[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 39 (Tuesday, March 31, 1998)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2781-S2797]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET FOR THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT FOR FISCAL YEARS 
                    1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, AND 2003

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will now 
resume consideration of S. Con. Res. 86, which the clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       A concurrent resolution (S. Con. Res. 86) setting forth the 
     congressional budget for the United States Government for 
     fiscal years 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, and 2003 and revising 
     the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 1998.

  The Senate resumed consideration of the concurrent resolution.
  Pending:

       Murray amendment No. 2165, to establish a deficit-neutral 
     reserve fund to reduce class size by hiring 100,000 teachers.
       Sessions/Enzi amendment No. 2166, to express the sense of 
     Congress that the Federal Government should acknowledge the 
     importance of at-home parents and should not discriminate 
     against families who forego a second income in order for a 
     mother or father to be at home with their children.
       Gregg amendment No. 2167, to express the sense of the 
     Senate that this resolution assumes that no immunity from 
     liability will be provided to any manufacturer of a tobacco 
     product.
       Gregg/Conrad amendment No. 2168 (to amendment No. 2167), of 
     a perfecting nature.
       Kyl amendment No. 2169, to express the sense of the 
     Congress regarding freedom of health care choice for medicare 
     seniors.
       Conrad (for Dodd) amendment No. 2173, to establish a 
     deficit-neutral reserve fund for child care improvements.
       Conrad/Lautenberg/Bingaman/Reed amendment No. 2174, to 
     ensure that the tobacco reserve fund in the resolution 
     protects public health.
       Conrad (for Moseley-Braun) amendment No. 2175, to express 
     the sense of the Senate

[[Page S2782]]

     regarding elementary and secondary school modernization and 
     construction.
       Conrad (for Boxer) amendment No. 2176, to increase Function 
     500 discretionary budget authority and outlays to accommodate 
     an initiative promoting after-school education and safety.
       Brownback amendment No. 2177, to express the sense of the 
     Senate regarding economic growth, Social Security, and 
     Government efficiency.
       Burns amendment No. 2178, to express the sense of the 
     Senate regarding the use of agricultural trade programs to 
     promote the export of United States agricultural commodities 
     and products.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the time until 10 
a.m. shall be equally divided between the two managers.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum with 
the time to be equally charged.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The clerk 
will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 2166

  Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I would like to take just a few moments, no 
more than 5 minutes, if that is acceptable, to speak about the pending 
amendment.
  Mr. President, just a couple of weeks ago I was privileged to chair a 
congressional symposium on the question of child care and parenting 
held by the Subcommittee on Children and Families. The purpose was to 
examine many of the issues surrounding the whole question of child care 
and the needs of America's working families.
  We tried to do what very few policymakers do these days. Instead of 
starting with an assumption that a certain program and place ought to 
just be expanded, we went back to the basics, back to fundamentals. We 
asked the questions: What do the experts think is best for children? 
What do families think is best for them? What do they think they need? 
Politics aside, special interests aside and, in the best of all worlds, 
if we were starting over, where would we start?
  What we learned from that symposium, convening experts from all 
across the political spectrum, different philosophies represented, but 
experts in the field, including mothers who have spent a great deal of 
time raising their families and studying these issues is that families 
want more time with their children, not less time. They want Government 
to allow them to keep more of their hard-earned dollars so that they 
have more choices in terms of how they spend those dollars, rather than 
deciding here that we are just simply going to spend more money on new 
programs or new bureaucracies.
  We learned that they want to rely less on child care, to have more 
flexible work hours, comptime and other profamily benefits that many 
Federal employees currently enjoy. We learned what children have is 
what Dr. Stanley Greenspan calls ``irreducible needs.'' He indicated 
the studies have shown there is a significant concern that our society 
``has begun to advocate out-of-home care as the desired option rather 
than as a backup system for those who need it.''
  According to experts like Jay Belsky of Penn State University, 
prolonged exposure to out-of-home care can have very serious results on 
long-term child development, because it impacts adversely on the way a 
child relates and bonds with his mother. It appears to have a negative 
impact on maternal sensitivity to the child, which is critical, as 
these experts have said, to child development.
  These are facts, Dr. Belsky said, that are overwhelming and should 
not be dismissed. He said they--this early interaction and bonding 
between mother and child--are as profound as the effects of child care 
on cognitive and social development.
  We have invested very heavily in the question of child care, but we 
ought to be wary of proposals which fail to address the needs and 
desires of a majority of American children and American families. So 
instead of choosing to promote a continuation of the current system, we 
ought to look at what these experts are telling us and at least try to 
find a way to balance what we do to provide incentives for parents who 
often, at considerable financial sacrifice, choose to stay home with 
their children, particularly in the early months and early years.

  We need to talk about positive family-friendly policies, extended job 
leaves, part-time work, flextime, comptime, job sharing, 
telecommunicating and other corporate policies which allow families to 
have more time with children, not less time with children.
  We ought to encourage ways in which we can increase parental 
involvement through tax fairness. Anybody who studies the Tax Code 
knows it is the families raising children that are most discriminated 
against in our Tax Code. We have often allowed more tax credits, as a 
former Representative used to say, for breeding racehorses than for 
raising children, because we penalize families that choose to stay home 
with their children by narrowly linking tax benefits to day care 
expenses. The dependent-care tax credit says that the more time you 
spend away from your children, the more time in out-of-home care, the 
greater the expense, the greater the credit.
  The Sessions amendment, which I am here to advocate support for and 
vote for, is a good first step, hopefully the beginning of an extensive 
congressional recognition of the importance of at-home care.
  We do need a strong, quality child care program for parents who work 
out of the home. We need to make sure that it is available to parents, 
but we also need to make sure that what is available to parents is 
maximum choices in terms of how they determine the best way to raise 
their children. They need to be treated equally, and the experts tell 
us that they need to be treated equally because ultimately this is the 
best for children. We recognize that not every working family can 
afford a stay-at-home parent, but we also recognize and need to 
understand that what the experts are telling us is that this is the 
preferred option, this is the option for which we ought to be providing 
incentives.
  This sense-of-the-Senate amendment before us today is a way that we 
as a body can recognize that fact and we can endorse, so that in our 
debates about how we expand the Tax Code, in our debates about how we 
address work policies, in our process of determining what is best for 
children, we will focus on what is best for children and look at the 
balance that is necessary to address those families that want a parent 
to stay at home and take care of their children, primarily because that 
is what is best for children. If we are talking about cognitive 
development, if we are talking about social development, we are talking 
about uniting parents and children at the earliest stages of their 
lives.
  There is no child care provider who can provide what a motivated 
mother and informed mother can provide for their child. There is no 
child care provider who can provide the love and nurturing necessary 
for the development of that child, and we need to have incentives built 
into our law that don't discriminate against but actually encourage and 
enhance that selection.
  Mr. President, I am pleased to support the amendment of Senator 
Sessions that we will shortly be voting on and trust that it will 
receive an overwhelming bipartisan encouragement and affirmation.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. DOMENICI addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I say to Senator Coats, I was very 
hopeful that in spite of your schedule you would have time to speak 
here this morning. Your staff spoke to us about it. I am very pleased 
you did that.

  Mr. COATS. I thank the Senator from New Mexico for providing the 
time.
  Mr. DOMENICI. The reason I am is because I really believe when it 
comes to this issue, while there are many people involved and many 
people who work on the issue, I listened tentatively to the Senator's 
observations and his rationale, his common sense applied to it, and I 
think he articulated the very best American approach to this.
  While we may not be able to get policy adopted that accomplishes 
that--it is always difficult--I compliment the

[[Page S2783]]

Senator from Indiana because, indeed, I think what he said today and 
what he said before is right for the country and right for our children 
and right for the American system of work, people working to get ahead 
and people who want to take care of their children instead of going to 
work for part of their lives. I really commend him for that.
  Mr. COATS. I thank the Senator.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, even though it is 5 minutes of 10 and 
the order said we will start debating the Sessions amendment at 10, I 
ask unanimous consent that, since we already discussed it, we start the 
discussion now and it be equally divided over the next 30 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Under the previous order, the Senate will now resume consideration of 
the Sessions amendment No. 2166, on which there shall be 30 minutes of 
debate equally divided.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I note the presence of the sponsor of the amendment, 
Senator Sessions, on the floor.
  Mr. ENZI addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming.
  Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I am one of the cosponsors of the amendment. 
I yield myself 5 minutes for comments.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I want to make sure that he does speak, 
but time is controlled.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct.
  Mr. DOMENICI. The sponsor is on the floor, and he controls the time. 
Will Senator Sessions designate that to me for now to try to use our 
time?
  Mr. SESSIONS. I will be pleased for Senator Enzi to have 5 minutes.
  Mr. DOMENICI. All right.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I am an original cosponsor of the Sessions 
sense-of-the-Congress amendment No. 2166. I firmly believe that the at-
home parents who forgo a second income so that one parent can raise 
their children do deserve some formal recognition by their Federal 
Government. That is a tough decision for parents to make, but it is one 
that is being made every day, and it is making a difference to kids. 
All this sense-of-the-Congress amendment does is to give some extra 
emphasis to say to parents, if you are making this decision, consider 
it carefully, consider having one of the parents forgo their income and 
stay at home and make a better life for the kids. The purpose of it 
isn't to make anybody feel guilty. The purpose of it is simply to make 
sure that when we are building basic policy, that basic policy includes 
families and basic policy includes an emphasis on families, and basic 
policy makes it possible, in any way that we can do it, of keeping 
parents with their kids.

