tax reduction. He doubles the child credit to a $1,000 and reduces the marriage penalty. That is really a fairness issue. The idea that a man and a woman who are single have two jobs, earn X amount of dollars, pay X amount of taxes, they are married, they continue to make the same amount of money, but they pay more taxes, is a fairness issue and one that needs to be dealt with. Under his plan, one in five taxpaying families with children would no longer pay any income tax at all, completely removing 6 million Americans from the tax rolls. Remember that there is a large percentage of Americans who don't pay Federal income tax. Families of four making $35,000 would have a 100-percent tax reduction in what they pay, and on up. So, of course, the more taxes that are paid, logically the reduction would accommodate more reduction in dollars. That is the case. We need tax reductions, obviously, because our taxes are the highest we have paid as a percentage of gross national product since even in World War II--higher than that now. Obviously, we have asked taxpayers to send more of their money into Washington than is necessary to provide the essential functions. And therefore, a tax reduction is legitimate--not only legitimate now, of course, but also even more needed because of the economy turndown, the economy stabilization, whichever it is, the lack of growth that we have had, and certainly having less taxes paid and more money available to be used by the taxpayers themselves--their money. It will help that economic turndown. It also deals with debt reduction. We have a very large debt, of course--about $2.5 trillion in publicly held debt as opposed to Social Security. It is debt that has been placed because of you, me, and all of us who are now adults. If we don't do something, it will have to be paid for by young people who are beginning to have their first pay checks; 12\1/2\ percent of their earnings will be withheld to pay for a debt we helped to create. Over this 10-year period, about $1.5 trillion of that would be reduced, leaving about $800 million. That is a tremendously large number. But, as a matter of fact, that is about all that is eligible to be removed over that time because it is held and secured. So we would have debt reduction in this plan. The debt reduction now held in private hands is $2.4 trillion, reduced to $800 billion. That is a pretty good reduction. We would have relief for every taxpayer--$1.35 trillion over 11 years would be reduced in terms of taxpayers having to send their money to the Federal Government. In addition to that, there would be an immediate surplus this year of about $100 billion--for the next 2 years--that could be used to get it back to taxpayers more quickly so it could be put back into the private sector and help strengthen the economy. At the same time, we have commitments to protect seniors for today and tomorrow--the $2.5 trillion of Social Security. That portion of Social Security that comes in during this time would be set aside for Social Security so that we would be able to meet our obligations there. And, of course, there are some discussions going on about some changes in Social Security, to increase the amount of moneys that would be there. The budget includes $300 billion for a reserve fund for reforming Medicare, which needs to be done, of course, and to have an opportunity to make Medicare more useful, make Medicare more easily useful and accessible. One of the issues would be to create a prescription drug benefit. Hopefully, that would be done, as well, at the same time some changes are made in Medicare so that it would fit together. At the same time, there would be sufficient spending increases. Discretionary spending in this year's budget would be 5 percent. Somebody on the news said today that was below inflation, which isn't the case. Five percent is inflationary growth--in fact, beyond that. It would boost the veterans fund over 10 years, veterans hospitals, for veterans retirement, for doing those kinds of things. It raises defense spending, which I think is needed. Certainly, if we are going to have a voluntary military, the payments to those folks, the payrolls need to be competitive somewhat to what you could do in the private sector. This is needed so that people don't get trained in the military for a specialized job and then leave for more pay in the private sector. So defense spending would be increased. It provides for $80 billion over 10 years for assistance to farmers and ranchers. We are in the process, during the next year, of coming up with a new farm bill before the one now in place runs out. There will be something to replace that. Hopefully, an effort will continue to move toward a marketplace in agriculture but also to provide some kind of a safety net so we don't go through the sort of trauma that we have over the last several years. It also expands child tax credits and earned income tax credits--an $18 billion increase over that time. So there are a lot of great details that could be talked about, obviously, and will be talked about, and indeed should be talked about. The real question is, If you have a surplus, what should you do with it? You should certainly accommodate those things that are high necessities and priorities in the budget, and then you ought to return that money to the taxpayers, the people who paid it in. That is the way it ought to be. We ought to be able to understand that it is really the responsibility of the Federal Government to provide these programs but not to excessively spend the money that could very well be either spent by the taxpayer or, indeed, if there are special programs that need to be done, we would make an opportunity for the States and local governments to make the taxation they need so the things could be done there. Mr. President, we are going to enter into a very lively debate. I suppose taxes and budgets probably personify as well as