[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 2 (Wednesday, January 28, 1998)]
[Senate]
[Pages S90-S99]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                      STATE OF THE UNION RESPONSE

  Mr. COVERDELL. Madam President, last night President Clinton 
delivered some good news and some bad news for those who, like me, want 
to address the crisis in American education. And Madam President, that 
crisis exists in grades kindergarten through high school. I repeat, 
kindergarten through high school. The good news is that President 
Clinton has finally joined the Republicans in recognizing that we must 
address this crisis.
  It is bad enough that our Nation's schoolchildren have to run a 
gauntlet of drugs and violence just to sit in class, but when they get 
to the classroom they are not learning the basics. Just recently, a 
study published in Education Week showed that only 4 in 10 urban school 
students could master basic math and reading skills. Four in 10. It 
does not get much better when we move to the suburban schools. There it 
is only 6 in 10 who can master these basic skills when tested.
  Madam President, we are failing our students, and we clearly are not 
preparing America for the new century that the President spoke of last 
evening. Republicans first attacked this problem with a comprehensive 
proposal over 1 year ago, S. 1, that addressed how to help children in 
unsafe schools, how to increase literacy, and how to give new authority 
to parents and communities to improve their local schools.
  Regrettably, although we were able to reach common ground on making 
college more accessible and affordable, President Clinton fought real 
education reform for the kindergarten through high school grades every 
step of the way.
  Most notably and unforgettably, he threatened to veto the entire tax 
relief bill last year unless we dropped one single provision, one that 
provided education savings accounts to parents for use for their 
child's specific educational needs.
  Madam President, if there was ever a proposal that was win-win in 
this city, the education savings account was it. The President said he 
would veto the entire tax relief proposal if that remained. The bad 
news in President Clinton's speech last night is that he still does not 
understand what needs to occur and where it needs to occur for grades 
kindergarten through high school. President Clinton last night repeated 
his belief that politics should stop at the schoolhouse door. I agree. 
I do not know anybody who does not agree. President Clinton should get 
out of the schoolhouse doorway and allow real education and reform to 
help the kids inside those schools.
  What we saw last night was education proposals that ignored giving 
parents and local communities real power and real choices; ignored real 
reform in favor of business as usual--we call it the status quo around 
here--spending increases, and paying for all these new programs with 
money the Government does not even have and may not ever have. I 
repeat, paying for all these new programs in the State of the Union 
with money the Government does not have and may never have.
  We have a better way. It is called BOOKS, the Better Opportunities 
for Our Kids and Schools Act.
  Madam President, BOOKS has several very powerful provisions that do 
exactly what I just alluded to--give new authority and choice to 
parents, give new authority and choice to States and local school 
districts that move decisionmaking capability to the people on the 
frontline and away from the Washington bureaucrat who could not 
associate a single face with a single name.
  Title I. A-plus accounts, education savings accounts. Parents can 
contribute $2,500 a year for a child's K through 12 education--public, 
private, religious or home schools. Everybody wins no matter where 
their children are in school. I might add that if they chose, they 
could keep those savings accounts on through higher education as well.
  Dollars could be used for a home computer, the tutor that is needed 
for a math deficiency, tuition or the expenses of home schooling; 75 
percent of these massive new resources would be used by those in public 
schools. They would be a major winner. And 70 percent of the people 
taking advantage of the savings account earn less than $75,000 per 
year. The Joint Tax Committee is the source of this estimate. The cost 
would be $2.6 billion over the next 5 years. Basically, what we are 
saying is that we are going to leave $2.6 billion in the checking 
accounts of parents trying to help their children.
  Title II. Dollars to the classroom. Dollars to the classroom would 
block grant about $3 billion to States and continue to send $7 billion 
in title I, part A funds to the States with only one requirement--that 
95 percent of those Federal dollars go to the classroom to where the 
kids are, not where the bureaucracy offices are. So the money to the 
disadvantaged children stays the same with the exception we want it in 
the classroom, and we free $3 billion a year so that those local school 
districts can do what they need to do. Do they need to hire teachers? 
Then they hire the teachers. Do they need to build schools? Then they 
build schools. Whatever it is they need--not what we envision they may 
need--could be done through dollars to the classroom. Bureaucracy eats 
up scarce dollars as State and local governments comply with 
Washington's strings. This is not new. It has become endemic in our 
Government.

  Even in title I, the moneys that go to the disadvantaged, 99 percent 
reaches the school district but 4 to 13 percent is eaten up by 
administrative costs--4 to 13 percent. That is big dollars. The $3 
billion block grant could pay for as many as 50,000 teachers a year and 
1 million new computers every year or it could pay for building up to 
500 elementary schools. The key point here it is their choice--their 
choice.
  Title III. Opportunity and safety for low-income children. This is a 
5-year pilot choice program at 20 to 30 sites to allow low-income 
children to attend a safe school through a choice system. We would 
invest $75 million for 1 year on this project.
  I do want to point out, Madam President, that this is voluntary. This 
is not imposed on anyone. In fact, with the exception of requiring that 
Federal dollars go to the classroom at the 95 percent level, there is 
nothing in the BOOKS Act that is mandatory. It defines, under this 
title, low income as 185 percent of the poverty line. Unsafe schools 
are those with high crime

[[Page S91]]