  All forms of day care touch on one of our Nation's most important 
resources--our children. If Congress is serious about addressing day 
care, then we must do so in a fairminded way and not exclude at-home 
care from the debate. It is unfortunate that at-home care has not 
received its day in the spotlight. There are more families that fit 
this mold than I think many of us are aware.
  We have an opportunity through this body to change that and should 
change it in any way we can. Conditions are difficult for two-income 
families. It is even harder for single working moms to raise children. 
Few would argue differently.
  To be fair, however, we must not imply that families who choose to 
keep one parent at home with their children are not making any 
sacrifices. They are sacrificing, too. For years, the subtext of 
Federal family policy is that everyone should work and that the burden 
of accommodation should be on those parents who choose to stay at home 
to raise their children. But if the debate revolves around the quality 
of care our children receive, we must modify existing Federal policy 
and end this senseless discrimination.
  If we are really concerned about the quality of care for our 
children, then single-income families should be formally recognized. 
America's tax burden has grown so large in many instances that a second 
parent has to work just to pay the family's tax burden.
  A 1993 survey found that more than 50 percent of working women would 
stay at home if money were not an issue. These parents should not be 
discriminated against by their own Federal Government simply because 
they sacrifice greater financial gain for their children.
  The financial penalty inherent in having one parent stay at home to 
raise their children is large indeed. I do not believe that a majority 
of single-income families pursue such an arrangement because they can 
easily afford it. They do it because they believe it is best for their 
kids. They do it as a conscious decision. It should not be the work of 
this body to second-guess their judgments and their values.
  Parents who decide to forgo a second income so that one parent might 
be at home during their children's formative years incur quite an 
expense, as several Members of my own staff can attest. And I am proud 
of them for the sacrifices that they are making. But I do not think it 
is fair, when we talk about Federal policy, that we should build a 
special policy that discriminates against them. We should be 
encouraging that kind of behavior.
  It is quite clear that at-home care is beneficial to our Nation's 
kids. If this viable alternative is excluded from debate, then the 
message this body sends about the quality of care for America's 
children is shortsighted, at best. This amendment is geared to provide 
the recognition that at-home care and the parents who utilize it 
deserve some recognition.
  This amendment is supported by Democrats and Republicans alike. That 
is how families are, and it should pass unanimously. I encourage all 
Members of the Senate to read this amendment, cosponsor it, and vote in 
favor of its passage.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. SMITH of Oregon addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sessions). The Senator from Oregon.
  Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. President, I rise to associate myself with 
the comments of my friend from Wyoming and as a strong supporter of the 
Sessions amendment, a sense-of-the-Senate amendment, on the importance 
of at-home parents and the Government role in child care.
  I am a proud cosponsor of this amendment and thank Senator Sessions, 
the Senator from Alabama, for his leadership in this area. The Clinton 
child care policy is always a direct or indirect subsidy to the 
marketplace day care industry. The President only seeks to help a small 
portion of working parents, ruling out those who wish to stay at home 
and take care of a child and those who do not want to use the 
marketplace day care.
  Government policy ought not to discriminate against the best form of 
child care--where a child is taken care of by his or her parents or 
family. I believe that the Federal Government should subsidize the 
family, just as it subsidizes the workplace, giving money back to the 
family. The family can make the best choices in child care. At best, 
President Clinton's day care policy is only a subsidy of another 
workplace, the institutionalized day care industry.
  Mr. President, I will soon be introducing legislation to change the 
Tax Code to put stay-at-home parents on at least an equal footing with 
two-income families. My legislation will increase the current $500 per 
child tax credit to $1,500 per child for children up to 6 years of age. 
This credit would replace the current dependent-care tax credit with 
real money that directly benefits families and restores equality and 
fairness in child care.

  I think this is an important piece of legislation, Mr. President. And 
if, in fact, we go forward in this session of Congress and the 
President's idea comes forward--an idea that costs roughly $20 
billion--then I suggest my bill ought to replace it. My bill ought to 
replace it because it does not discriminate between stay-at-home 
parents or those who choose to work. It affects each of them equally, 
because they all have children and needs with respect to those 
children.
  Mr. President, I thank again Senator Sessions for bringing this 
important issue to the floor as part of the budget resolution. I urge 
every Senator to strongly support his amendment. I yield the floor.

[[Page S2784]]

  Mr. SESSIONS addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Enzi). The Chair recognizes the Senator 
from Alabama.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I am very proud of the excellent 
comments that have been made by a group of distinguished Senators today 
regarding this amendment. It is not an itty-bitty matter; it is a very 
serious matter. And it reflects a reevaluation by this body of the 
priorities we are placing on helping families raise children. It 
reflects a change in what we have been doing, because we have been, in 
fact, subsidizing one form of child care, a form of child care used by 
only a few American families, and have been taxing all the other 
American families to support that one form, which is institutional 
public day care essentially. And I do not believe that is good policy.
  As Senator Coats mentioned earlier, mothers want, if they are given a 
choice, to be at home with their children, for the most part, during 
their formative years. We know that. Scientists and people also, who 
have studied this, have concluded that it is better for them to be at 
home, when they can. So we need to subsidize and support equally all 
forms of child care, if we do so, and we ought to do it in a way that 
allows parents the choices that they prefer.
  All right. Let me just mention, first, the background on which we are 
operating. This is from the census report, the last census report. This 
is titled: ``Patterns of Child Rearing for Children Under Age 5.''
  The mother is not employed; the care is by the mother in the home--
almost 50 percent; 48 percent of mothers with children under age 5 
raise them in their home. The President's proposal in current law 
provides no benefit for those families--zero--even though they may be 
giving up substantial income because the mother has been in the 
workplace before and chooses to stay at home because they believe, 
after prayerful thought and concern in the family, that this is the 
best way to raise their children. We ought to affirm that. We ought not 
to penalize that by taxing the decision to support this decision.
  The mother is employed, and the child is in a group day care 
preschool program--16 percent. That is what we have been subsidizing. 
That is the group we have been subsidizing. You have the mother who is 
working, but the child is taken care of by a nonrelative, somebody in 
the home. Maybe it is a nanny who comes and stays in their home and 
takes care of the children because parents feel, where possible, they 
would like their children to grow up in their home and have the 
stability and the confidence that comes from that kind of environment. 
And 11 percent do that. They get no benefits under this proposal.

  The mother is employed and the care is by a relative, an aunt, a 
mother, a grandmother or sister. They are taken care of. That is 13 
percent. They have no benefit under the current law or the President's 
proposal.
  The mother is employed--employed--and the care is by the father or 
the mother--12 percent.
  For all of these, only this group gets compensation. That is not good 
policy. This Congress, this Government in America ought to adopt public 
policy that in fact encourages our highest and best choices. We ought 
to do that, and I think we can do that.
  Now, to point out the unfairness of it, look at this chart. This is 
where a husband and a wife are employed, both of them employed, one may 
not be full time. Their average income is $57,000.
  Where there is a dual-earner family, both husband and wife work and 
are employed full time, their average salary is $64,000.
  But where you have a single earner, a husband is employed and the 
wife not employed, and the husband may not be employed full time--and 
many do not have full-time jobs; they cannot get them--their average 
income is $38,000.
  Where the husband is employed and the wife is not employed, the 
husband is employed full time, the average income is $42,000.
  You see the difference. We are subsidizing this choice. We are not 
subsidizing this choice where parents stay at home. That is not good 
public policy, and I think we need to change it.
  I congratulate Senator Smith, who just spoke, because he is asking us 
to consider what we are going to do to eliminate this imbalance. I 
think he has thought the matter through, and he has come up with some 
conclusions that he has put in legislation to which this body needs to 
give serious thought.
  Of course, this resolution basically does not suggest a solution to 
the problem. It just says we are going to set a policy here to change 
the way we have been doing business. I think we ought to affirm parents 
who, after prayerful, careful, serious thought among themselves, 
conclude that it is best for their children to forgo a second income 
and stay at home. I think we ought to affirm that with public policy.
  Finally--I know my time is about up--this is a matter of 
significance. I have been delighted to see Senators calling our office 
the last 2 days wanting to sign on as cosponsors of this amendment. 
While I was on the floor yesterday, three Senators asked me could they 
join as a cosponsor of this amendment. It has broad bipartisan 
support--Democrats and Republicans. I hope we have a unanimous vote on 
this issue.
  But what I want to say is this: Do not sign on as a cosponsor, do not 
vote for this resolution, if you are not prepared to back it up by 
votes on the floor when we start setting tax policy and we start 
appropriating funds. If you are not prepared to support this 
philosophy, do not sign on because that is what erodes public 
confidence in America.

  We talk a good game, but when the chips are down we often find 
reasons not to follow through on our commitments. I believe this is 
good public policy. I believe it is a resolution that sets the tone for 
this Congress. The House has passed a similar resolution, 419-0. I 
think that says something. I believe this body will be virtually 
unanimous, if not unanimous. After that, we are going to have to talk 
with Senator Smith and other Members of this body to figure out a way 
to implement that policy.
  It is a challenge to all the committees that are going to be dealing 
with these issues. They are going to have to reflect this view. I hope 
that they will. If they don't, we need to stand up and say we are not 
going to pass or support legislation that is not consistent with this 
resolution that treats all parents equally.
  Mr. President, thank you for the time.
  I thank my fellow Senators for their support for this resolution. I 
believe it is a great step forward in improving child care and 
development in America. Thank you, and I yield the floor.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I would like to applaud the Senator from 
Alabama for focusing attention on the important concerns of stay-at-
home parents. I have said repeatedly, and continue to believe, that the 
best child care providers, particularly in the earliest months and 
years, are parents. Clearly, where both parents must work, we should 
try to help them provide the best possible care of their children. 
However, we should also help parents who make the difficult decision to 
forego a second income so that one parent can stay at home to care for 
a child.
  That is the reason why I introduced legislation, S. 1610, the Child 
Care ACCESS Act, that will, for the first time, extend the Dependent 
Care Tax Credit to parents who stay at home to care for their young 
children. In fact, this piece of legislation, co-sponsored by 26 of my 
Democratic colleagues, does more for stay-at-home parents than any 
other proposal that has been introduced. Only this legislation would 
extend this important financial assistance to stay-at-home parents 
earning less than $30,000. For such families, the financial sacrifice 
of forgoing a second income is severe. They certainly deserve as much, 
if not more, support in staying home to care for their children as 
families earning more than $30,000.
  Mr. President, if we are serious about helping parents who want to be 
home with their children, we should also promptly enact an expansion of 
the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993. I have introduced legislation 
which would extend the benefits of the Family and Medical Leave Act to 
allow an additional 13 million parents to stay at home for up to 12 
weeks to care for a newborn or sick child without fear of job loss.
  I think we would all agree that we must support all parents --mothers 
and

[[Page S2785]]

fathers--in the decisions they make, whether it is to work in the paid 
labor force, to stay home with their children, or do some of each. 
Indeed, many parents move in and out of the labor force at different 
points in their children's lives--depending on the ages and needs of 
their children and their financial situations. All families deserve our 
help in raising the next generation of Americans. We must invest in our 
future if that future is to hold promise for our children, for our 
families, and for our country.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. SESSIONS. With regard to the amendment we have been discussing 
this morning and the fact that families are choosing to give up a 
second income in order that they may have a parent stay home with their 
children in the early, formative years, I want to share a few thoughts 
with this body.
  As I traveled my State last month and I discussed this issue, time 
and time again families would come up to me after my remarks and say, 
``Thank you for saying that. We made that exact decision in our family. 
My wife had worked, and she decided she wanted to stay home with the 
children while they are young. It costs us a lot of money. We don't 
regret it. We are glad you have considered us raising children and you 
believe we ought to have a fair shake in that regard.''
  My wife taught school for 4 years. When we had children, we made a 
decision she would cease teaching. I was able to have a decent income 
and take care of the family. We were not rich, but that was a decision 
we made, and we were very glad we did that. In fact, we probably would 
not have qualified for benefits under this program because this would 
be a program favoring lower income people.
  Additionally, I wanted to share some numbers with the Members of this 
body. According to the most recently available data from the Census 
Bureau, a dramatically different picture is showing up than the one 
many would project. The facts show that although day care use did 
increase rapidly through the 1980's, the increase in the use of day 
care has come to a halt. The percentage of children under age 5 with 
employed mothers nearly doubled from the mid-1970's through 1998, but 
in subsequent years maternal employment remained fixed. In 1994, the 
last year recorded by the Census, the percentage of preschool children 
with employed mothers was still 52 percent, the same as it was in 1998.