any other thing the differences in view about how people would approach governance. That is perfectly legitimate. That is what this place is for, to talk about differences in view. There are those who think that we ought to be spending much more on the Federal Government; the Federal Government ought to be funding every need that exists; and the Federal Government ought to grow and have more expansion into people's lives. I am one of the others who believe there ought to be a limitation on the role of the Federal Government, that governance closer to the people is the kind of governance that is best, and we ought to tax to the extent necessary to pay for those functions. But when it is beyond that, we ought to do something about leaving taxpayers' money in the taxpayers' pockets. Those are the decisions that are before us. Those are the decisions that we will be dealing with, hopefully this week, certainly next week, and they are tough. I just hope that we have an opportunity. We have a 50/50 Senate now, which is an unusual division of parties, and somewhat of an unusual division philosophically. Yet our challenge is to come together with something that is good for the country. Nobody would argue with that. But everybody has a different view of what is good. I hear people say you need to do it ``the right way.'' I don't know of anybody who wants to do it the wrong way. There are differing views and there should be. The President has laid out a program that is quite good. There are those who would like to discredit the President's program, of course, in order to create their political ideas. But that is not why we are here. We are here to resolve problems that exist. We are here to govern. That is our job. We need to move forward. We have been a little slow. I think we have to really come to grips with the fact that we are here to make decisions, to move forward, to do something with education, to do something with taxes, and we are here to take on many of the other issues. That is our task. Mr. President, I think there will be others joining me in a few moments. In the meantime, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Rural Mental Health Accessibility Act of 2001 with Senators Conrad, Domenici, Johnson, Roberts, and Nelson from Nebraska. Like all of the rural health bills I've worked on with my colleagues in the Senate Rural Health Caucus, I am proud of the bipartisan effort behind this important legislation. I believe, the Rural Mental Health Accessibility Act of 2001 is crucial because it reflects the unique needs of rural communities to improve access to mental health services. Many people do not seek mental health services because of the stigma associated with mental illnesses. This is especially true in rural areas where anonymity is more difficult to obtain. This legislation creates the Mental Health Community Education Grant program, which permits states and communities to conduct targeted public education campaigns with particular emphasis on mental illnesses, mental retardation, suicide, and substance abuse disorders. This new program will go a long way in reducing the stigmatization and misinformation surrounding mental health issues. More than 75 percent of the 518 nationally designated Mental Health Professional Shortage Areas are located in rural areas and one-fifth of all rural counties in the nation have no mental health services of any kind. Frontier counties have even more drastic numbers as 95 percent of these remote areas do not have psychiatrists, 68 percent do not have psychologists and 78 percent do not have social workers. While I'm proud that every county in my home state of Wyoming now has a psychologist, there are still several counties that are severely underserved and are designated as a Mental Health Shortage Area. Due to the scarcity of mental health specialists in rural communities, primary care providers are often the only source of treatment. However, primary care providers do not receive the specialized training necessary to recognize the signs of depression and other mental illnesses in their patients. The Rural Mental Health Accessibility Act of 2001 authorizes an Interdisciplinary Grant program that will permit universities and other entities to establish interdisciplinary training programs where mental health providers and primary care providers are taught side-by-side in the classroom, with clinical training conducted in rural underserved communities. This will encourage greater collaboration amongst providers and increase the quality of care for rural patients. I am particularly concerned that suicide rates among rural children and adolescents are higher than in urban areas, especially in western and frontier states. Additionally, 20 percent of the nation's elderly population live in rural areas, but only 9 percent of our nation's physicians practice in rural areas. This bill authorizes $30 million for 20 demonstration projects, equally divided, to provide mental health services to children and elderly residents of long term care facilities located in mental health shortage areas. These projects will also provide mental illness education and targeted instruction on coping and dealing with the stressful experiences of childhood and adolescence or aging. To prepare for further expansion of mental telehealth, this bill requires the Director of the National Institute of Mental Health in consultation with the Director of the Office of Rural Health Policy to report to Congress on the efficacy and effectiveness of mental health services delivered through the utilization of telehealth technologies. In crafting this legislation I and my colleagues worked with numerous outside organizations with an interest in mental health issues. As a result of this collaboration, the Rural Mental Health Accessibility Act of 2001 is strongly supported by the National Rural Health Association, the National Alliance for the Mentally Ill, the American Psychiatric Association and the American Psychological Association. I believe this legislation is critically important to the health and well-being of our rural communities. I strongly urge all my colleagues to support the rural areas in their states by becoming cosponsors of the Rural Mental Health Accessibility Act of 2001. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill and letters of endorsement from supporting organizations be printed in the Record.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Rural Mental Health Accessibility Act of 2001 with Senators Conrad, Domenici, Johnson, Roberts, and Nelson from Nebraska. Like all of the rural health bills I've worked on with my colleagues in the Senate Rural Health Caucus, I am proud of the bipartisan effort behind this important legislation. I believe, the Rural Mental Health Accessibility Act of 2001 is crucial because it reflects the unique needs of rural communities to improve access to mental health services. Many people do not seek mental health services because of the stigma associated with mental illnesses. This is especially true in rural areas where anonymity is more difficult to obtain. This legislation creates the Mental Health Community Education Grant program, which permits states and communities to conduct targeted public education campaigns with particular emphasis on mental illnesses, mental retardation, suicide, and substance abuse disorders. This new program will go a long way in reducing the stigmatization and misinformation surrounding mental health issues. More than 75 percent of the 518 nationally designated Mental Health Professional Shortage Areas are located in rural areas and one-fifth of all rural counties in the nation have no mental health services of any kind. Frontier counties have even more drastic numbers as 95 percent of these remote areas do not have psychiatrists, 68 percent do not have psychologists and 78 percent do not have social workers. While I'm proud that every county in my home state of Wyoming now has a psychologist, there are still several counties that are severely underserved and are designated as a Mental Health Shortage Area. Due to the scarcity of mental health specialists in rural communities, primary care providers are often the only source of treatment. However, primary care providers do not receive the specialized training necessary to recognize the signs of depression and other mental illnesses in their patients. The Rural Mental Health Accessibility Act of 2001 authorizes an Interdisciplinary Grant program that will permit universities and other entities to establish interdisciplinary training programs where mental health providers and primary care providers are taught side-by-side in the classroom, with clinical training conducted in rural underserved communities. This will encourage greater collaboration amongst providers and increase the quality of care for rural patients. I am particularly concerned that suicide rates among rural children and adolescents are higher than in urban areas, especially in western and frontier states. Additionally, 20 percent of the nation's elderly population live in rural areas, but only 9 percent of our nation's physicians practice in rural areas. This bill authorizes $30 million for 20 demonstration projects, equally divided, to provide mental health services to children and elderly residents of long term care facilities located in mental health shortage areas. These projects will also provide mental illness education and targeted instruction on coping and dealing with the stressful experiences of childhood and adolescence or aging. To prepare for further expansion of mental telehealth, this bill requires the Director of the National Institute of Mental Health in consultation with the Director of the Office of Rural Health Policy to report to Congress on the efficacy and effectiveness of mental health services delivered through the utilization of telehealth technologies. In crafting this legislation I and my colleagues worked with numerous outside organizations with an interest in mental health issues. As a result of this collaboration, the Rural Mental Health Accessibility Act of 2001 is strongly supported by the National Rural Health Association, the National Alliance for the Mentally Ill, the American Psychiatric Association and the American Psychological Association. I believe this legislation is critically important to the health and well-being of our rural communities. I strongly urge all my colleagues to support the rural areas in their states by becoming cosponsors of the Rural Mental Health Accessibility Act of 2001. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill and letters of endorsement from supporting organizations be printed in the Record.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Yes.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the next votes in the series be limited to 10 minutes each.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. I thank the Chair.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Today the Senate will be in a period of morning business until 2 p.m. Following morning business, there will be 2 hours to resume consideration of the education reform bill. Amendments are expected to be offered during that debate. Any votes ordered will occur in a stacked sequence beginning at 10:15 tomorrow. At 4 o'clock today, the Senate will begin consideration of the Bolton nomination to be Under Secretary of State for Arms Control and International Security. There will be up to 3 hours of debate on this nomination with an additional 45 minutes for debate tomorrow morning prior to the vote on confirmation at 10:15. Senators should expect several stacked votes tomorrow morning beginning at 10:15. I thank my colleagues for their attention.