rates, serious drug problems and disciplinary problems. This gives kids 
at risk a chance to attend a public, charter, private, or sectarian 
school where the emphasis is on learning, not survival.
  Madam President, I just think it is unconscionable policy to order 
children to go to schools that are certifiably unsafe and drug ridden.
  Title IV. Testing and merit pay for teachers. It allows States to use 
Federal funds to reward good teachers and weed out the bad, and it will 
make it easier for States to carry out performance assessments of 
teachers and establish merit pay programs. Americans across the board 
agree with these concepts. Reward good teachers, weed out the bad, and 
make it easier for States to carry out performance assessment of 
teachers.
  Title V. Reading excellence. This is similar to Chairman Bill 
Goodling's bill in the House which passed the House by a voice vote on 
November 8, 1997.
  Madam President, it would provide $210 million for teacher training 
and individual grants for K through 12 reading instruction. It requires 
funds to be spent on programs demonstrated by scientific research to be 
effective, like phonics. It gives parents of kids at risk the ability 
to purchase additional tutoring assistance through grants.
  President Clinton's America Reads program which cost $2.7 billion 
over 5 years proposed sending semitrained volunteers into the 
classroom. This is a flawed concept, when you would send a semitrained 
volunteer into a classroom that has already demonstrated that it is not 
teaching a student to read. So you would send an unprofessional 
volunteer to help the student read better--that is not logical. The 
reading excellence title requires funds to be spent on programs proven 
effective by scientific research to enable the teacher to improve his 
or her skills so that she or he can teach the student to read.
  Title VI is the teacher and student safety title. This title allows 
the use of Federal funds to move victims of violence to safe schools. 
They could be a public, private or sectarian schools. The key here is 
if the student has become a victim, there should be nothing in the way 
of that school board's ability to move the student to a safe place. It 
allows use of noneducational funds--Victims of Crime Act administered 
by the Department of Justice--for innovative programs to help victims 
and witnesses of crime on school property. And it encourages the use of 
immediate notification and annual report cards to parents and teachers 
about incidents of violence and drugs at schools.
  Title VII is the Charter Schools Expansion Act title. This is similar 
to Congressman Riggs' bill which passed the House 367 to 57 on November 
7. This provision of the legislation ensures charter schools are 
eligible for their fair share of Federal funding, whether it is title 
I, IDEA, or title VI block grants. Charter schools are public schools 
freed of many of the regulations in turn for increased accountability 
in terms of student outcomes. Without excessive regulation these 
schools are better able to design programs tailored to the needs of 
students and communities.
  Madam President, I see we have been joined by my good colleague from 
Nebraska. I am going to turn to the Senator in just a minute or so 
here.
  Under title VIII, the last title, we say the Federal Government 
should honor its agreement, which it made when it imposed special 
education requirements on local education, to fund a sizable portion of 
it. We agreed to fund up to 40 percent but we have never done it. You 
know, it's one of those stories, ``The check is in the mail.'' It never 
quite gets there.
  Senator Gregg deserves a lot of credit for this. He started the 
process last year but this would finish it with $9.3 billion over the 
next 6 years to fully honor our commitment to fund special ed, which we 
call IDEA. That would free up $9.3 billion for local communities to 
assess and take care of their own specific needs. That is the general 
description of the proposal our conference announced on January 20.
  I now turn to my colleague and good friend from Nebraska, Senator 
Hagel, for up to 7 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nebraska is recognized.
  Mr. HAGEL. Madam President, I would like to make a couple of 
observations about last night, the agenda for the second session of 
this 105th Congress; what is ahead of us, what is ahead for the 
American people, the challenges that lie ahead for the world.
  As I listened intently and seriously last night, as I am sure all my 
colleagues did, to the President's message, questions came to me like, 
``Isn't the definition of the debate for this year and the defining of 
the debate that the Congress will have into the next century about the 
role of Government?'' That is the issue. What is the role of Government 
in our lives? How much Government do we want? How much Government can 
we afford? What do we want Government to do for us? And how much are we 
willing to pay for Government?
  The President--and I have all eight single-spaced pages of the text 
of his speech last night--gave a good speech. But the speech was about 
new programs, the federalization of America. This is the same President 
who said 2 years ago in a State of the Union Message that the era of 
big Government is gone. No more big Government. And then the President 
said last night, early on in his text, that we, today, have, ``the 
smallest Government in 35 years.'' I don't know how the President 
measures that, but this body is going to debate this year a $1.7 
trillion Federal budget to keep this small little Government going.
  He talks about federalizing education. I don't find the 
responsibility of the Federal Government to be education anywhere in 
the Constitution. I don't find it in any document that education is in 
the purview and the province of the Federal Government. Yet this 
President says we, the Federal Government, representing the people who 
pay the taxes, are going to hire 100,000 new teachers. We are going to 
federalize new teachers. We are going to build new schools across 
America, federalize our schools. But yet, of course, he fails to tell 
us how he intends to do that. Where are those resources coming from?
  At the same time he boasts, rightfully so, that we in fact have moved 
toward balancing our budget. So he takes credit for that on this side. 
And then on this side we have page after page, line after line, of new 
Government spending proposals.
  Medicare has been running a deficit the last couple of years. Yet 
this President is proposing that we add more people onto Medicare. This 
is at the same time the President and the Congress have come together 
and said we need a Medicare commission, a bipartisan Medicare 
commission to take a look at the seriousness of the problem, of the 
issue, of the challenge, and report back to the President next year. 
But, no, he decides not to wait for that.
  Child care--we are going to federalize child care? These are all 
important, critical issues for our country, for our people. Of course 
they are. But I think we might be better off if we would essentially 
continue this effort to cut Government, cut spending, cut programs, cut 
taxes, and take the responsibility of governing ourselves back to where 
it should be; back to the cities, the school boards, the counties. Who 
best understands the problem? I trust school boards. I trust teachers. 
I trust parents. I don't trust bureaucrats. We are rapidly developing 
into this monolithic centralization of bureaucratic rule. People in the 
Department of Education and all these areas are good people, family 
people, but we just, year after year, load more on them.

  I ask this question when I hear a retort from my friends on the other 
side, or from the President, that Medicare, for example, and all these 
new programs, will pay for themselves; there will not be an increase in 
spending; we don't need to find more taxpayers' money: Is there anyone 
out there who can show me any time we have had a Federal program that 
has gotten smaller? Do Federal programs and agencies and bureaucracies 
and departments vanish after a few years? Oh, no, no; they get bigger. 
And who has to pay for it? My children and your children. And it gets 
bigger and bigger. Where have we cut Government in the 1990s? We have 
cut it in one department. What department? Defense. Our national 
security has been cut over the last 10 years in real dollars by 40 
percent. How many other departments and agencies have been cut? None.
  So my point is this. Before we rush into all these new programs and 
new

[[Page S92]]

Government and new federalization, we better sober up for a moment. 
This is not a time for campaign rhetoric. This is not a time for 
campaign speeches. This is a time for clear-headed, strong, dynamic, 
smart, realistic leadership, gutsy leadership. That is what America 
demands. That is what America will get.
  I say these things not because I am opposed to the President or 
trying to complicate the President's life. But we, too, have a 
constitutional responsibility in this body. We have accountability to 
the people we represent. And this is one U.S. Senator who is going to 
ask some very tough questions about every one of these new programs.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. COVERDELL. Madam President, I thank the Senator from Nebraska for 
his remarks and the contribution he made here this afternoon. I am 
going to now turn to our distinguished colleague, Senator Hutchinson 
from Arkansas, and yield up to 10 minutes to the Senator from Arkansas.
  Mr. HUTCHINSON. I thank the Senator from Georgia for yielding. First, 
I want to associate myself with the remarks of the Senator from 
Nebraska and his excellent analysis of the efforts by our government to 
federalize not only education, but many other programs as well. And I 
applaud Senator Coverdell from Georgia for his efforts in the area of 
education, and in particular, his leadership on the Better 
Opportunities for Our Kids and Schools Act, the BOOKS Act. I believe 
this bill demonstrates that we, as Republicans, have a deep concern 
about education in this country. We have a deep concern about improving 
education for our children, who are precious to us. And we recognize 
that this is best done at the local level, where teachers know the 
names of our kids, and can pick up the phone and call the parents when 
the need arises. These decisions are better made at the local school 
district level, the State level, and not by a greater and bigger 
Federal bureaucracy.
  Last evening, in his State of the Union Address, the President 
proposed ``the first ever national effort to reduce the class size in 
the early grades . . . by hiring 100,000 new teachers.'' So I ask, is 
this really a genuine effort to reduce the size of our children's 
classes? Or is it just another exercise of ever bigger Government, and 
a move in that gradual effort toward federalizing education in this 
country?
  Why are new teachers, mandated from Washington, the ticket to smaller 
class sizes? It is well-documented that many States across this Nation 
have taken on the responsibility of reducing the size of their 
classrooms; namely, California, Virginia, Massachusetts, Connecticut 
and Wisconsin. The Governors of these five States have proposed hiring 
thousands of new teachers using, not Federal dollars, but State 
dollars. This makes sense, allowing individuals closest to our children 
to make these kinds of decisions.
  Madam President, I trust those individuals in the thousands of cities 
and towns across this country who know your child's name, to make the 
important decisions that impact the very classrooms in which our 
children learn much more than I trust bureaucrats in our Nation's 
capital. In an effort to allow States and localities to make these 
decisions, I, as part of the BOOKS legislation, will be introducing the 
Dollars to the Classroom Act, that will redirect about $3 billion of K-
12 education dollars to the States, requiring only that 95 percent of 
that money actually reach our children's classrooms. This money can be 
for books, it can be for teachers, it can be for computers--whatever 
the local education officials deem necessary and important to the 
education of our children.