  My personal observations of the people I associate with, that my 
children have gone to school with, are that people are questioning the 
mentality that it is always best for both parents to work, and they are 
making different decisions. It is time for us to have Government policy 
that reflects that. I am very pleased with the bipartisan support this 
amendment is receiving. I think it reflects a serious reevaluation on 
behalf of this Congress on how to spend money in aid of children. I 
solicit the support of all Senators for this amendment.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the Senator from New 
Jersey.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. I want to clarify exactly where we are, what the 
schedule calls for.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate is voting on Sessions amendment No. 
2166 at 10:30. The remaining time is under the control of the Senator 
from New Jersey.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. I am pleased to support the amendment that the 
distinguished Senator from Alabama offers, because I think we all share 
the view that if a parent can stay at home--mother can stay at home, 
typically--then that is the best way to go and there ought not to be 
any discrimination against that kind of a policy or program. But people 
are forced, because of the pressure on incomes, to often look for the 
second or even the third job in the household.
  As we examine the programs that will promote the parents at home, I 
think we have to consider this amendment as an indication of where we 
all stand. The amendment, as I see it, simply affirms the view that 
families should not be punished for their child care choice. There is 
no better babysitter, no better caregiver, than the mother of the 
child. I don't think anyone will disagree with that.
  Democrats are proud of our long record of helping families with a 
stay-at-home parent to make ends meet. When you got to a particular 
vintage, kind of like mine--advanced middle-age, I think we call it--it 
was typical, regardless of the difficulty that existed financially in 
the household; somehow or other it all came together.
  My mother was widowed when she was 36. I had already enlisted in the 
Army. I had a little sister at home. Mom managed to take care of my 
sister, get a modest allotment from my military pay, and at the same 
time have a job. She made all those arrangements, and my sister was 
never neglected and grew up a happy, fulfilled person, as did my mother 
and I. But things are different now. We live in a pressure-cooker world 
where people just can't seem to get by unless there are multiple jobs 
in the household. For the middle-income family, it is not atypical.
  So Democrats, maybe we kind of harken back to a different day and say 
those were the proper kinds of functions to be going on in the 
household. Things were modest, but people accepted their fate and tried 
to work their way out of it. In 1993, what we tried to do was to 
establish the opportunity for a family to take care of their kids. We 
secured an expansion of the earned-income tax credit, giving a refund 
to those people who just didn't make enough to care for their families. 
In 1996, we secured an increase in the minimum wage. Last year, we won 
the $500-per-child tax credit.

  Now, all of these initiatives put more money in the pockets of 
American workers, and I, as a Democrat, and those of us who are 
Democrats were happy to see that. This is not to suggest that many of 
our Republican friends were not happy, but it put a Democratic stamp on 
these programs. I am sure, again, many of our colleagues on the other 
side of the aisle support it. These things have made a real difference. 
Also, the Family and Medical Leave Act, signed into law by President 
Clinton, has given parents the flexibility to take time off to care for 
a newborn or a sick child. When it comes to helping working moms, I 
think we are all on the same page.
  Once again, I commend Senator Sessions for offering this amendment. I 
am pleased to support it.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. SESSIONS. I express my appreciation to the Senator from New 
Jersey for his support.
  I add as original cosponsors of this legislation the names of 
Senators Roth and Kay Bailey Hutchison, who have asked to be 
cosponsors. I ask unanimous consent they be added as cosponsors.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. SESSIONS. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.
  Mr. SMITH of Oregon. I wonder, Senator Lautenberg, if I could offer 
three amendments now--not speaking to them, but allowing them to be 
read.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. I have no objection to the Senator from Oregon 
offering his amendments, but we are on a 10:30 schedule and I think it 
is important we preserve that schedule.
  I am happy to yield the floor to the Senator from Oregon.


                           Amendment No. 2179

  Mr. SMITH of Oregon. I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its 
immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Oregon [Mr. Smith] proposes an amendment 
     numbered 2179.

  Mr. SMITH of Oregon. I ask unanimous consent reading of the amendment 
be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

       At the appropriate place in the bill, insert the following 
     new section, and renumber the remaining sections accordingly:

[[Page S2786]]

     SEC.   . SENSE OF THE SENATE ON SOCIAL SECURITY TAXES.

       (A) Findings.--The Senate finds that--
       (1) financing for Social Security Old Age, Survivors, and 
     Disability Insurance (OASDI) is provided primarily by taxes 
     levied on wages and net self-employment income. The level of 
     these tax rates is set permanently in the law at the rate 
     payable today;
       (2) more than ninety-five percent of the work force--an 
     estimated 148.2 million workers in 1998--is required to pay 
     Social Security taxes;
       (3) Social Security taxes are paid both by employees and 
     employers and the self-employed on earnings up to a maximum 
     amount of $68,400 in 1998, the amount increasing at the same 
     rate as average earnings in the economy;
       (4) the Social Security tax was first levied in 1937 at a 
     rate of 1% on earnings up to $3,000 per year;
       (5) the rate in 1998 has risen to 6.2 perecent--an increase 
     of 620 percent, and a majority of American families pay more 
     in Social Security taxes than income taxes;
       (6) in his State of the Union message on January 27, 1998, 
     President Clinton called on Congress to ``save Social 
     Security first'' and to ``reserve one hundred percent of the 
     surplus, that is any penny of the surplus, until we have 
     taken all the necessary measures to strengthen the Social 
     Security system for the twenty-first century.''
       (b) Sense of the Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate 
     that the provisions of this resolution assume that when the 
     Congress moves to work in a bipartisan way on specific 
     legislation to reform the Social Security system, it will not 
     consider increasing Social Security tax rates on American 
     workers, beyond the permanent levels set in current law nor 
     increase the maximum earnings subject to Social Security 
     taxation beyond those prescribed by the wage indexing rules 
     of current law.

  Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Briefly, Mr. President, this amendment is a very 
simple sense of the Senate on Social Security that says that when we 
act to save Social Security, we will not be doing so by increasing 
Social Security taxes.


                           Amendment No. 2180

 (Purpose: To clarify Federal law with respect to the use of marijuana)

  Mr SMITH of Oregon. I send an amendment to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Oregon [Mr. Smith] proposes an amendment 
     numbered 2180.

  Mr. SMITH of Oregon. I ask unanimous consent reading of the amendment 
be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:
       At the end of title III, add the following:

     SEC.    . GENERAL PROHIBITION ON THE USE OF MARIJUANA FOR 
                   MEDICINAL PURPOSES.

       It is the Sense of the Senate that the provisions of this 
     resolution assume that no funds appropriated by Congress 
     should be used to provide, procure, furnish, fund or support, 
     or to compel any individual, institution or government entity 
     to provide, procure, furnish, fund or support, any item, 
     good, benefit, program or service, for the purpose of the use 
     of marijuana for medicinal purposes.

  Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Briefly, Mr. President, this is a sense-of-the-
Senate amendment on an issue that has become of great concern to me and 
to many in my State, the legalization of marijuana for medical use. I 
will speak to this later.


                           Amendment No. 2181

 (Purpose: To express the sense of the Senate concerning increases in 
                    the prices of tobacco products)

  Mr. SMITH of Oregon. I send an additional amendment to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Oregon [Mr. Smith] proposes an amendment 
     numbered 2181.

  Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent reading 
of the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

       On page 53, strike lines 1 through 22 and insert the 
     following:

     SEC. 316. SENSE OF THE SENATE ON PRICE INCREASE ON TOBACCO 
                   PRODUCTS.

       (a) Findings.--The Senate finds that--
       (1) the use of tobacco products by children and teenagers 
     has become a public health epidemic and according to the 
     Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, more than 
     16,000,000 of our Nation's children today will become regular 
     smokers;
       (2) of the 16,000,000 children who become regular smokers, 
     approximately one-third or 5,000,000 children will die of 
     tobacco-related illness;
       (3) the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reports 
     that tobacco use costs medicare approximately $10,000,000,000 
     per year, and the total economic cost of tobacco in health-
     related costs is more than $100,000,000,000 per year; and
       (4) the public health community recognizes that by 
     increasing the cost of tobacco products by $1.50 per pack, 
     the rate of tobacco use among children and teenagers will be 
     reduced.
       (b) Sense of the Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate 
     that the provisions of this resolution assume that, if 
     comprehensive tobacco legislation requires an increase in the 
     price of cigarettes, any such revenue should be used to 
     restore solvency to the medicare program under title XVIII of 
     the Social Security Act.

  Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Briefly, this amendment is a sense of the Senate 
regarding the use of tobacco revenue to restore the solvency of the 
Medicare Program, an amendment similar to the one that Senator 
Lautenberg introduced in the Budget Committee.
  I yield the floor.


                       Vote on Amendment No. 2166

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment 
numbered 2166.
  The yeas and nays have been ordered.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Utah (Mr. Bennett), the 
Senator from Utah (Mr. Hatch), the Senator from Oklahoma (Mr. Inhofe) 
are necessarily absent.
  I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from Utah 
(Mr. Hatch) would vote ``yea.''
  Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from Maryland (Ms. Mikulski) is 
necessarily absent.
  The result was announced--yeas 96, nays 0, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 49 Leg.]