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I would like to announce for the information of the Senate and the public that an oversight hearing has been scheduled before the Subcommittee on National Parks, Historic Preservation, and Recreation of the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. The purpose of this oversight hearing is to receive testimony on the U.S. Department of Interior Fiscal Year 2002 Budget Justification for the National Park Service. The hearing will take place on Thursday, May 10, 2001, at 2:30 p.m., in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building in Washington, DC. Because of the limited time available for the hearing, witnesses may testify by invitation only. However, those wishing to submit written testimony for the hearing record should send two copies of their testimony to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, U.S. Senate, SD-354, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Washington, DC 20510- 6150. For further information, please contact Jim O'Toole or Shane Perkins of the Committee staff at (202) 224-1219.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. I suppose we are all hopeful the committee will soon come together with their proposal and have some agreement on the bill and bring it here. As we think more and more about the education bill, and we begin to think what are the elements of a successful education for young people, of course we immediately begin to think, first of all, about families, about parents. That is the early responsibility. It is so interesting to watch in our communities, as we see the youngsters with parents who, when the children are very small, begin to help with reading, begin to give parental support. Then as they get to school, we can see their opportunities are much greater. The other things, of course, that we talk about are the facilities, the teaching opportunities that are provided by the community. We begin to try to put all these things together. Then we begin to say what is the role of dollars? I think the average expenditure per child is maybe $500. There are substantial differences in the costs of education throughout the country. Then we begin to measure reading performance against the amount of dollars that are spent. We see as dollars go up, reading capacity does not necessarily go up. So we say what is it that has to be done besides dollars? We begin to think of the role of the Federal Government versus the role of the school board and the State, in terms of decisions about school buildings, for example. Traditionally, the building of school facilities has been a responsibility of local governments. Local governments make the decisions. Then we find ourselves looking at things that need to be done in that area and we see we need Federal money. When Federal money comes, along with it comes regulation. People say: Wait a minute, get the Federal Government out of our lives. It is not an easy issue. Do we want to have the best education we can? Of course, nobody argues with that. That is our goal and it should be. We start with preschool and go on to have the best kind of education we possibly can have for everyone. Not only is that good for everyone, the people themselves, but it is good for our society. We cannot really have successful democracy unless we have educated citizens. That is what we are talking about. It sounds easy: we are going to support schools, we are going to do this, we are going to do that. Then we think it out and say: How do we best do this? How do we get accountability? Where should the money come from? How important is it as compared to teaching expertise, for example? What does that have to do with buildings, facilities, and these things? It is an interesting topic. I hope we will get to it soon. The bill before us will cover almost all these things. It will have to do with accountability. It will have to do with financial capacity. It will have to do with choice. It will have to do with how the money is spent and who decides that. I look forward to that. I think the arrangements have been for the Senator from West Virginia to begin now, so I yield the floor.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I would like to continue under the time on education, please.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Madam President, I am waiting for one of our Senators. In the meantime, let me again say how important it is that we move on with what we started to do in this Chamber. We have been working on the education bill now for a very long time. The committee has done a great deal of work. But we find ourselves now sort of postponing consideration of the bill. This is the third time I have been in this Chamber today to ask for another hour of postcloture activity. The time has come, certainly, for us to begin consideration of the bill, to begin to move forward, to begin to talk about those areas of disagreement, and to begin to offer the amendments that need to be considered. I think, clearly, this bill is one of the most important issues on which we will be working. We have talked for a long time about the need for accountability. We have talked for a very long time about the need for additional funding. We have talked a long time about the flexibility that should exist when we have Federal money going to local and State governments so that there can be enough changes made to allow for the differences that exist in communities. Certainly that is important. We have talked a lot about how we need to help teachers become more efficient and more effective in that they are the most important aspect of education. We have talked about parental choice so that students can move between public schools in the various communities at the choice of the parent. Certainly that is an important item. There will never be agreement on all these things among all of us, but certainly it is an issue with which we have to proceed. I look forward to that. Madam President, I yield the floor to my friend from Arkansas.