  While no one can deny the importance of providing the best possible 
education to our children, we also must implement these programs in the 
most responsible manner: by returning control over the education of our 
children to the place that it belongs, the parents and teachers and 
local communities and local school boards. By doing that, we will 
ensure that education dollars are spent wisely on programs and 
activities which really benefit our children in the classroom.
  Currently, the vast majority of all Federal education funding does 
not go to school districts or classrooms. In fact, in 1995, of the $100 
billion the Federal Government allocated for education programs, only 
about 13 percent actually got to the local level from the Department of 
Education. That is a travesty, and a national nightmare.
  Madam President, the current system of Federal bureaucrats attempting 
to administer hundreds of education programs to our children is, to say 
the least, highly inefficient, as reflected in falling test scores and 
increased illiteracy rates.
  Many students are not adequately prepared to meet the challenges of 
life beyond high school, whether they go on to college, take a job, or 
attend a trade school. In fact, last year alone, 43 percent of high 
school seniors scored below the basic level in science, while 29 
percent of all college freshmen were required to take at least one 
remedial course. Most alarming is that 68 percent of employers say that 
high school graduates are not prepared to succeed in the workplace. 
These statistics paint a very sad picture in a country which prides 
itself on having the best education system in the world. When limited 
Federal funding is spread so thin over such a wide area, the result is 
ineffective programs that fail to provide students with the basic 
skills they need to succeed.
  So I ask my colleagues to join Senator Coverdell and my good friend 
from Nebraska, Senator Hagel, and I, in asking hard questions. Which do 
our constituents really prefer? In whom do the citizens of America 
really place their confidence? The real question is--is it going to be 
BOOKS, or is it going to be bureaucrats? So why not let those on the 
State level, why not let those on the local level, who best know the 
needs of our children, make those decisions, make those determinations? 
Perhaps it is books, perhaps it is computers, or perhaps it will be a 
need for more teachers so that children will have smaller class sizes. 
But I truly believe that those decisions must be made at the local 
level.
  I believe the alternative, the Dollars to the Classroom Act, 
demonstrates not only our commitment to the education of our kids, but 
also proves that there is a better way to implement this commitment 
rather than creating an ever-growing Federal bureaucracy and 
appropriating ever-larger sums of money which are failing to provide 
for the real needs that our schools have.
  So, once again, I applaud Senator Coverdell for his leadership in 
education, his leadership on our efforts to improve education for all 
of the children in this country.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Georgia is recognized.
  Mr. COVERDELL. I commend the Senator from Arkansas. I think he very 
adroitly draws the distinction between our proposal, which frees these 
local communities to make decisions about what they need, in 
distinction to the last 30 or 40 years where more and more and more we 
have somebody, as you say, who couldn't recognize one of the students, 
trying to set the priorities, and all the assistance we send is with a 
mandate to shackle the local school boards.
  Everywhere I go--I don't know about yourself--but it is over and over 
I am being told that you all are going to have to decide. ``You all 
have to let us teach these kids.'' Or, ``Are you going to keep 
mandating us and throttling us down with all of your agendas?'' And 
while we have been doing that, we, each year, have more and more data 
suggesting that the children cannot do the basics, cannot read right, 
they cannot understand the basic science, and they cannot add and 
subtract.
  If they cannot do that, they cannot succeed in our society. I think 
you have adroitly hit it. And I appreciate your work on dollars to 
these local systems.
  We have now been joined, Madam President, by the distinguished 
Senator from Florida, Senator Mack. I yield Senator Mack up to 10 
minutes.
  Mr. MACK addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Florida is recognized.
  Mr. MACK. Thank you, Madam President.
  I thank the Senator from Georgia for this opportunity. I want to 
again commend the Senator for the leadership he provided last year in 
focusing us on this issue, leading the debate and the effort to try to 
pass the A-plus education savings account with great leadership. We 
appreciate what the Senator is doing.

[[Page S93]]

  I want to kind of set the stage as to why I think the issue of 
education is so important. When I go home and speak to the people, they 
will tell you that the No. 1 issue facing the Nation, facing their 
State, facing their community, is education. I think they recognize 
that if their children are going to be successful with their lives, 
they have to have an education that is second to none.
  But let me put it in a broader perspective in that I believe that the 
21st century is going to be the century of knowledge.
  We have all heard about, for the last 10 or 15 years, folks like 
Alvin Toffler talking about the information/communications age. Some of 
us find ourselves totally surprised that we are engaged in playing 
around on the computer, the Internet, things I couldn't have dreamed of 
a couple years ago. We know there is an explosion of knowledge and 
information out there. We also know that if our children are going to 
be successful and be able to compete in the 21st century, they are 
going to have to have an education second to none.
  To just build on that, there was an educator in the State of 
Florida--President Bush put him on his commission-- Mitch Madique, who 
is the president at one of our State universities. He traveled to South 
America and had discussions with the various leaders of education in 
those countries. They were saying to him, ``We are really looking 
forward to the 21st century because competition in the 21st century is 
no longer going to be based on military capability, military strength 
or the amount of your natural resources. Instead, competition is going 
to be based on knowledge. If that's the case, we're all starting off on 
the same foot. And we believe we have just as much of an opportunity to 
develop a first-class education system as you do. So we look forward to 
competition in the 21st century.''
  To me, this means that if those three little grandsons of mine, who 
are 13, 11 and 4, if they are going to have an opportunity to make it, 
and if they are going to have an opportunity to have the same kind of 
experiences and opportunities that we had, then they do have to have an 
education that is second to none.
  The proposals that the Senator from Georgia has already laid out make 
clear that there is not going to be a solution described and defined at 
the Federal level and passed on to the local communities and States. 
Conversely, we believe that the answers are going to come from the 
grassroots level.
  So I would like to just share for a moment an experience that I had 
in California a few years ago. I went to a school in the area where the 
riots took place. The name of this school was the Marcus Garvey School. 
We have had some experience with the Marcus Garvey School here in 
Washington. The experience we had in California was totally different 
than here locally, so don't be confused.