                                YEAS--96

     Abraham
     Akaka
     Allard
     Ashcroft
     Baucus
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Brownback
     Bryan
     Bumpers
     Burns
     Byrd
     Campbell
     Chafee
     Cleland
     Coats
     Cochran
     Collins
     Conrad
     Coverdell
     Craig
     D'Amato
     Daschle
     DeWine
     Dodd
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Enzi
     Faircloth
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Ford
     Frist
     Glenn
     Gorton
     Graham
     Gramm
     Grams
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Harkin
     Helms
     Hollings
     Hutchinson
     Hutchison
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kempthorne
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McCain
     McConnell
     Moseley-Braun
     Moynihan
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nickles
     Reed
     Reid
     Robb
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Roth
     Santorum
     Sarbanes
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith (NH)
     Smith (OR)
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Torricelli
     Warner
     Wellstone
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--4

     Bennett
     Hatch
     Inhofe
     Mikulski

                             NOT VOTING--4

     Bennett
     Hatch
     Inhofe
     Mikulski
  The amendment (No. 2166) was agreed to.
  Mr. KENNEDY addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Smith of Oregon). The Senator from 
Massachusetts.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending 
amendments be temporarily set aside for up to 1 minute so that I may 
offer three amendments to be sequenced just as the Senator from Oregon 
did for his three amendments before the vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. DOMENICI. Reserving the right to object. What was the request?
  Mr. KENNEDY. It was to temporarily set aside, for 1 minute, the 
pending amendment so I may offer three amendments to be sequenced just 
as the Senator from Oregon did for his three amendments before the 
vote. I ask that they be sequenced in an order that would be 
satisfactory to the minority leader.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I have no objection.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


               Amendments Nos. 2183 Through 2185, En Bloc

  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I send three amendments to the desk and 
ask for their immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy], for himself 
     and Mrs. Boxer, proposes amendments numbered 2183 through 
     2185, en bloc.

  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of 
the amendments be dispensed with.

[[Page S2787]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendments are as follows:


                           AMENDMENT NO. 2183

 (Purpose: To express the sense of the Senate concerning the enactment 
                     of a patient's bill of rights)

       At the end of title III, add the following:

     SEC. ____. SENSE OF THE SENATE CONCERNING A PATIENT'S BILL OF 
                   RIGHTS.

       (a) Findings.--Congress finds that--
       (1) patients lack reliable information about health plans 
     and the quality of care that health plans provide;
       (2) experts agree that the quality of health care can be 
     substantially improved, resulting in less illness and less 
     premature death;
       (3) some managed care plans have created obstacles for 
     patients who need to see specialists on an ongoing basis and 
     have required that women get permission from their primary 
     care physician before seeing a gynecologist;
       (4) a majority of consumers believe that health plans 
     compromise their quality of care to save money;
       (5) Federal preemption under the Employee Retirement Income 
     Security Act of 1974 prevents States from enforcing 
     protections for the 125,000,000 workers and their families 
     receiving health insurance through employment-based group 
     health plans; and
       (6) the Advisory Commission on Consumer Protection and 
     Quality in the Health Care Industry has unanimously 
     recommended a patient bill of rights to protect patients 
     against abuses by health plan and health insurance issuers.
       (b) Sense of the Senate.--It is the sense Senate that the 
     assumptions underlying this resolution provide for the 
     enactment of legislation to establish a patient's bill of 
     rights for participants in health plans, and that legislation 
     should include--
       (1) a guarantee of access to covered services, including 
     needed emergency care, specialty care, obstetrical and 
     gynecological care for women, and prescription drugs;
       (2) provisions to ensure that the special needs of women 
     are met, including protecting women against ``drive-through 
     mastectomies'';
       (3) provisions to ensure that the special needs of children 
     are met, including access to pediatric specialists and 
     centers of pediatric excellence;
       (4) provisions to ensure that the special needs of 
     individuals with disabilities and the chronically ill are 
     met, including the possibility of standing referrals to 
     specialists or the ability to have a specialist act as a 
     primary care provider;
       (5) a procedure to hold health plans accountable for their 
     decisions and to provide for the appeal of a decision of a 
     health plan to deny care to an independent, impartial 
     reviewer;
       (6) measures to protect the integrity of the physician-
     patient relationship, including a ban on ``gag clauses'' and 
     a ban on improper incentive arrangements; and
       (7) measures to provide greater information about health 
     plans to patients and to improve the quality of care.
                                                                    ____



                           AMENDMENT NO. 2184

 (Purpose: To increase Function 500 discretionary budget authority and 
  outlays to support innovative education reform efforts in urban and 
                        rural school districts)

       On page 16, line 9, increase the amount by $200,000,000.
       On page 16, line 10, increase the amount by $10,000,000.
       On page 16, line 13, increase the amount by $318,000,000.
       On page 16, line 14, increase the amount by $146,000,000.
       On page 16, line 17, increase the amount by $386,000,000.
       On page 16, line 18, increase the amount by $276,000,000.
       On page 16, line 21, increase the amount by $359,000,000.
       On page 16, line 22, increase the amount by $358,000,000.
       On page 16, line 25, increase the amount by $272,000,000.
       On page 17, line 1, increase the amount by $359,000,000.
       On page 25, line 8, strike ``-$300,000,000'' and insert 
     ``-$500,000,000.''
       On page 25, line 9, strike ``-$1,900,000,000'' and insert 
     ``-$1,910,000,000.''
       On page 25, line 12, strike ``-$1,200,000,000'' and insert 
     ``-$1,518,000,000.''
       On page 25, line 13, strike ``-$4,600,000,000'' and insert 
     ``-$4,746,000,000.''
       On page 25, line 16, strike ``-$2,700,000,000'' and insert 
     ``-$3,086,000,000.''
       On page 25, line 17, strike ``-$3,000,000,000'' and insert 
     ``-$3,276,000,000.''
       On page 25, line 20, strike ``-$3,800,000,000'' and insert 
     ``-$4,159,000,000.''
       On page 25, line 21, strike ``-$7,000,000,000'' and insert 
     ``-$7,358,000,000.''
       On page 25, line 24, strike ``-$5,400,000,000'' and insert 
     ``-$5,672,000,000.''
       On page 25, line 25, strike ``-$5,000,000,000'' and insert 
     ``-$5,359,000,000.''
                                                                    ____



                           amendment no. 2185

(Purpose: Expressing the sense of Congress regarding additional budget 
      authority for the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.)

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:

     SEC.  . SENSE OF CONGRESS REGARDING EQUAL EMPLOYMENT 
                   OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION.

       It is the sense of Congress that the functional totals in 
     this concurrent resolution on the budget assume that the 
     Equal Employment Opportunity Commission should receive 
     $279,000,000 in budget authority for fiscal year 1999.

  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I ask that the three amendments be 
sequenced after amendments to be offered by Senators Hollings, 
Lautenberg and Daschle, and that they alternate with Republican 
amendments, in whatever form----
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. DOMENICI. Yes. I object. I thought your request was that you send 
them to the desk and that they be sequenced as the leadership is 
sequencing in a manner we consider to be fair.
  Mr. KENNEDY. That is exactly what I am requesting.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I thank the Senator.


                           Amendment No. 2165

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will 
resume consideration of the Murray amendment No. 2165.
  The Senator from Washington is recognized.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, we are about to consider, I believe, one 
of the most important amendments that this body faces. It has to do 
with public education and the direction that this Congress, this 
Senate, this budget is going in that will affect the lives of thousands 
of students and their families and their neighborhoods and communities 
across this country.
  Mr. President, I believe one of the main principles that this country 
was founded on was that of education, public education, the ability for 
every child in this country, no matter who they are, where they come 
from, what their financial background is, to have a strong education, 
an education that will allow them to learn how to read, how to write, 
how to participate in a democracy, and how to be a contributing citizen 
to our economy once they have reached the adult age.
  Mr. President, I think it is very shocking that this budget which 
sits before us and the policies we are about to put in place say to 
students and their parents across this country that education is no 
longer a top priority in this country. I think that is a terrible 
message and one that we have to change with this budget today. Now is 
the time.
  Mr. President, it is amazing to me that in the fiscal year 1998 
budget, the entire budget--look at this chart--2 percent of our entire 
Federal budget goes to education. Yet, when you ask parents and 
families and people across this country whether or not we are spending 
enough on education, only 9 percent of this country think we are 
spending too much; only 26 percent think we are spending the right 
amount; and 58 percent of the people in this country believe we are 
spending too little on education. Mr. President, I could not agree 
more.

  Two percent of our budget is not enough. It is not enough funds for 
our children, and it is the wrong message in this country, where we 
believe that democracy will survive if every one of our children has 
the access they need to a quality education--be it public or private. 
But in particular, in terms of what we spend here in the Nation's 
Capital for students across this country, it is far too little.
  The amendment that we now have before us simply establishes a 
deficit-neutral reserve fund for class size improvement, especially in 
the early grades. It was used as an offset for any available mandatory 
savings or revenues, with the exception of tobacco revenues. What this 
amendment does is put in place a placeholder, if you will, in the 
budget so when this Congress begins to listen to parents and students 
and families and teachers and communities across this country, we will 
have a placeholder in the budget that we can at our discretion put 
available funds into to make sure that we address the issue of class 
size.
  I know that class size reduction makes a difference. Every parent in 
this country knows that, every teacher knows that, businesses know 
that, and communities know that. And throughout this morning's debate, 
I will talk about what parents say, what students say, and what 
teachers say, because I believe if we begin to fundamentally address 
the issue of class size and the

[[Page S2788]]

tremendous loads in our classrooms today, we will begin to address the 
critical need of education and make a tremendous difference for our 
country in the future.
  Mr. President, at this time, I will yield such time as he may need to 
Senator Wellstone to speak on behalf of this amendment, and then I will 
go into detail about my amendment and what I want to do in this budget.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota is recognized.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. I thank the Chair. First of all, let me thank Senator 
Murray for her leadership. Senator Murray has an unusual background. 
She comes to the U.S. Senate having been a teacher.
  Mr. President, if I might ask the Senator, what level did she teach? 
I believe it was elementary school or preschool.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I taught at the community college level, 
parent education, and I taught preschool, 4- and 5-year-olds.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, my colleague from Washington really 
brings to this debate her own life experience, both at the higher 
education level, training other men and women to be teachers, and also 
herself having taught really at the critical age, in the very early 
years of a child's education. We don't have that many Senators with 
this background. I think all of us are lucky that the State of 
Washington has sent Senator Murray here to the U.S. Senate. Quite often 
when we get into these discussions, they are very abstract and very 
theoretical and all about strategy. But Senator Murray has really lived 
this debate. She brings, I think, a special expertise and a special 
passion. I wish more Senators, as we get into this debate, could draw 
from the same kind of background.