Mr. THOMAS. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the next 30 minutes of postcloture debate be equally divided between the majority and Senator Hollings from the minority and that the time be deducted from each individual Senator as provided under rule XXII.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I would like to have the opportunity to discuss the education bill for 10 minutes, please.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, we come to the floor again today to consider education. I think, unfortunately, we are still talking about the postcloture motion and have not yet had the opportunity actually to move to the bill. We are hopeful there will be some decisions made in the next hour, hour and a half, so that we can come to the bill. Clearly, there will be differences of our views with respect to this legislation. That is not a new idea. But we need to get on with it. We need to come to this Chamber and begin to make our arguments and, where there are differences of opinion, have amendments and move forward with them. I think most people agree that one of the major issues before us is education. Certainly there are different views as to what the role of the Federal Government is with regard to elementary and secondary education. There are different views as to how much involvement the Federal Government ought to have with respect to financing elementary and secondary education. I think most of us believe that is a primary function of the State and local governments, and has been traditionally over time, and I believe for good reason. No. 1, we want the control largely to remain there; indeed, it should remain there. With respect to money, even though, obviously, it is very important, money is not the only salvation for education. There needs to be policy changes. There needs to be more accountability, measurement of progress. Money alone--and we talked about this when I was in the Wyoming legislature--we know that money alone is not the only salvation, that there need to also be these other principles. But without money, of course, those things cannot be accomplished. Since 1994, when the Republicans took over Congress as the majority, there has been a 50-percent increase in funding for education. We will hear about how the Republicans are reluctant to fund education properly. The fact is, this Republican Congress has funded it at a much higher rate than was done previously by the Democrats or, indeed, even suggested under the Clinton administration. It still is an issue, but the idea that Republicans have not been generous with money is just simply not factual. There are other issues, however, that are really key to what we want to do with S. 1. First, it is symbolic that it is S. 1. That indicates that as we came into this Congress, education was our highest priority. So there we are. There are a number of things that are very important. One is accountability. Title I of this bill indicates that when schools fail to adequately have progress, they will receive technical assistance from the Federal Government. In order to make sure there is progress, of course, there has to be some testing. Clearly, there are different views about testing: Whether it ought to be mandated, whether it ought to be done only by the State's decision. I happen to believe the States ought to be the ones to decide how it is done. But there needs to be testing if you are going to have Federal funding. If you are going to have the kind of mobility we have where young people are going to school in Utah and end up working in New York, there needs to be some measure of whether or not those educational opportunities are going to be similar so that you can deal with the mobility we all have. So under this title, there would be technical assistance available for schools where the progress was not up to the average and certainly not making advancement. If the school failed to have adequate progress in the second year, it would be placed in another category of corrective action. Students in that school then would begin to be able to transfer to other public schools. This is one of the things where you measure performance and then give some kind of relief when, in fact, performance is not being exhibited. This does not, at the present time, include the private school options. Some argue, of course, that there ought to be vouchers for private schools. Again, there is a very legitimate difference of view as to that issue. I am sure it will be discussed at some point during the consideration of this bill. Accountability: Schools in a corrective action category that fail to make progress over 3 years would be required to do something different--to change staff, to close the school, to do something that would show that progress needs to be made. We mentioned public school choice. That is there. We happen to have some experience in my hometown of Casper, WY, where they have started a number of charter schools. Casper, by the way, is not a big city--about 50,000 people. It is our second largest city in Wyoming. They have charter schools so there are some choices within the public school system so that parents can participate. In this bill there are opportunities for assistance in transportation for students of that kind and also some opportunities for low production schools for people to be able to use some of the Federal money for that. The key to education, most everyone would agree, is teachers, quality teachers. We have excellent teachers generally, and teachers try very hard to do their things. I admire teachers very much, particularly since my wife is one in a public high school. On the other hand, we are going to find a time soon when there will be lots of teachers retiring and running into that, whatever profession it is, whether it is