  As I went to the school and I drove down the street, I would suggest 
that probably most of you would think, ``I'm not sending my child to 
that school.'' There were just absolutely no amenities. There was not a 
blade of grass anywhere. There was not a single basketball hoop or any 
playgrounds that I could see. There was just a building that had been 
converted, I am not sure what from, into a series of classrooms.
  We went in and we met with the owner, the administrator, the 
principal--all one person. His name was Anyim Palmer. His office was 
probably 10 by 12, stacked full of papers. He had no secretary. When 
the phone rang, he answered it. The equipment or the desks and chairs 
appeared to be 30-40 years old. The point I am making is there was not 
a lot of money invested in amenities in this school.
  He suggested that maybe we go down and work our way through the 
different classes that were being taught. We started out in the day 
care area. We saw about eight or nine children age 2--not second grade, 
but age 2. When my wife and I went down to the room, the teacher said 
to the children, ``Show the Senator and Mrs. Mack how you can say your 
ABCs''--again, they were 2 years old. They said their ABCs. Just as 
cute as they could be, they ran through the alphabet. When they 
finished with that, the teacher said, ``Now say it in Spanish.'' Then 
they said it in Spanish. Then she said, ``Do it in Swahili.'' Then they 
said it in Swahili. Here are 2-year-old children who have already 
mastered the alphabet in three different languages.
  We went from there over to where the 3-year-old children--again, I 
emphasize 3-year-old children--were working on math. These little 
children were walking up to the blackboard working through math 
problems. So the teacher said to me, ``Give them a problem to work 
on.'' I suspect everybody here would have reacted the same way I did. I 
said, ``How about 5 plus 3?'' She said, ``No. I mean, give them a 
difficult problem to do.'' So I said, ``Well, how about 153 plus 385.'' 
And the little 3-year-old stood there and put a couple dots on the 
board, wrote down one number; put a couple more dots on the board, and 
another number went down; a few more dots, another number went down. It 
was the right answer--3 years old.
  We went over where the 4-year-olds were being taught reading, and 
they were reading at the second and third grade levels--at the age of 
4.
  I went to where the 5-year-old children were--and mind you, we have 
not gotten to the first grade yet. The teacher asked one of the little 
boys to stand up and recite for me, in the proper chronological order, 
all the Presidents of the United States. This little boy stood up and 
looked me right square in the eye, and he listed every President of the 
United States in proper chronological order.
  You might be asking yourself, how did I know that? Frankly, they 
handed me a cheat sheet, and I was working my way down it as he was 
going through it.
  My point is, here is a school that most people, again, would look at 
and say, ``I don't want my child to go there.'' No amenities. It is 
bare bones. You may say, ``Well, what makes this thing work?'', which 
is exactly what I asked every teacher in every room that we went into. 
How is this happening? Anyim Palmer told me that the answer was the 
teacher. It is the teacher. Every time they asked the question, the 
answer was the same--it is the teacher.
  Interesting things came out of it. I don't believe any of the 
teachers were certified. I think only two of them had college 
educations. What happened is Anyim Palmer, who was the owner, 
administrator, the principal, was a former public schoolteacher who 
became so frustrated with the public school system that he said, ``I'm 
going to start my own school. I'm going to teach people how to teach.''

  Again, I would encourage anyone who has an opportunity to make a 
visit to that school or something like it to do so. But the point is, 
if we rely on the present system, the present system will produce 
exactly what it has produced in the past, unless there is something 
that forces people to change. We believe the program that we have put 
together will in fact assist local communities and States to develop 
alternatives to the present public school system.
  I visited a charter school in Miami just a few days ago and spoke 
with a teacher there, who up until a few years ago was an engineer. I 
said, ``What happened? Why are you teaching?'' He said two things. One 
is, he said, ``I lost my job. And I didn't want to put my family 
through that kind of an experience again. I felt there was some 
security in teaching.'' And then he said, ``You know what? I have found 
my calling.'' He is teaching second grade children. He said, ``This is 
exactly where I should be.''
  But in this charter school, this individual had flexibility. This 
individual could approach the opportunity of teaching our children in a 
totally different way than in the past. So, again, I think if we 
encourage innovative thinking, we are going to find there are some 
remarkable ways to improve education in our country.
  As you know, one of the major points in our proposal is to reward 
teachers who do a good job. We ought to reward excellence. We ought to 
say to those teachers, ``You have done a great job and we are going to 
reward you for it.'' That is why we are talking about the importance of 
merit pay.
  But if we are going to have merit pay, we also need to recognize 
those teachers who are not doing a good job. We need a way to determine 
that, other than whether a principal likes an individual or does not 
like an individual, or

[[Page S94]]

a school board does not like an individual. We ought to say there ought 
to be competence testing. Part of this plan, known as BOOKS, calls for 
competency testing and for merit pay.
  Before I conclude, I would like to point out that in the State of 
Florida, 70 percent of the community college freshmen require remedial 
education. We have to change that. The cost to the State of Florida is 
$50 billion a year to handle this problem. Let's improve our K-12 
education system.
  With that, I yield the floor and again thank the Senator from Georgia 
for tackling this initiative. I look forward to working with you on 
this important issue.
  Mr. COVERDELL addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Georgia is recognized.
  Mr. COVERDELL. I commend the Senator from Florida. It is an 
absolutely fascinating story. There are many of these around the 
country.
  Just to make a point, of late when you read the statistics of 4 in 10 
are all that can pass in urban city schools' basic standards tests, 3 
in 10, 4 in 10 go to college, as you have noted, and have to go back 
and learn these skills again. We are beginning to hear an echo that 
these students were not educable, that there was something wrong 
someplace else, something wrong at home, something wrong with society.
  What kind of community was this? What was the surrounding like around 
this school? Was this a very wealthy suburb?
  Mr. MACK. No. As I indicated, it was in the riot area in Los Angeles.
  Mr. COVERDELL. Would you surmise that those students could not have 
possibly all come from very stable, two-parent families that you might 
find in some communities?
  Mr. MACK. I could suspect you could draw the conclusion they were 
somewhat different than, say, what most people think of as the 
traditional family in America. But I would be careful about drawing too 
many conclusions on that because I think there are some things about 
what was going on in this school that also sends a message to moms and 
dads.
  I think that one of the reasons for success was because mom and dad 
were involved. They made the determination. I mean, this was a private 
school, so they have to pay to go to that private school--some of them 
at great sacrifice. Some of them, frankly, from outside the community.
  But the point there is, if you go back to the charter school, for 
example, one of the things that most charter schools require, as you 
know, is that they want parent involvement. In fact, when I was at the 
school in Liberty City, in Miami, mom and dad parents came into the 
classroom, as I was talking with the teacher, to discuss with him the 
problems of their student. What was the problem? Or what should they be 
doing more at home to help?
  Again, I think one of the messages that we do get is that in the 
charter schools--I guess there are others who are much more 
knowledgeable at these things than I am, but because it is a very 
focused school, it understands the importance of mom and dad being 
engaged. The teacher understands the importance of moms and dads being 
engaged, and, clearly, the parents understand if they are going to be 
able to keep their children in this charter school, they have to be 
part of it.
  Again, I would make the case, whether it be a mother and a dad or 
single mom or single father, that if you can engage them in the 
education process, regardless of that background, in probably 9 out of 
10 cases--I am just saying this from my feeling; I do not have the 
statistics--but 9 out of 10 times, if you, the parent, one or both, are 
engaged in your children's education, you are going to improve the 
ability of your child to learn. And, again, I think you are going to 
find that you are going to create that environment, something different 
than we are doing today.
  There is just so much we can learn from this experience. Again, the 
answer that kept coming back, ``It is the teacher. It is the teacher. 
It is the teacher.'' I think people ought to recognize that what 
Republicans are saying is we value teachers. They are the ones who 
really make a difference.
  Again, if my grandsons are going to succeed, they need to be exposed 
to good teachers. We have to help create an environment in which 
people, (a) want to come into the teaching profession and, (b) once 
they are there, want to remain and experience the excitement of seeing 
young children learn. Teachers help children realize how important 
knowledge is to them and their future. Again, teachers are the ones who 
really make a difference.
  Mr. COVERDELL. The Senator makes an excellent point. Who does not 
remember the teacher that affected them? There is no one that does not 
remember that teacher.
  Mr. MACK. I can name my first-grade teacher.
  Mr. COVERDELL. I thank the Senator for the presentation.
  I turn to our distinguished colleague from Wyoming, Senator Thomas, 
and yield up to 10 minutes to the Senator.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming is recognized.
  Mr. THOMAS. I appreciate the Senator from Georgia arranging for an 
opportunity to talk about our agenda. After all we have just returned 
now from recess, just returned from a time to talk with our 
constituents. I spent all this time in Wyoming doing a number of town 
meetings, talking to people about various things they are interested 
in.
  It is time for us, of course to talk about agendas, to talk about 
priorities, to talk about what it is that we intend to do during what 
is already a relatively short work year, during an election year. The 
thing, of course, that is on our minds today, I suppose, is the 
President's State of the Union Address last evening in which he laid 
out his agenda, not a surprise agenda, and talked about the issues he 
has been talking about now for several weeks, with a new proposal each 
week, all put together in a State of the Union Message which had, I 
think, about 30 different proposals of things to do.