  Mr. President, I did not teach at the elementary school level or 
early childhood development; I was a college teacher. But in the last 7 
years I tried my very best to be in schools around the country, but in 
the main in Minnesota. I think I have been in a school probably about 
every 2 weeks. What I try to do is turn these assemblies or classes--
and there can be anywhere from 100 or 200 to 1,000 students and 
teachers and support staff in town meetings like all of us have in our 
States. I say to the students, look, it is kind of like everybody is 
talking about you but very few people are talking to you or with you. 
Give me your best wisdom as to what would make for the best education 
reform. What makes for a good education from your point of view? I say 
to my colleague from Washington, by coming to the floor with this 
amendment, she is right on target. Students talk about smaller class 
size everywhere I go.
  Now, I personally think--and my colleague from Washington mentioned 
this--that especially at the elementary school level, small class sizes 
really make a huge difference. I think actually as you look at from K 
through 12--actually, I argue, after that, in colleges and universities 
as well--smaller class sizes make a huge difference. With a smaller 
class size, we have an opportunity to get to know our teachers, they 
say, to have more rapport with teachers. Our teachers can give us more 
special attention. We have an opportunity to have teachers that can 
fire our imagination, teachers that are really free to teach. And 
teachers say it as well.
  So let me just be clear with colleagues. I remember when I first came 
here--and I haven't changed my view at all, I say to my colleague from 
Washington--I was debating with a good friend, Senator Hatch from Utah. 
I said to the Senator from Utah, ``I just feel that this debate is 
ahead of the story.'' When you can come to the floor, or any Senator 
can come to the floor, and say we have made the commitment to public 
education--we made the commitment to smaller class size; we made the 
commitment to making sure that children, by kindergarten, come ready to 
learn; made the commitment by way of equity financing to schools in 
districts where people don't have all the financial resources, don't 
have the good facilities and the textbooks, the buildings are in 
disrepair; we made the commitment to summer institutes for teachers to 
meet other teachers and get renewed and fired up about teaching--we 
have made all those commitments, and it still isn't working, then I say 
let's consider something else.
  But we have an amendment on the floor that Senator Murray has now 
introduced, based upon her own life's work, upon what people in 
communities around the country tell us is important for their children, 
tell us what is important to them--that is to get some additional 
Federal resources back at the school district level to reduce class 
sizes, so all of our children have an opportunity to do well in school, 
all of our children have an opportunity to reach their full potential. 
No one amendment, no one expenditure of money accomplishes this goal.
  I say to my colleague from Washington that I thank her for being out 
here on the floor with this amendment, because this is a concrete step 
that can make a very positive difference in the improvement of the 
lives of children in our country.
  I yield the floor.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from 
Wisconsin.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wisconsin is recognized.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. I thank the Senator from Washington. I speak in strong 
favor of her amendment. The resolution offers a deficit-neutral reserve 
fund for class size improvement. Specifically, it states that if funds 
become available, budget levels may be adjusted for legislation to 
improve, or in effect lower, class size for students, especially in the 
earliest grades.
  I thank the Senator from Washington, Senator Murray, for being the 
leader on this issue of class size for public schools. She and I share 
the same commitment to public education and believe strongly that the 
Federal Government has a limited but very important role in supporting 
public education.
  Today's resolution, Mr. President, is very important because it 
demonstrates a commitment by the U.S. Senate to dedicate available 
Federal funds to reduce class size in the earliest grades.
  Parents, teachers and school administrators are increasingly aware of 
the very positive impact smaller class size can have on student 
achievement. It is about time that the Senate goes on record in support 
of smaller classes for our public school children in the earliest 
grades.
  The positive impact of smaller classes came to my attention in my 
State of Wisconsin, and that is because Wisconsin, as is often the case 
in public education, has been a leader on this issue. In 1995, the 
Wisconsin State Legislature created the successful pilot program called 
the Student Achievement Guarantee in Education program, known as the 
SAGE program.
  Wisconsin's SAGE program has demonstrated again and again what we 
really know instinctively: Students in smaller classes benefit from 
more attention from teachers, and teachers with fewer students will 
have more time and energy to devote to their jobs.
  A December 1997 study found that the first-graders participating in 
the Wisconsin SAGE program scored higher on standardized tests than 
other students in comparison schools.
  It is my hope that the SAGE program and this budget resolution 
offered by the Senator from Washington reinforce what should be good 
common sense. If you have smaller classes, children will get more 
attention from teachers, and it stands to reason that more attention 
will translate into greater learning.
  In supporting this resolution, Mr. President, I want to clearly state 
that I believe there is a great national purpose in trying to reduce 
class sizes for children in the earliest grades. However, I do not 
support a national mandate for smaller classes. Instead, I support 
smaller classes as a national goal that would be primarily controlled 
by the local government and local school boards and the administrators.
  Additionally, I want to be sure that any distribution formula for the 
funds that would become available to reduce class size should give 
credit to States, like my State of Wisconsin, which have already 
invested substantial resources in this effort.
  Finally, I want to again stress the importance of this resolution 
being deficit neutral. The Senator from Washington has been sensitive 
to that. The resolution is deficit neutral. The days of deficit 
spending and borrowing from Social Security have to be over.

[[Page S2789]]

  To conclude, Mr. President, I think this resolution takes a very 
positive step toward helping school districts reduce class size as a 
part of an overall effort to improve education and ensure that our 
children have the best chance to excel and reach their full potential. 
Let me finally thank the Senator from Washington again. I have heard 
her speak both publicly and privately on this issue of class size. She 
speaks with experience, but she also speaks with great feeling and 
eloquence on this subject. She knows what she is talking about, and she 
is a great force in the Senate and in the Congress on this issue.
  I thank the Chair.
  Mrs. MURRAY addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I thank my colleagues from Minnesota and 
Wisconsin for their support of this issue, for their understanding of 
this issue, for their backing and their commitment to making sure that 
we set as a priority in this country the issue of education and, most 
critically, the issue of class size across this country.
  Mr. President, I came to the Senate 5 years ago. And I was frustrated 
when I came, and I felt that leaders in Washington, DC, were not really 
dealing with the issues that I talked about and I worried about at home 
at my kitchen table every night 2,500 miles away in the State of 
Washington.
  I have to say that over the past 5 years we have begun to make 
progress and talk about the real issues that everyday families talk 
about at their kitchen tables every night. Certainly we have finally 
balanced the budget and stopped deficit spending, something that 
families worry about. But, more importantly, we have faced issues such 
as family medical leave that allows parents to take time off from their 
jobs to take care of a sick child. We have put 100,000 police officers 
on the streets because many families across this country at their 
kitchen tables worry about the safety of their families on a daily 
basis. We have addressed some of those critical issues and much more.
  But today on the floor of the Senate, I can say with certainty that 
this Congress, under this proposed budget, is badly missing the mark 
when it comes to addressing the most important concern that every 
parent faces today and every family talks about at their kitchen table 
at night. Families ask: Will my child get a good education? Will my 
child get the attention they deserve? Will they be safe? Will they be 
taught the skills they need to get a job in tomorrow's economy? Those 
are the kitchen table conversations that worry every single family in 
this country.
  Mr. President, I can tell you today I feel absolutely confident that 
I can speak to this issue with a lot of background and understanding. I 
came to the Senate with a daughter who was in 7th grade and a son who 
was in 10th grade. They both have spent their entire K-12 years in 
public education. I am a product of public education.
  Today my daughter is a senior in high school, and she is my best 
adviser about what is happening in our public education system. And 
what they say to me--what my daughter and my son say to me--is, it is 
difficult to learn the skills that they need when they are in crowded 
classrooms. They do not get the attention they need in math or science 
or English, and they tell me that there is what they call ``hall rage'' 
in our classrooms because of crowded classrooms with a lot of kids in 
our classrooms. It tends to generate a lot of frustration and rage 
among our children, and safety is a concern.
  Mr. President, as Senator Wellstone said, I come here as an educator. 
I am a former community college instructor. I taught parent education, 
and I also taught preschool. I had in my class twenty-four 4- and 5-
year-olds. I know what a difference it makes when you reduce the number 
of children that are in a classroom.
  When I had 18 children in my classroom, I could take the individual 
time that I needed to work with these young children to help them get a 
grasp on the alphabet, to begin to learn to spell their names, to 
understand the world around them, to sit down in groups with other 
children and learn how to ``get along'' --a skill too many kids do not 
have today. I know what happened the next year when I had 24 children 
in my class--much less individual attention; it became no longer 
teaching, it became crowd control.
  I know as a teacher that reducing class size, particularly in the 
young grades, will make a difference for children across this country.
  I also come here with experience being a school board member. I have 
managed budgets at the school district level. I know how tough those 
decisions are. I know how difficult it is to meet the demands that 
everyday school districts have. As a school board director in a 
suburban district, I was frustrated with the lack of funding that we 
got. We were frustrated with the lack of priority that education had at 
the Federal level, and we were constantly frustrated that we could not 
do the right thing.
  I can tell you, as a schoolboard member who has managed thousands of 
dollars in education funding at the local level, this amendment, this 
goal, this direction for our country, is badly needed.
  I also come here as a former State senator. I served on the budget-
writing committee in my State senate. I know what a priority education 
is for our States, and I know how difficult it is for them to address 
this issue. My State of Washington has the fourth worst class size in 
the Nation.