nurses or teachers. We are going to need a great number of new teachers, and there needs to be incentives for teachers to be trained. There needs to be some opportunities for teachers to have continuing education certainly and to do some things, to do some things particularly in specifics. If they are teaching math, if they are teaching science, there ought to be people who have really good backgrounds in that. The technology, of course, is one of the things for which we will be searching--opportunities to do that. Here we are, talking about accountability. We are talking about improving teaching opportunities, improving the skills of teachers so they can be, indeed, more effective in the teaching they do. One of the areas, of course, is going to be flexibility. This is always a controversial thing with Federal money. With Federal money, do there have to be regulations that go with it to use it this way or the highway? No, it doesn't need to be that way. It can be much more flexible. I suppose in many things, but in education there is such a difference between the needs in small towns of Wyoming or Utah as opposed to downtown New York or Philadelphia. In many of the schools, that is one of the controversies we have had over time. With Federal money, according to the last administration, you had to use it for smaller class size. That is the only thing you can use it for, or you use it for construction of school buildings, and that is all you can use it for. Both of those, of course, are very important issues, but in different school districts those things are quite different. I can take you to some schools in Wyoming where class size is not the issue. I went to a one-room school in Wapiti, WY. Class size wasn't the problem. Other things--technology, for example, access to the Internet, doing the kinds of technological things that may be in a particular school--are much more important. So this idea is to have some flexibility and to allow local school districts and the States to have, of course, the decisionmaking, along with the accountability. We can't just expect to send taxpayers' money out from the Federal level and say: Do whatever you want; we don't care what happens to it. That is not the point. The point is, use it for what you want with some accountability. Other provisions: Of course, there are going to be reading initiatives. Most of us do believe that the ability to read, and read early, is certainly the first prerequisite to becoming successful in education. Bilingual education, of course, is one of the real keys to many of the students who have difficulty in meeting standards, and so is literacy in English. So there are going to be a number of these things. School safety: Obviously, we have had lots of bad experiences in the last several years in terms of school safety. The Columbine incident sort of remolded our ideas about what we do there in terms of drug prevention and in terms of other kinds of safety. That will also be dealt with in this bill. So there are just really lots of things that are very helpful and things on which we need to move forward. I am afraid we are going to find ourselves, before this week is over, dealing with the budget. I believe there is going to be some agreement there. So we continue to put off this very important issue, and we need to move forward with it. I mentioned the expenditures. I wish I had some of those charts here. It is really interesting, as you look at a chart on expenditures versus reading scores that we have now, that expenditures go up fairly dramatically, up to about an $8,500 per pupil expenditure in this country. But 12th grade reading, 8th grade reading, 4th grade reading stay very constant and, indeed, edge down a little bit in the 4th grade category. So again, as we said, money is not the only element. Indeed, it may not be the most important element in terms of turning around where we are with respect to making improvements in our educational direction. So these are the things we have talked about; these are the things that are before us. I don't find it particularly new that we have different views on how to do this. That is what this Senate is all about--to bring together different views, to bring together different representations of the needs of our individual constituencies, and yet to blend them in with the overall need for the national values of education and what our role is in causing those things to be even better. This morning we will be talking in fairly general terms about the generalities that are in this bill, which has received a great deal of attention and effort. It is a good one. It is generally supported, of course, by the administration, by the President who, by the way, had education as his No. 1 issue in his campaign. I have been very proud of the President, as a matter of fact, as someone who went out and talked about issues, put priorities on issues in his campaign, laid them before the people before the election, and now is committed to doing things he said he was going to do. That is as it should be. I hope we are able to move forward and have an opportunity to debate these things and come to a favorable conclusion. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that following the Senator from Washington, the Senator from Idaho be able to speak.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, we had an hour of postcloture debate. That time has expired. I ask unanimous consent that the next hour be equally divided and the time be counted under the provision of rule XXII.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, there are efforts being made to come to some agreement to bring to the floor. I thank the Chair. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. The Senate is expected to begin full consideration of the bill during today's session. Therefore, amendments will be offered, and votes on the amendments are expected. Members will be notified as the votes are scheduled. Senators are encouraged to work with the bill managers if they intend to offer amendments to the bill. I thank my colleagues for their attention.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, today the Senate will resume the remaining hours of the postcloture debate on the motion to proceed on the education bill. Charging of Time I now ask unanimous consent that the time until 10:30 a.m. be equally divided in the usual form and that it be charged accordingly under rule XXII.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, we have been focusing for the last 2 weeks on education. Education is probably the answer that is most often given in terms of priorities people think are important. Yet we seem to have a difficult time moving forward. I don't think there is much debate about the concept of helping education, giving young people the opportunity to have a better life. We get bogged down, unfortunately, in the details. I am anxious that we move forward--I hope we can--today and begin the debate. There are legitimate differences of view with respect to what to do, particularly concerning the role of the Federal Government. There are those who believe the Federal Government has great responsibilities and should, indeed, set the stage for how it is done and, whenever Federal money is made available, there ought to be requirements as to how each school should use the money. In the last administration if there was money for education, President Clinton said it had to be used for smaller classes or it had to be used for buildings. The fact is, the needs in different places are quite varied. We must also remember that the contribution from the Federal level is about 6 or 7 percent of the total expenditures for elementary and secondary education. What we are trying to do is assist in certain areas, helping local school boards and State education departments decide what is best for them. I am particularly sensitive to that in that I come from a State with low population density. We have lots of small schools, and the needs in those small schools are often quite different than they are in metropolitan areas. The idea of the Federal Government putting down regulations certainly doesn't work. I am persuaded that the education bill that will be before us has some excellent goals. That is what we ought to be doing--setting some goals we want to achieve and then moving towards the achievement of those goals by what we do in the interim. For example, as to increasing accountability for student performance, there was a great letter to the editor in my local paper last weekend from a former school board member who made the point that education has to be financed. Financing is an essential element to good education, but financing alone does not do it. Dollars are not all that is important. We have to have some accountability for student performance, for school performance, and for teacher performance. That is one of the key elements. We also have to do some serious examination on the local level as to what programs work best and to make sure the resources are available to go into the programs that work and that we move money to accomplish that. I do not think there is any question most people would agree we need to reduce the bureaucracy and increase flexibility. It happens that my wife is a special ed teacher in a public high school. I hear all the time about the amount of effort that has to go into the detail of regulations, the paperwork, as opposed to teaching, which is not peculiar in terms of funding by the Government. I realize if you are going to have accountability for the money, there has to be some reporting. But when you have professional people spending half their time with paperwork, that is not the direction we ought to be going. Then there is the amount of money, what we are going to be arguing about in this Chamber. Some of our friends on the other side of the aisle think if we just put in all the money that is available, it somehow will work out. I don't believe that is the case. We have to look at funding, but we have to look at some of the principles that are equally as important. The fact is, President Bush has recommended more spending for education than was recommended in the previous administration. Since a Republican-controlled Congress has been in existence since 1994, we have had more increases in the Federal contribution to spending than we have ever had before. We will hear shortly about how we ought to be spending all the money in the world. In my view, that is not the only element of successful education. Empowering parents to have some opportunities, to have more input into what they are doing is important. Again, a little experience in this area shows me that charter schools are a great idea so that parents have some flexibility and some choices as to what they do within the public school system, as to where their youngsters go to school, and how we can do some of those kinds of things. So I guess my real message is that it is time to get on with it. I know there are three, four, or five people, probably, in this 100- Member body who are determined to hold things up until they get their way. It isn't going to be that way. It has to be done when there is a majority that agrees on what it is that should be done. I hope we can move on that. We have other things we need to do. We need to get back to the budget, get on with tax relief, get on with energy; these are some of the areas with which we have to deal. Hopefully, we will deal with them soon. I am anxious that we move forward with education. We have a great plan and all we need to do is implement it. I yield the floor.