  It seems to me that what we have to do now as a responsible Congress 
is to decide on those items that we think are priorities to this 
country, that we think are priorities for success in families in this 
country, economically, from a freedom standpoint, how-to-govern 
standpoint, and really press for those. I must say that I feel rather 
strongly about that.
  I felt last evening that--the President, of course, is certainly free 
to have his own agenda--that was an agenda that had been put together 
by pollsters, an agenda that had been put together to enumerate all 
those things that would sound good to everyone that was listening, an 
agenda that I think, clearly, again the President is perfectly free to 
move his position, move his position back toward the more liberal 
Democrat Party from which he has departed in the last several years 
somewhat to establish more support for Al Gore when the time comes. I 
think that is legitimate. I don't happen to agree with that.
  I think we ought to be moving forward to continue to do the things 
that we have begun to do over the last several years, some of the 
things that I am particularly proud of, frankly, that this Congress has 
been able to do, to bring forth a balanced budget. That, after all, is 
the responsibility of the Congress. We have done that. We need to 
continue to do that. We need to continue to try and control spending so 
that we can move toward this idea of a balanced budget and beyond, to 
begin to work on the debt that is there, to begin to do something about 
that $280 billion we spend on interest every year to service a $5.5 
trillion debt. That, it seems to me, ought to be the real focus of what 
we do.
  Our responsibility now, I believe, in the Congress is--we shall meet 
on Friday, our friends across the aisle will meet I am sure next week--
to come to grips with those kind of things we think are the priorities 
for our agenda. I don't think our agenda can be a laundry list of 30 or 
40 things that appeal to the polls but rather ought to be the kinds of 
things that are terribly important to us.
  I think we ought to talk about ISTEA, for example. We ought to get 
out into the country to do the highway maintenance, the highway 
building. We didn't get that done last time because we got diverted 
talking about something else. ISTEA needs to be there. I think we need 
to continue to work on the budget. There is probably nothing more 
important than being responsible in the spending that we do. Again, I 
am

[[Page S95]]

pleased with what has happened with the budget over time. I am pleased 
for what has happened in the last couple of years on welfare reform. 
The Congress has moved forward, with the cooperation of the President, 
after a couple of vetoes. That is OK. But we need to continue to do 
that, to provide the opportunity to help people move off of welfare 
into work, which is what most people want to do, of course. We have 
made some progress in moving away some from the entitlement program 
that we have had. We have made some progress in terms of moving 
Government closer to people, where Government is more responsive at the 
State level, and do those things at the State level that we should do 
there.
  As I listened last night to the enumeration of things that might be 
done it seemed to me at least one of the considerations that has to be 
made is where do you do these things most efficiently? Child care--
everybody is for having quality child care. Everybody wants to 
strengthen the child care program. The question first we ought to ask 
is, where is that best done? What is the role of the Federal Government 
in child care? What is the role of the State government in these kinds 
of things?
  I happened to have the privilege last night of having my Governor 
accompany me to the State of the Union Message. I could sense as we 
went through last night's State of the Union Message him saying to 
himself, ``We can do that better at the State level. We can really make 
those things work.'' I agree with that.
  There are a number of other things that I personally would like to 
see us move forward on. One of my personal areas of interest is the 
national parks. National parks are a national treasure for all of us. 
More and more people go to visit national parks. More and more people 
are interested. Yet we have less resources for national parks than we 
need. National parks, some claim, are as much as $8 billion in arrears 
on infrastructure. We need to work at that. That happens to be 
something that I am most interested in.
  I think most of all we need to be sure that we are responsible, 
finally. Spending continues to go up. If we are going to balance the 
budget--why balance the budget? Because revenues have gone up. I think 
the President's proposal goes far beyond what is going to be available 
for dollars. The President says we want to keep a balanced budget and 
then lists 30 items that will cost billions of dollars plus additional 
tax deductions there that will reduce revenue. So we find ourselves I 
am sure with spending far beyond our income if we do those things.