  If my State and other States across this country were told that this 
was a national priority and one that they would not just be told is a 
priority they have to do, but one that they got a jump-start with from 
the Federal level, it would make it easier for them and a priority for 
them to do what we are asking them to do and what they know they need 
to do.
  I come here today as a budget writer in the U.S. Senate. I have 
served on the national budget-writing committee for 5 years. I have 
worked diligently to reduce the deficit and to make sure that we put 
our priorities in place. That is why, when I look at the budget that is 
on the floor today, I say the priorities are not in the right place. My 
amendment simply puts aside a reserve fund so that when this Congress 
begins to do what parents are asking them to do across this country, 
and to make this a national priority, we have in place a deficit-
neutral account that we can begin to put funds in so that we can 
address this absolutely critical issue.
  I have told you what my personal experience is. You have heard from 
several of my colleagues. But most importantly, studies back up what I 
have just told you. A 1989 study of the Tennessee STAR Program, which 
compared the performance of students in grades K through 3 in small and 
regular-sized classes, found that students in small classes--13 to 17 
students--significantly outperformed other students in math and reading 
every year at all grade levels across geographic areas.
  Mr. President, I have heard a number of my colleagues come to the 
floor and worry and fret over the fact that students are not graduating 
from high school with the skills they need to get into the job market. 
Class size makes a difference in their ability to get these skills. The 
studies show it. The followup study of the STAR Program in 1995 found 
that students in small classes in grades K through 3 continued to 
outperform their peers at least through grade 8 with achievement 
advantages, especially large for minority students. Class size 
reduction makes a difference. How long are we going to ignore these 
studies on the floor of the Senate? How long are we going to say no, 
not here?
  Other State and local studies have since found that students in 
smaller classes outperform their peers in reading and math, they 
perform as well or better than students in magnet or voucher schools, 
and that gains are especially significant among African American males. 
The studies back up what my experience shows, and the studies back up 
what every single Senator and Congressman says that they have as a goal 
today, which is to improve math and science and reading skills across 
this country.
  But we do not just have to listen to what the studies say; we should 
listen to what parents say. When any parent is sitting there the 
afternoon that their child comes home from their very first day of 
school in September, there are two questions that every single parent 
in every household across this country asks their child on that first

[[Page S2790]]

day of school when they come home. They say: ``Who is your teacher? How 
many students are in your classroom?'' Who is your teacher? Universal 
questions in every home across this country. Why? Because parents know 
that who that teacher is and the quality of that teacher is critical to 
their child's learning for the next entire 9 months:

  ``How many children are in your classroom?'' Every single parent 
intuitively knows that their child will get a better education the 
smaller the class size. And I can tell you, when that student answers, 
``35 children, 40 children,'' that parent feels, ``This is not going to 
be a great year.'' Parents know that the skills their child needs to 
succeed will be better learned in a smaller class size. And that is why 
they ask on the first day of school, ``How many students are in your 
classroom?''
  Parents today are also concerned about children's safety. No 
surprise. And I can tell you as a teacher, and I know that every parent 
knows, that if a teacher has the ability to listen to their children, 
to work with their children, to prepare their children, and to really 
get to know those young people in their classrooms, their safety will 
be much, much better. And discipline will be much less of a problem, 
because that teacher has time to work with those tough kids that are in 
their classes today.
  But, we have heard what parents say. We know what the studies say. 
What are teachers saying? I have taken some time over the last few 
weeks to ask teachers what they said about class size. These are the 
people, the professionals that are in our classrooms every day with our 
young people.
  Here is what some teachers have said to me: This ``is the most 
important improvement we can make. A working condition that in many 
ways is [far] more important [to me] than salary. If teachers feel like 
they are making progress, other complaints seem minimal. If teachers 
feel behind, at a loss, and overwhelmed by large classes, any other 
problems loom large.''
  ``It's not only important for classroom management, but also for time 
spent evaluating each student's work, and time for individual attention 
with each student.''
  One teacher told me: ``The difference between teaching a class of 31 
high school students and teaching 28 is the difference between lion-
taming and teaching.''
  Mr. President, students and teachers and parents know that class size 
reduction makes a difference.
  I also have a young group of students that I work with in my home 
State. They are called my Student Advisory Youth Involvement Team. I go 
to them on a regular basis, and I tell them, as young people under the 
age of 18, that their voice is important here in the Nation's Capital 
and their priorities are important as well. And I ask them how they 
feel about different issues that are coming before the Senate.
  I took some time to talk to some of those young students over the 
past several weeks about class size and what is happening in their 
schools and what could make a difference. Christopher Shim, who is a 
17-year-old from Mercer High School, said, ``In elementary school, I 
actually felt I was pretty lucky. I was able to get personal time with 
the teacher, even though we had 30-35 students in my elementary 
classrooms.'' He continued, ``In high school, I have 40 people in my 
calculus class. This means any time I have a question, there are 10 
people in line.''
  Mr. President, we stand out here on the floor of the Senate and we 
talk about how important it is for our young people to get math and 
science skills, and yet here is a student who says when he needs help 
with a question in calculus, there are 10 people consistently in line. 
Smaller class sizes make a difference.

  I had another student who said to me, ``In [my] high school civics 
class, there is only one teacher teaching two classes of 40 students 
each. It's harder to get through the curriculum and get answers to your 
questions.''
  Mr. President, consistently students gave me comments. And I will be 
reading more of them throughout the debate. But one after the other, 
what these young people--who are in the classrooms today, where the 
stress is on them to get the good grades, to go on to college, to get a 
good job--what they told me consistently was that they felt that 
reducing class size was important.
  Are we going to listen to parents? Are we going to listen to 
teachers? Are we going to listen to the young people themselves? Are we 
going to listen to the thousands of families across our communities 
today who know this makes a difference, who say to their child when 
they come home, ``How many kids are in your classroom?'' because they 
know? Are we going to listen to the studies? Are we going to say it is 
the right thing to do to make this a national priority? Or today on the 
floor of the Senate, are we going to say no? Are we going to say that 2 
percent is enough? Are we going to say that education is no longer a 
priority of this Government?
  I have heard too many people say, ``Leave it to the local school 
boards. Leave it to the States. It should not be a national priority.'' 
I could not disagree more. We cannot pass the buck any longer. Making 
sure that every one of our children gets a good education is a priority 
for every adult in this country, whether they are a parent, a community 
leader, a State leader, or a national leader. It is our responsibility 
to set the priorities within this budget. My amendment allows us to do 
that as the debate progresses across the rest of this year.
  Mr. President, as you know, I feel strongly about this, and I know 
there are a number of my colleagues who are here today who support this 
as well.
  I yield to the Democratic ranking member at this time for a 
statement.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. I will try not to take more than 5 minutes, but I 
appreciate having 5 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. I rise in support of the Murray amendment because it 
very simply focuses on a problem that is of critical importance. It 
establishes a deficit-neutral reserve fund to help reduce class sizes. 
I have to commend the Senator from Washington because her focus on 
children extends to the whole range, from nutrition, health, education, 
and child care. She is right, in my view, to bring this amendment up 
before the Senate, and now before the American people.
  What she is saying is young people need more attention from their 
teachers and thus the class size reduction is a perfect avenue toward 
getting them more attention. The capacity for the child to learn 
increases when class sizes are smaller.
  Once again, I commend our friend and colleague from Washington. She 
is one among several of our colleagues who call education focus of 
their agenda. The reserve fund would allow the Congress to help the 
States and local educational agencies recruit, train, and hire the 
100,000 additional teachers by the year 2005. These teachers would 
reduce class sizes in grades 1 to 3 to an average of 18 students per 
classroom. Mr. President, this is a very important initiative and 
deserves our support.
  I will now speak for a moment about a personal experience. I grew up 
in what is now one of America's poorest cities, an industrial city, in 
New Jersey. The city is called Paterson, NJ. I was born there. I and a 
couple of my business associates decided to try to help out because of 
our good fortune and our interest in what was taking place within that 
old favorite city of ours. We provided a program for extending free 
tuition--we paid for it--for students who, from the sixth grade, our 
targeted grade, went on to pass their high school requirements and we 
would pay for their education in college. I thought it was a pretty 
significant inducement. We had academic counselors that worked with 
these students. Then-Vice President Quayle was very kind, spending 45 
minutes with these youngsters. It was a real treat for them. We took 
them on various trips and tried to help them along.
  I am ashamed to say, pained to say, really, that the program did not 
do a lot of good. We are reexamining why. The principal thing that 
jumped out at us was that the sixth grade was too late to start, too 
late to make a difference with these youngsters.
  When examined it further, we look to the earliest grades, grades 1, 
2, and 3. We found that those early learning experiences matter most. 
So I think that this amendment helps us to concentrate on putting our 
resources where they will do the most good. It is

[[Page S2791]]