Mr. THOMAS. I ask unanimous consent to speak for 10 minutes.

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

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I thank my friend from Ohio for his very excellent comments about education. There is certainly nothing more important in this country than education. There is nothing more important to the President, and nothing more important to this Congress and to the people of the country than to do something to strengthen education. Hopefully, we are on the verge of moving into that area. We have talked about it now for a good long time. It has been on the agenda and we are ready to move on it. Hopefully, we can do that very quickly. I think the conversation and the dispute has been somewhat about the notion of funding. I understand that. Obviously, funding is vital to education. I just came from Casper, WY. One of the board members wrote in our local paper about funding and how important it is. But at the same time there are other issues. Funding alone does not make a successful education program. I feel very strongly about that. We have to have accountability. We have to have choices. We have to have some measurement of productivity in order to have an education program and the kind that we want. I am hopeful our friends on the other side of the aisle will not continue to hold up this matter. I think we ought to get on with it. Is there disagreement on some issues? Of course. There will always be. But there is agreement on our goal. And our goal is to strengthen education in this country. We are not going to do it if we continue to hold off and be unwilling to move forward. I hope we do that. Republicans have a strong agenda: returning control to parents, giving them charter schools, giving them the opportunity, if the school is not performing, to move their child to another public school, sending dollars to the classroom, giving families greater education choice, supporting exceptional teachers, and focusing on basic education. I think these are the areas that are so important. The delivery of these programs, of course, is quite different, whether you are in Chugwater, WY, or Cincinnati, OH. So there has to be flexibility that is left to the people in local leadership positions to decide how they can best use those dollars. I think the one-size-fits- all approach does not work. Underlying this education debate is a basic philosophical difference. Some folks do not like the idea of letting local people make the decisions. We went through that for almost 8 years, where Washington had to decide what the Federal money was going to be used for. Now we are in a position where we do not need to do that. We do not need the education bureaucracy calling all the shots. It is local people--not the Federal bureaucrats--who know what needs to be done. Then how do you have accountability? We do that by having some kind of testing, a measurement of progress, so kids in Wyoming who want to move to California when they are older have a basic education that will allow them to compete because they have had a productive education. I think the important thing to remember, too, is that since Republicans took control of the Congress in 1995, Federal education spending has exploded. This President is asking for more money for education than the previous President. So we need to do those things. This is a direction in which we need to head. We need to do it now. I am getting a little exasperated, as many Members are, that we cannot seem to move forward. We were prepared last week to talk about this. We did not even get a chance to get to it. So we need to produce a bipartisan education proposal which accomplishes the goals of increasing accountability for student performance, supporting programs that work, reducing bureaucracy, increasing flexibility, and empowering parents. By focusing on solutions rather than rhetoric, we will be able to accomplish those things. Mr. President, I yield the floor to my friend from Tennessee. Several Senators addressed the Chair.