  Those, I believe, have to be the constraints. That is what I heard 
from my people. That is what I heard from the people of Wyoming. They 
said, look, stay with that business of balancing the budget. We not 
only want to balance the budget, we would like to see you begin to 
reduce spending. This idea of the era of large Government being over is 
a good idea.
  I was disappointed the President had done a complete reversal from 2 
years ago when he announced that would be his objective. This certainly 
was not an effort to reduce and to change the era of big Government.
  Spending continues to go up, 16 percent last year, 24 percent on 
entitlements. Over a period of time, entitlements continue to grow. 
Many of these programs that we talked about inevitably will become 
entitlements. These young people that are here on the floor as pages 
won't see those benefits because they will not be sustained if we 
continue to grow at 24 percent a year.
  Madam President, I think we have a real opportunity. As I said, I 
enjoyed the President's State of the Union Message. That is his agenda. 
Now it is our responsibility to have an agenda and to put our 
priorities there, put our philosophy there, our philosophy of a 
responsible Government, our philosophy of a financially accountable 
Government, one in which we limit size and move as close as we can to 
people to solve people's problems.
  The educational program that Senator Coverdell has recommended is one 
that puts the responsibility in the hands of local people, parents. 
That is what we need to do. Those are the kinds of things we can do 
here to assist in those problems. So I am excited about this year. I 
think we have an opportunity to do a great deal. I am very proud of 
having been in this Senate since 1994. I think we have made some real 
changes in direction. It is my hope and my desire to help ensure that 
we continue to move in the direction of a more responsible Government, 
responsive to the folks that we represent, the folks I have had a 
chance to visit with for 2 months and have come back with some renewed 
dedication to the idea that this Congress, this Government, is 
responsible to the people, to the taxpayers, responsible for protecting 
liberty, responsible for being financially responsible, responsible for 
reducing taxes as much as we can, to leave the money to the people it 
belongs to. I am excited about the opportunity.
  So my friend, Mr. Coverdell, I appreciate very much what you are 
doing in this time to talk. I think we should continue to talk about 
our agenda and talk about the reasons we are doing what we are doing. I 
look forward to that happening this year.
  Mr. COVERDELL. As always, Madam President, I enjoyed the remarks of 
the distinguished Senator from Wyoming. He brings that clear Western 
thinking to the Senate.
  If I might add a thought, it is a little hard to believe, but this 
Congress passed the first balanced budget in the 104th Congress. That 
was vetoed by the President. We did it again. So we passed two. The 
President signed it. It is the first one in 30 years. In 30 years 
Washington has never developed the will to balance its budget. It 
passed the first tax relief in the last Congress. That was vetoed. A 
modified tax relief was passed last year. That was signed. That is the 
first tax relief in 16 years.
  Now, I don't know what the situation is in Wyoming but that tax 
relief proposal leaves $750 million every year in Georgia checking 
accounts of working families, businesses, people sending kids to school 
and college, trying to make ends meet. It left $750 million in those 
accounts. It was not a particularly large tax reduction. But it means a 
lot. It puts about 2,000 additional dollars in the checking account of 
an average family.
  Now, the point I am making is this, and I would like to get the 
Senator's comment, don't you find it interesting that once the United 
States balanced its budget, once it has become more engaged in managing 
its financial affairs, how much more optimistic the people are, how 
many more of them of working, how interest rates have stayed somewhat 
down, and how we are talking about surpluses for the first time? Pretty 
remarkable, very remarkable. It ought to be a lesson to every Congress 
and every President. This is a good idea. We better keep doing it.
  Mr. THOMAS. If I might, I certainly agree with the Senator. It isn't 
that difficult.
  In other words, this is what our system is all about. Our system of 
private enterprise, our system of limited Government, our system of 
allowing as much money as possible to stay in the hands of the citizens 
so they can invest it and create jobs, that is what our system is all 
about. Through the years it has been tested against socialism and big 
government and the government doing all these things, and throughout 
the world this system is the success. It is being copied everywhere. 
Sometimes it is scary when we see ourselves moving away from our own 
system that has been so successful, that everybody else has adopted.
  So the Senator is exactly right. That certainly is what creates this 
kind of an economic environment is the ability to take the risk, to 
invest, to work, to earn, to keep and to do things for yourself and 
your family.
  Mr. COVERDELL. Madam President, I appreciate the remarks of the 
Senator from Wyoming. I see we have been joined by the distinguished 
Senator from New York. I welcome his presentation and yield up to 10 
minutes to the Senator from New York.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New York is recognized.
  Mr. D'AMATO. Madam President, I thank the distinguished Senator from 
Georgia for his leadership on this most important issue. I believe that 
education is the most important issue facing our country.
  We have focused a majority of our attention on the need to give 
assistance to those of our students who are college bound, and that is 
important. We have done, I think, a good job in expanding, for example, 
the Pell grants

[[Page S96]]

to take in nearly 300,000 students, and I voted for that. We have 
increased the amounts of those grants substantially, from about $2,400 
to $3,000 and I support that. And we worked to create educational 
savings accounts, and I think that is important, Madam President.
  But I think it is time that we look at our elementary schools and our 
high schools, because one in five third-graders across New York State 
could not read with comprehension even the easiest connected sentences 
and paragraphs, according to the New York State Department of 
Education. We have heard that 40 percent of the children in some of our 
school districts are reading below grade level and are below grade 
level in math. 50 percent-plus of the students in some of our school 
districts are dropping out of school, including here in the Nation's 
Capital. What is going to happen to those children who are dropping 
out? How can they compete? What jobs are they going to hold? What will 
happen to society if this continues?
  Let me say that last night the President talked about a number of 
issues. One of those issues he talked about was the need to hire more 
teachers. Let me tell you that I believe we need more teachers in the 
classrooms. We should empower, by way of making moneys available, the 
local districts to do exactly that. I am going to work with whoever it 
is--the President, this administration, my colleagues on both sides of 
the aisle--to do exactly that.
  The President also called for greater accountability in education, 
and I believe that's important. He said students must be more 
accountable for their performance, that we should not have social 
promotion. That is true. Unfortunately, we didn't hear one word about 
making teachers accountable also. One of the things that this bill, the 
B.O.O.K.S. Act, does is make available funds for accountability. You 
can't have our kids learning if the people teaching them do not meet 
performance standards. We must have competency testing so that we know 
math teachers do understand basic math and that they can teach it. We 
have to have some system of evaluating, and we should give the school 
districts that ability. It is not that we should say what test they 
should give, but we should empower the local districts and the parents 
to have a choice.
  (Mr. COATS assumed the Chair.)
  Mr. D'AMATO. Most of our teachers, I believe, Mr. President, do a 
great job and are dedicated and hard-working. Unfortunately, there is 
no financial reward for those great teachers. I think we need merit 
pay. That is one of the things that we encourage in this legislation, 
which offers better opportunities for our kids.
  We need major reform, not just tinkering at the edges of the problem.
  Let me touch on that which, in many cases, brings about a hue and cry 
not from the parents, but from those who want to protect the status 
quo, the teachers' union.
  By perpetuating the status quo, too many of our children are falling 
by the wayside--they are not making it. I am talking about a system 
that many of my colleagues quake when we bring the issue up, and that 
is called accountability and seeing to it that teachers don't have 
lifetime tenure. I think our kids are entitled to have teachers who 
make a difference just like the teachers I had in grade school who 
created magic in the classroom.

  Those teachers exist today. Let's understand that. I think the vast 
majority of our public school teachers are dedicated, work hard, do a 
good job, and they should be rewarded with merit pay.
  But, by gosh, let's not be afraid to say there should be 
accountability as well with teacher competency tests and ending a 
system where teachers, in essence, in too many of our schools and too 
many of our States, have what is likened to lifetime tenure. After 3 
years, it becomes virtually impossible to remove those who are not 
doing the job. I will give you an example from New York State. Last 
year, only seven out of 200,000 teachers were removed. Seven. It has 
become virtually impossible. And it costs hundreds of thousands of 
dollars to bring this type of action.
  Now, Mr. President, I am not suggesting that we jeopardize those good 
teachers who are doing the job or that we create some arbitrary 
standards. I am suggesting that we have some review, some system to 
evaluate performance so that nobody has what is, in essence, lifetime 
tenure regardless of the job the person is doing.
  The education of our children is too important. Those who teach our 
children must be competent in these subjects, that is why we need 
competency testing for all teachers. Our children deserve nothing less.
  Let me point to just one other area before I conclude my remarks, and 
that is school safety. My gosh, if we have children in our public 
schools that say it is dangerous and they feel safer in their 
neighborhoods than going from one class to another, what more do we 
need? If we don't have schools as a safe haven, creating the 
environment where our children can learn in that safe haven, that oasis 
of learning, then how can the best teacher do the job? So we have to be 
able to fast-track violent, disruptive students out of the school. You 
cannot suggest that public education has ever said that even violent, 
disruptive juveniles have a right to stay in school no matter what 
their conduct. That is unfortunately the case in too many areas. I will 
tell you that the 1,116 schools in New York City reported 22,000 
incidents in 1996-97, including nearly 5,000 person-related incidents. 
It becomes impossible to have serious learning in the classroom.
  Last but not least, let me just touch on one aspect that I think is 
so important. Why should we have a plethora of Federal programs that 
serve cross-purposes, when we can take that money and establish 
education block grants. Somehow bureaucrats have planted in the minds 
of many of our parents and local officials that they are going to lose 
money.
  What we call for in this bill is saying that we are going to give you 
the same amount of money, and, in fact, we will actually give you more 
money. In title II of the BOOKS Act, States would receive funds through 
block grants, which can be used for educational needs that the local 
communities and school boards think are important--not that Washington 
mandates. So they are going to get more money. In addition, they are 
going to get a lot more money because 95 percent of those funds must 
reach the local schools in the classrooms and cannot be used for 
administrative expenses. We cannot have 15 to as high as 25 and 30 
percent of the money being used for administrative overhead. The money 
is not reaching the kids.
  I might give one example. Senator Gorton's amendment along these 
lines last year would have sent an additional $670 million to local 
school districts. But we have the bureaucrats in Washington who are 
opposed to that. They want to keep these ties. That is an employment 
center as opposed to becoming an educational opportunity. So $670 
million more could go to the school districts. And by the way, that 
hires 26,000 teachers. So when our President says, ``we want to hire 
100,000,'' here is a way. If we were to adopt the block grant proposal, 
and some amendments to it, we could hire as many as 26,000 teachers at 
the local districts without raising one additional penny. My gosh, 
that's over a quarter of the number that the President talked about, 
with no increase in taxes. It just means using the resources we have 
and empowering our parents and the local school districts to make these 
choices.