critical to get the kids off on a good start at that tender age. That 
is why President Clinton proposed this major national effort to limit 
class sizes in the early grades. That is why the proposal enjoys such 
strong support among the American people.
  Unfortunately, the budget now before the Senate rejects this 
proposal. Frankly, I believe it is one of the major shortcomings of the 
resolution. Senator Murray offered this amendment in the Budget 
Committee's markup, but it was defeated on a straight party line. I 
hope today's vote will be different. I urge my colleagues to support 
this amendment and, once again, commend the distinguished Senator from 
Washington for her leadership on this issue. Since coming to the 
Senate, she has been an outspoken advocate for education, for our 
children in all aspects. I know she speaks not just for America's 
parents, grandparents, but families all across our country in urging 
this Nation to make education our top priority.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. KENNEDY Mr. President, the Republican budget is anti-education It 
sets up too many roadblocks to a brighter future for the nation's 
children We should be doing more, not less, to improve the nation's 
public schools.
  The budget should reflect our true national priorities The American 
people give top priority to education, and Congress should too But, the 
Republican education budget goes against what the American people want 
by cutting education funding.
  Republicans say that they are pro-education But, there is a massive 
disparity between their rhetoric and the reality of their budget Our 
Republican colleagues say that they support education and children But 
their current tax proposal and their current budget proposal make it 
very clear that they are no friends of public education
  If Republicans were friends of public schools, they would not divert 
$1.6 billion of scarce resources to private schools.
  They would not cut education by $400 million next year, and prohibit 
funding for any new programs.
  They would not ignore the pressing need to repair our crumbling 
schools--to train more teachers, to reduce class sizes, to provide more 
after-school programs to keep children off the streets, away from drugs 
and guns, and out of trouble.
  They would not propose tax breaks that benefit wealthy families who 
send their children to private schools.
  There are many good ideas to improve education that deserve support 
We need to increase our investment in public schools We need to raise 
academic standards We need to modernize school buildings We need to 
reduce class size We need to support more teachers and better training 
for current teachers We need to expand after-school programs.
  Students deserve modern schools with world-class teachers But too 
many students in too many schools in too many communities across the 
country fail to achieve that standard The latest international survey 
of math and science achievement confirms the urgent need to raise 
standards of performance for schools, teachers, and students alike It 
is shameful that America's twelfth graders ranked among the lowest of 
the 22 nations participating in this international survey of math and 
science.
  Schools across the nation face serious problems of overcrowding 
Antiquated facilities are suffering from physical decay, and are not 
equipped to handle the needs of modern education.
  Across the country, 14 million children in a third of the nation's 
schools are learning in substandard buildings Half the schools have at 
least one unsatisfactory environmental condition It will take over $100 
billion to repair existing facilities nationwide.
  America's children are learning in overcrowded classrooms This year, 
K-12 enrollment reached an all-time high, and it will continue to grow 
over the next 7 years Communities will need to build 6,000 new public 
schools to maintain current class size Due to overcrowding, schools are 
using trailers for classrooms and teaching students in hallways, 
closets, and bathrooms Overcrowded classrooms undermine discipline and 
decrease student morale.
  In Springfield, Massachusetts, student enrollment has increased by 
over 1,500 students, or 6 percent, in the last two years, forcing 
teachers to hold classes in storage rooms, large closets and basements.
  In addition, too many schools are already understaffed During the 
next decade, rising student enrollments and massive teacher retirements 
mean that the nation will need to hire 2 million new teachers Between 
1995 and 1997, student enrollment in Massachusetts rose by 28,000 
students, causing a shortage of 1,600 teachers--without including 
teacher retirements.
  The teacher shortage has forced many school districts to hire 
uncertified teachers, and ask certified teachers to teach outside their 
area of expertise Each year, more than 50,000 under-prepared teachers 
enter the classroom One in four new teachers does not fully meet state 
certification requirements Twelve percent of new teachers have had no 
teacher training at all Students in inner-city schools have only a 50% 
chance of being taught by a qualified science or math teacher In 
Massachusetts, 30% of teachers in high-poverty schools do not even have 
a minor degree in their field.
  Incredibly, the Republican budget ignores these pressing needs The 
Republican plan cuts funding for education It refuses to provide key 
new investments to improve public education If their anti-education 
plan is passed, schools and students will get even less help next year 
than they are getting this year, just when they need help the most.
  The Republican budget cuts discretionary funding by $1.6 billion 
below the President's budget It cuts funding for education and Head 
Start by $1 billion below the level needed to maintain current services 
In fact, it cuts education and Head Start funding by $400 million below 
last year And to make matters worse, the Republican budget prohibits 
funding for new education programs.
  It denies 3.7 million students the opportunity to benefit from 
smaller class sizes.
  It denies 900,000 disadvantaged students the extra help they need to 
improve their reading and math skills.
  It denies 400,000 students the opportunity to attend after-school 
programs.
  It denies 6,500 middle schools serving 5 million students extra help 
to ensure that they are safe and drug free.
  It denies 1 million students in failing schools the opportunity to 
benefit from innovative reforms.
  It denies 3.9 million needy college students an increase in their 
Pell grants.
  The Republican anti-education budget does nothing to help recruit and 
train qualified teachers.
  It does nothing to improve failing schools by creating Education 
Opportunity Zones.
  It does nothing to help disadvantaged students attend college and 
graduate from college.
  It does nothing to increase funding for Title I to improve students' 
math and reading skills.
  It does nothing to increase funding for Pell grants.
  The challenge in education is clear. We must do all we can to improve 
teaching and learning for all students across the nation.
  That's why I strongly support the amendment by Senator Murray to 
reduce class size in grades K-3 across the country. A necessary 
foundation for success in school is a qualified teacher in every 
classroom, to make sure that young children receive the individual 
attention they need. That's why it is so important that we help bring 
100,000 new qualified teachers into the public schools and reduce class 
size in the elementary grades.
  Research has shown that students attending small classes in the early 
grades make more rapid progress than students in larger classes. The 
benefits are greatest for low-achieving, minority, and low-income 
children. Smaller classes also enable teachers to identify and work 
effectively with students who have learning disabilities, and reduce 
the need for special education in later grades.
  A national study of 10,000 fourth graders in 203 school districts 
across the country and 10,000 eighth graders in 182 school districts 
across the country found that students in small classes performed 
better than students in large classes for both grade levels.
  Gains were larger for fourth graders than eighth graders. Gains were 
largest

[[Page S2792]]

of all for inner-city students in small classes--they were likely to 
advance 75 percent more quickly than students in large classes.
  Another significant analysis called Project STAR studied 7,000 
students in grades K to 3 in 80 schools in Tennessee. Again, students 
in small classes performed better than students in large classes in 
each grade from kindergarten through third grade. And the gains were 
larger for minority students.
  We also know that overcrowded classrooms undermine discipline and 
decrease student morale.
  Many states and communities are considering proposals to reduce class 
size. But you can't reduce class size without the ability to hire 
additional qualified teachers to fill the additional classrooms. The 
federal government should lend a helping hand.
  This year, California Governor Wilson proposed to spend $1.5 billion 
to reduce fourth-grade classes to 20 students or less, after having 
reduced class sizes for students in grades K-3 last year.
  In Pennsylvania, a recent report by the bipartisan legislative 
commission on urban school restructuring recommended capping class 
sizes in kindergarten through grade 3 in urban districts at 20 students 
per teacher.
  In Wisconsin, the Student Achievement Guarantee in Education program 
is helping to reduce class size in grades K-3 in low-income 
communities.
  In Flint, Michigan, efforts over the last three years to reduce class 
size in grades K-3 have led to a 44% increase in reading scores and an 
18% increase in math scores.
  Congress can do more to encourage all of these state and local 
efforts across the country. We can help lead the way in reducing class 
size. I urge my colleagues to support Senator Murray's amendment and to 
increase our investment in education. The nation's children deserve our 
support.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I am pleased to support Senator 
Murray's amendment today to create a reserve fund for adding 100,000 
public school teachers and to reduce class sizes in the early grades to 
18 students per classroom.


                  california's schools are overwhelmed

  I come from the State that has some of the largest class sizes in the 
Nation in our public schools. In 1994, California's schools averaged 
about 30 students per class, the highest in the country. In 1995-1996, 
when the average pupil teacher ratio for all grades, elementary and 
secondary in the Nation was 17.3 students per teacher, in California, 
it was 24.0.
  In the 1993-1994 school year, in elementary schools, California had 
29.4 students per class while the U.S. average was 24.1. For secondary 
schools in 1993-1994, the average California classroom had 29.7 
students while the average U.S. classroom had 23.6 students, according 
to the National Center for Educational Statistics.
  When one computes total teaching staff per pupil, again, California's 
number are substantially higher than national rates, says NCES. In 
1995-1996, California's pupil-teacher ratio was 24.0, compared to the 
U.S. average of 17.3 pupils per teacher. The 1997 estimate likewise has 
California exceeding national rates: California, 22.7 students per 
teacher; U.S. 17.0 students per teacher.
  Today, many classes have 40 or more students per teacher. Our 
students and teachers are crammed into every available closet, 
cafeteria and temporary building available. At John Muir Elementary 
School in San Bruno, one class spent much of the year on the stage of 
the school's multipurpose room as it waited for portable rooms to 
arrive. Los Angeles Unified School District has 560,000 seats for 
681,000 students.
  To add to the problem, California will have a school enrollment rate 
between 1997 and 2007 of 15.7 percent, triple the national rate of 4.1 
percent. We will have the largest enrollment increase of all states 
during the next ten years. By 2007, our enrollment will have increased 
by 35.3 percent. To put it another way, California needs to build seven 
new classrooms a day at 25 students per class just to keep up with the 
surge in student enrollment.
  The California Department of Education says that we need to add about 
327 schools over the next three years, just to keep pace with the 
projected growth. But these phenomenal construction rates will only 
maintain current use. They do not begin to relieve overcrowding, our 
current large class sizes.
  Fortunately, California has embarked on an effort to reduce class 
size, providing state funds to local school districts to hire more 
teachers for grades K through 3. The goal is to cut class sizes from 
28.6 students to no more than 20 students in grades K through 3. 
California is spending $2.5 billion over two years to cut class size 
and the annual cost of this reform will be about $1.5 billion. 
California has created at least 17,000 new classes and over half of the 
State's 1.9 million eligible students are now in classes of 20 or fewer 
students. A similar federal effort, like President Clinton's initiative 
and Senator Murray's amendment, can complement California's effort.


                    smaller classes improve learning

  Studies show that student achievement improves when class sizes are 
reduced.
  California's education reforms relied on a Tennessee study called 
Project STAR, in which 6,500 kindergartners were put in 330 classes of 
different sizes. The students stayed in small classes for four years 
and then returned to larger ones in the fourth grade. The test scores 
and behavior of students in the small classes were better than those of 
children in the larger classes. A similar 1997 study by Rand found that 
smaller classes benefit students from low-income families the most.

  Sandy Sutton, a teacher in Los Angeles's Hancock Park Elementary 
School, used to have 32 students in her second grade class. In the fall 
of 1997, she had 20. She says she can spend more time on individualized 
reading instruction with each student. She can now more readily draw 
out shy children and more easily identify slow readers early in the 
school year.
  The November 25, 1997, Sacramento Bee reported that when teachers in 
the San Juan Unified School Districts started spending more time with 
students, test scores rose and discipline problems and suspensions 
dropped. A San Juan teacher, Ralphene Lee, said, ``This is the most 
wonderful thing that has happened in education in my lifetime.''
  Other teachers say that students in smaller classes pay better 
attention, ask more questions and have fewer discipline problems.
  A San Diego initiative to bring down class sizes found that smaller 
classes mean better classroom management; more individual instruction; 
more contact with parents; more time for team teaching; more diverse 
instructional methods; and a higher morale.
  Smaller classes make a difference.


                 smaller classes require good teachers

  Class sizes cannot be reduced without hiring more teachers. And these 
teachers must be trained and credentialed teachers.
  California has 21,000 teachers on emergency credentials. 
Unfortunately, in California nearly 22,000 of the 240,000 public school 
teachers in California are not fully credentialed or have not passed a 
basic skills test. Half of California's math and science teachers did 
not minor in those subjects in college, yet they are teaching. The 
October 13, 1997, U.S. New and World Report reported that in Los 
Angeles, ``new teachers have included Nordstrom clerks, a former clown, 
and several chiropractors.''
  California will need up to 300,000 new teachers in the next decade 
because of our escalating enrollment. A 1996 analysis by Policy 
Analysis for California Education found that my state could only expect 
about 9,000 new credentialed teachers per year in current trends 
continue.
  Without good teachers, no plan, however visionary or revolutionary, 
can improve student learning. But sadly, a November 1997 report card by 
the National Commission on Teaching and America's Future ranked 
California near the bottom of states in the quality of our public 
school teaching force because we have some of the highest proportions 
of uncertified or undertrained teachers, particularly in math and 
science. The Commission defined ``well-qualified'' as a teacher with 
full certification and a major in their assigned field. By this 
measure, only 65 percent of the state's teachers meet the standard. 
Nationally, that figure is

[[Page S2793]]

72 percent. In California, 46 percent of high school math teaches did 
not minor in math. The national average is 28 percent.