  Mr. President, I want to commend Senator Coverdell, Senator Lott, and 
the occupant of the Chair, Senator Coats, for being leaders in this 
area. We have to do better for our children, not just tinkering at the 
edges.
  By the way, why should we be afraid of the teachers' unions? We 
should encourage them to work with us. It should not be a battle 
against them. Notwithstanding that I have been critical of their status 
quo position and their opposition to basic, good, fundamental reform, 
this should be a fight for our children, to give our kids a better 
education. I would hope that the Members and all of the teachers would 
join and be in favor of this and work together. We can do better and we 
must do better because our children are entitled to that.
  So, Mr. President, I thank you for your leadership. I thank Senator 
Coverdell and my colleagues.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, I certainly echo the compliments of the 
Senator from New York to the Chair

[[Page S97]]

because, clearly, throughout your career you have been dedicated to 
this kind of work. It was appropriate to mention that. We appreciate 
the remarks of the Senator from New York. They are very much on target.
  We have been joined by our distinguished colleague from Colorado. I 
yield up to 7 minutes to the Senator from Colorado.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Colorado is recognized to 
speak for 7 minutes.
  Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Georgia for 
yielding me a few moments. One of the strengths of the Republican 
Party, and one of the reasons I am so proud of the leadership is that 
they have encouraged us to go back to our States and talk with the 
citizens in our States and really find out what the problems are. As we 
are putting together our agenda here for this session, I really feel 
like this is a grassroots message. It has come from within the States. 
It has come from our friends and our neighbors and our local elected 
officials, the people who have to work with the Federal Government on a 
daily basis. I have gone back to my State and held a lot of town 
meetings. This particular year, I decided to hold a lot of town 
meetings in January. I held 40 town meetings in January. The message 
that came loud and clear to me is the main thing on people's minds is 
that there is a growing Federal Government that is continuing to 
interfere in their daily lives. Somehow or other, they feel they are 
losing control. Local officials in Colorado feel like they are losing 
control. Small business people feel like they are losing control and 
are getting too many dictates from Washington.
  Another thing that has come up in all of my town meetings has been 
the Tax Code. People are concerned about the tax burden that they have 
to bear today, particularly from the Federal Government. People want 
our tax system reformed. They certainly would like to have lower taxes, 
and they want a simpler and a less intrusive means of collecting those 
taxes. It strikes me that the two issues of taxes and the growth of 
Government tend to intertwine with one another. Those two issues, I 
think, are simply pulled together with this statement: Where the money 
goes is where the power goes. So people stand up, and say, ``Well, 
there is too much power in Washington.'' Then they complain the next 
minute that my request for funds from some program in Washington comes 
with mandates and strings attached and they begin to realize that there 
is power related to where that money goes. I think they think that the 
Federal Government is entirely too powerful. It does claim a huge 
portion of our economy each year.

  Let me review just a few numbers to make the case for tax reduction 
and tax reform which is going to be an important part of our agenda. 
The tax burden has been steadily rising since 1992. In 1992, the 
Federal Government claimed 19 percent of the economy. By the end of 
1997 this has risen to around 21.4 percent. Remember, this is just the 
Federal Government. It is not State taxes. It is not local taxes. And 
if we include all of the State and local taxes and Federal taxes, of 
course, it is much, much larger. We are just talking about the Federal 
Government's share.
  The government at all levels now claims about one-third of the wealth 
produced each year in our economy--one-third. I think that is really a 
high number--certainly much more than any of our forefathers ever 
dreamed as far as the role of the Federal Government in our national 
economy.
  According to the Tax Foundation, State, Federal, and local taxes will 
claim 38 percent of the median two-income family--38 percent. By 
comparison, in 1965, the burden was 28 percent. It has gone up 10 
percent. The tax burden amounts to no more than a typical family will 
spend on housing, food, and clothing combined.
  Mr. President, if we really want to help families with child care 
expenses, education expenses, health expenses, or housing expenses, we 
should reduce the tax burden. They have more money in their pocket. It 
gives them additional flexibility to spend it how they feel they should 
instead of sending it to Washington and then coming down with those 
mandates.
  There is much talk in Washington about the budget balancing and the 
forecast of some excess revenues which are referred to as a 
``surplus.'' I certainly hope that this happens.
  When I was first elected to the United States House of 
Representatives, I remember our deficits were running around $340 
billion a year. That is how much more they were spending a year than 
they were bringing in that same year. Now they are projecting--the 
Congressional Budget Office--somewhere around $5 billion. That is quite 
a change.
  So I certainly hope that happens. Maybe we can do something here in 
the Senate to move that along by saying let's look at our budget that 
we passed last year. Maybe we can do something this year to cut back 
the $5 billion in spending and actually balance the budget and make 
sure that it happens.
  But I think we need to be honest about why the budget numbers look so 
good. The budget is balancing not because of any tough decisions that 
we made here in the Congress. But it is balancing because of hard-
working Americans out there that are being productive. And the reason 
that they are being productive, I think, is because they really believe 
that we are committed to balancing the budget. It holds down costs 
because interest rates are going down. And when they go to buy a car, 
or house, or when they are in business for themselves, this means they 
can invest more in themselves than the community. That is certainly 
part of it. Another part of it is because I think they believe that 
Republicans are going to--and they did last session--work for reducing 
the tax burden so they will have more of that for spending.
  So the economic performance in the past year and why it has really 
done so well is because of action here, I think, in the Republican 
Congress.
  The American people have been sending greater and greater amounts of 
their money to Washington. There is no doubt about it. With the budget 
balancing that we are going to be facing this year, I think we all 
pretty much agree that it is because of increased tax receipts coming 
in and not because of restraint in spending or the fact that the budget 
continues to grow. I think we have to keep that in mind.
  Federal spending in 1998 is estimated to be around 4.3 percent over 
our 1997 spending level. It is well in excess of inflation which is a 
little bit over 2 percent.
  So I hope that we will keep in mind that we need to make decisions 
that move the power from Washington back to the local level, and move 
it back to the pocketbooks of people who are in business for themselves 
and are making decisions on behalf of their families.
  So we are going to reduce the role of the Federal Government by 
cutting taxes. And I am here to say that we need to get on with it. And 
the sooner we show the American people that we are really serious about 
cutting taxes I think the better our growth is going to be in this 
economy and the more we can count on to sustain the economy so it is 
easier for us to balance the budget and move forward with our daily 
lives.
  I thank the Senator from Georgia for yielding me time to comment on 
taxes and our economy and how my constituents feel about reducing the 
budget within their daily lives.

  Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Colorado for 
his very generous remarks, and I enjoyed his presentation here this 
afternoon.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that our time be elongated by 
5 minutes. We have cleared this with the other side.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, we have been joined by the 
distinguished Senator from Texas. I yield up to 7 minutes to the 
Senator from Texas.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas is recognized to speak 
for up to 7 minutes.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Thank you, Mr. President.
  I thank the Senator from Georgia for letting us talk about this 
important issue, because I think we are getting to the crux of what 
Congress wants to do. I am glad to be able to address this issue today 
after the President's State of the Union Message because I was somewhat 
concerned that in his State of the Union message. The President

[[Page S98]]

seemed to throw aside any hope for tax cuts. That is a very important 
agenda that I have, and I think most Members of Congress have because 
we believe that hard-working American families should be able to keep 
more of the money they earn, not less.
  I want to outline what I think is the right approach, if we do in 
fact start seeing budget surpluses. I want to put forward the 
proposition that ``half and half'' is more than just a high-quality 
milk product. In fact, half and half is the right formula for the 
responsible spending of the surplus that we hope to see in our budget 
over the next 10 years. Half should go for paying down the debt. If we 
are going to be the responsible stewards of this country for our future 
generation, we must start whittling away the $5 trillion debt. We have 
worked hard in a bipartisan way in Congress and with the President to 
come to a balanced budget. We have done the hard work. To now fritter 
it away with new ideas for spending our hard-earned taxpayer dollars is 
the wrong thing to do at this time.
  So I think one-half should go towards paying down debt, so that we 
can say to our children we are going to give you at least as good a 
solid base as we had when we were growing up in this great country. The 
other half should go for direct tax cuts for the people who have earned 
this money.
  When I hear people on this floor talking about tax cuts, you can 
really tell the difference in the way they frame the question. The 
question asked by people who do not want tax cuts is ``Well, now if we 
give these tax cuts, what is it going to cost the federal government?'' 
That is the wrong question. It is not the government's money, it is the 
money of hard-working taxpayers. A tax cut lets them keep more of the 
money they earn. It is not robbing it from the Federal Government. It 
is letting the people who earn it keep it.
  So half and half I think is the right formula.
  I will be introducing legislation very quickly that would provide tax 
cuts, and it would do it in a descending order of priority so that we 
would never go over one-half of the budget surplus of that year.
  Here is what my tax bill would do. It would first eliminate the 
marriage tax penalty. People in our country should not have to choose 
between love and money. We value marriage. And the people who get hurt 
the most are the middle-income. The policeman who marries the school 
teacher will pay over $1,000 in taxes in a marriage tax penalty just 
because they got married. That is wrong, and I want to eliminate it.
  No. 2, I want to raise the level of income that people would start 
paying taxes at 15 percent and 28 percent. This helps the people who 
are paying the most. I want to raise that 15-percent tax on a single 
person which, in 1998 will kick in at $25,350. I want to raise that to 
$35,000 so that you would not go into that 15-percent bracket until you 
are single and earning $35,000. If you are married, it would be 
$50,000, up from $42,350. If you are the head of a household, it would 
be $40,000, up from $33,950. The 28-percent bracket, the next bracket, 
would start at $71,000 for a single person, up from $61,109, $109,950, 
for a couple, up from $102,000, and for a head of household, $93,000, 
up from $87,000.

  This just raises the point at which people would have to pay higher 
rates. It gives a break to those who are paying the biggest share, and 
that is the lower- and middle-income people of our country.
  No. 3, the bill will repeal the 18-month capital gains holding period 
and make it 12 months. I think 12 months is ample time for a capital 
gains tax to set in. And keep in mind that capital gains are more 
disproportionately paid by our elderly citizens.
  No. 4, in my proposal, I will index capital gains for inflation. This 
will be a tremendous help to elderly people because most of their 
income is investment income rather than earned income. We are indexing 
the personal exemption on earned income. Why not do it for those who 
are earning it through investment, as elderly people are?
  Finally, my bill will cut the top estate tax rate from 55 percent, to 
28 percent. I don't like the estate tax at all because I think the 
American dream for over 200 years has been that you could come to this 
country, you could work harder, and you could give your children a 
better chance than you had. So I do not want the estate tax at all. But 
if we are going to have one, I think it should be lower so that people 
will be able to give their children a little bit better start than they 
had.
  This is a balanced tax-cut plan. It is not the only one that is good. 
I have heard many versions of tax-cut plans being put forward by my 
colleagues that I could easily support. But, I think the important 
point here is that most Americans, the average American family, pay 
38.2 percent of their income in taxes. Mr. President, that is too much. 
And we want to change it, and it is a priority for this Congress.
  I thank the Senator from Georgia for letting us focus on this very 
important issue for strengthening the American family by letting them 
keep more of the money they work hard to earn.
  Thank you, Mr. President.
  Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Texas for her 
excellent remarks and her dedication to leaving money in the checking 
accounts of people who earn it.
  Let me just say in closing, because I know we are going to the other 
side, that to me American liberty and freedom rests on three principal 
stanchions: Economic liberty, which means workers can keep the fruits 
of their labors and make decisions about their lives and fulfill their 
responsibilities. We have been talking about that here today making 
sure we leave resources with American workers and families so that they 
can do the job and always be dependent upon them to do so in America.
  No. 2, for freedom to exist people have to be safe. They have to be 
secure at work and at home and in their school. We talked about making 
them safer today.
  Last, but certainly not least, an uneducated mind cannot enjoy the 
benefits of American citizenship. An uneducated mind is denied American 
liberty. The first major denial occurs, as Senator D'Amato from New 
York said, when they are denied economic liberty because they cannot 
get a job and they cannot connect with the vast opportunity in society.
  So America has to get about the task of assuring that all her 
children and her population have the fundamentals to be free and to 
enjoy American freedom. And that is what we have been talking about 
today. We want America to be educated so that she will remain free.
  We want workers to be able to benefit from their work so that they 
can do the job of raising their families and fulfilling their 
responsibilities as American citizens. And we know they have to be safe 
because no commerce, no civil interaction can occur in a society that 
is violence-ridden. And that is what we have been talking about all 
afternoon.
  If you keep America educated, you give her citizens economic 
viability and options; protect them at home and in the workplace and 
school, America will be just fine. Our people will take this country 
and build a new American century.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (The remarks of Mr. Robb pertaining to the introduction of S. 1582 
are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills 
and Joint Resolutions.'')
  Mr. ROBB. With that, Mr. President, I yield the floor and I thank the 
distinguished Senator from North Dakota for yielding me time that was 
to be his, and which I would ask unanimous consent not be charged 
against the 90 minutes that are allocated to him.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The 
Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, it is my understanding that 90 minutes 
have been reserved in a block of time for the Democratic Leader or his 
designee. Is that correct?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.

[[Page S99]]



                          ____________________