                               conclusion

  There is hardly a more worthy endeavor than strengthening our 
schools' ability to better educate our children. The Murray amendment 
before us today can make an important contribution in partnership with 
state and local efforts by providing extra resources to reduce class 
sizes and hire more teachers.
  Mrs. MURRAY. I yield such time as she may consume to the Senator from 
Illinois.
  Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN. Just to put in context what this debate is and is 
not about in regard to Senator Murray's amendment, and there will, of 
course, be other amendments on education seeking to bring this issue to 
the attention of the American people, and hopefully to give us an 
opportunity to actually legislate.
  The issue here starts from the fact that as we went into the budget 
negotiations, the Republican majority cut $1.6 billion from the 
President's request for elementary and secondary education. 
Unfortunately, this has become not only a partisan debate among and 
between the parties here in the Senate but it really is a debate that, 
in my opinion, is kind of like trying to find out who to blame for the 
fact that elementary and secondary education is not receiving the kind 
of support nationally it ought to receive.
  My mother used to have an expression, ``When you point a finger at 
somebody, you have three pointing back at yourself.'' I think nothing 
describes this debate around education as much as that expression. The 
fact is that there is an awful lot of finger-pointing going on in 
regard to education--whose responsibility it is, whose fault it is, who 
should do what, instead of a sense that the real answer here lies in 
our ability as a nation to come together, to work together, to 
cooperate, to collaborate, to form partnerships to address an issue 
that is in our national interests.
  There is no question that education is a core value for our country. 
It correlates with opportunity, opportunity not just for individuals 
but for America as a whole. That notion of opportunity, I think, goes 
to the heart of what it is about to be an American. Frankly, the rungs 
of opportunity are crafted in the classroom. Public education has made 
this the greatest country in the world, and if we don't engage in this 
together to work out the challenges to public education, we will see 
that American dream erode in our lifetime. I do not think that is 
something any American parent wants to see. I think that every parent, 
every citizen, wants to see us engage, regarding this issue, in ways 
that serve the public interests and in ways that do justice and honor 
to our generation's stewardship of this great country. That is the core 
issue, I think, in all of this debate and in what it is we are debating 
with regard to Senator Murray's amendment, as well as others.
  First, I will for a moment sketch out in terms of the dollar value of 
an education, first to individuals. There is no question; studies have 
shown us that high school graduates earn 46 percent more every year 
than those who do not graduate, that college graduates earn 155 percent 
more every year than those who do not complete high school, and over 
the course of a lifetime the most educated Americans will earn five 
times as much as the least educated Americans. So education correlates 
directly to an individual's well-being. In fact, it correlates to 
almost every indicia of economic and social well-being. Educational 
attainment can be tied directly to income, to health, to the likelihood 
of being on welfare, to the likelihood of being incarcerated, and even 
to the likelihood of an individual voting and participating in our 
democracy.

  Education, however, is more than a tool just to lift people out of 
poverty or to give them a better standard of living. It is the engine 
that will drive America's economy into the 21st century. In a Wall 
Street Journal survey last year of leading U.S. economists, 43 percent 
of them said that the single most important thing we can do to increase 
our long-term economic growth would be to invest more in education, 
research, and development. Nothing else came close to the indicia of 
what will help our economy do well. One economist said, ``One of the 
few things that economists will agree upon is the fact that economic 
growth is very strongly dependent on our own abilities.''
  In a recent study by the Manufacturing Institute, the conclusion was 
reached that increasing the education level of workers by 1 year raises 
the productivity level in manufacturing by 8.5 percent. So making 
certain that we invest in education is something that we ought to do 
not just for the children who will be benefited but for our country and 
for the economy as a whole.
  There are those who say that is fine, that is all well and good, but 
in any event it is not our job to do. In fact, this $1.6 billion cut, 
as Senator Murray pointed out, means we will spend in this budget, this 
1998 budget, a full 2 percent on education; 2 percent is the Federal 
contribution out of this budget to education. That is so because a 
number of people argue that it is not the Federal Government's job to 
be involved with financially supporting elementary and secondary 
education. They point the finger and say it is somebody else's job.
  Let's take a look at who else's job it might be. Some of our 
colleagues say the economy is doing so well, the States should do it, 
that the States are now in a position to supplement what they spend on 
education because they have surpluses accumulating in their economy. 
Well, the truth is that even if the States were to stretch out, to use 
all of their surplus, that would not be enough money to provide the 
support to rebuild crumbling schools, to reduce class size, to give 
teachers the tools they need, to give children what they need to 
actually be able to get the kind of world-class economy that I believe 
we have to provide for every American child.
  All but two of the States had at least some surplus at the end of 
fiscal year 1997, ranging from a $3.2 billion surplus in Alaska to a 
$32 million surplus in Alabama. My own State of Illinois ended 1997 
with an $806 million surplus. Of course, the sum total of all the 
States' surpluses at the end of fiscal year 1997 was $28.2 billion.
  In addition--and this is not on the class size debate but efforts 
with regard to rebuilding the schools--the General Accounting Office 
tells us that just to bring the schools in this country up to code we 
have to spend $112 billion. Well, you don't have to have a whole lot of 
education to do the math on that one. If all the surpluses taken 
together are $28.2 billion, that doesn't begin to even address the 
issue of funding $112 billion worth of need just to get the facilities 
up to code. So if you are talking again about reducing class size, as 
well as fixing crumbling schools and the other things that the schools 
will need, the $28 billion surpluses of the States will not do it.

  Assuming that every State were to maintain its past effort, and in 
addition spend every penny of its surplus on schools, they would still 
be left with a huge amount of needs, $153 billion worth of needs in 
terms of school construction, and again the costs of reducing class 
size.
  Then there are those who say, OK, it is not just the State's job. In 
any event, it is not just the State's job to do this. It is really a 
matter of each community weighing in and fixing up their schools. That 
translates into an argument that the full costs of education or the 
bulk of the cost of education ought to come out of the property taxes.
  I don't know if you noticed, but the property tax is a singularly 
inelastic tax--without doubt, the worst place to try to fund a school 
system. And what we have seen over time is that the property tax has 
been inadequate to fund education. In fact, it has given rise to what 
Jonathan Kozol referred to as ``Savage Inequalities.'' That is to say, 
in the communities where the demographics support an easily tapped 
property tax, where there are nuclear power plants or shopping centers, 
those communities can afford to support their schools with relatively 
little effort from individual taxpayers, whereas other school districts 
where there are a number of retirees or poor people have a harder time 
supporting their schools. So relying on the property tax alone, or 
largely relying on the property taxes, is one of the reasons why we

[[Page S2794]]

have such a patchwork in terms of the quality of schools in this 
country. There is no coherence. There is no systematic support for 
education from the local property tax. So we have a situation where the 
local property tax is stretched beyond what it can bear in terms of 
providing for education. The States are doing an inadequate job in 
support of education, and this budget gives us all of a 2 percent 
Federal contribution to that challenge. Small wonder, Mr. President, 
that the United States is beginning to lose ground worldwide in 
education.
  Just a couple weeks ago we had a report on the performance of 
students in this country on math and science exams. It should have been 
a wake-up call to everybody when we found that the U.S. students, in 
some categories--in physics--came in dead last, dead last. We came in 
below Slovenia on mathematics. We are doing poorly on all of these 
indicia of international measurements of competency in the schools.
  Given this patchwork quilt, given the results of the finger-pointing, 
small wonder that our kids are not doing as well as they should or that 
they could. Let me make a point about that. I think the point has to be 
made that our children, American kids, are just as capable as kids 
anywhere in the world of learning, if they are given an opportunity.
  They are as capable of doing as much as any other community on this 
planet, if given the opportunity. The direction that we take, the 
decisions we make in this Senate will in large part determine what 
direction we take to get there, to get to the point of giving them an 
opportunity. Will we support a partnership in which we come together at 
the Federal, the State, and the local level? Or will we take the 
position that everybody have at it and do the best job you can, 
wherever you are, and make educational opportunity an accident of 
geography and an accident of someone's situation in life, whether their 
parents were born wealthy. I don't believe we can afford to waste a 
single mind, to waste a single child's talent. We have a responsibility 
as Americans to come together as parents and stop this finger pointing, 
stop this blame game and put this argument aside and recognize that it 
is in our national security interest that we give every child the 
ability to be educated to the maximum extent of his or her ability.
  Mr. President, I commend Senator Murray for her activity on the 
Budget Committee in this regard, for her advocacy for children. She has 
been an advocate across the board on a variety of issues. I submit that 
there is no issue on which advocacy can be more important than the 
direction we take in education in this country.
  I believe the bottom-line question here is whether or not we are 
prepared to face the fact that we cannot go it alone, we cannot point 
fingers, and we cannot allow for a child's educational opportunities to 
depend on the accident of where they were born. We have a 
responsibility to come together as Americans to make certain that all 
levels of government contribute to the maximum extent we can so that 
local governments, parents, communities, people at the local level can 
provide the children who live there with the best possible opportunity.
  We can do better than 2 percent. I submit that we ought to restore 
the $1.6 billion the President proposed, restore that to the budget and 
have a debate on how we send that out to the States. We ought to be 
able to send it to the States and the school districts without a whole 
lot of strings or bureaucracy. Nobody is hiring $1.6 billion worth of 
new bureaucrats. We are talking about sending money directly to benefit 
the schools. I believe we have not only an opportunity to do that, but 
an obligation to do it. The opportunity is with us because we have a 
balanced budget. After decades of wallowing in red ink, we have a 
budget surplus--or at least we are on a glidepath from deficit 
territory. It seems to me, if we are going to look at the priorities of 
this country, no priority comes higher than providing for education, no 
priority comes higher than providing States and local communities with 
the support they need to give our children a chance.
  Therefore, I commend Senator Murray.
  I yield the floor.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Illinois for 
putting in perspective what we are talking about today. The students in 
my classroom weren't Republican, Democrat, or Independent. They didn't 
say, oh, this is a local issue; oh, this is a State issue, those 
Federal people should not be involved. They looked around in their 
classroom and said: How many kids are in here with me? Do I get time 
with my teacher; do I get personal attention?
  As my colleague from Illinois notes, there is no silver bullet to 
making education better across this country. But we have to put our 
efforts in places where we know they make a difference. My colleague 
from Illinois has addressed tirelessly the issue of crumbling schools 
across the country. And the issue of safety and the ability to learn, 
and the issue of class size, again, where school buildings simply can't 
expand, where our children are in unsafe situations. If together we 
address the crumbling schools, and class size, and if we train our 
teachers with the skills they need to teach effectively in our 
classrooms today and tomorrow, we will turn public education around.
  I know my colleague from Illinois has heard as much as I have from 
all those politicians and leaders who are saying public education has 
failed. I don't believe public education has failed. I believe we have 
failed public education. We have a responsibility to turn it around 
right now, today, in the Senate. I thank my colleague from Illinois. I 
yield to her.

  Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN. Mr. President, I wanted to engage in a colloquy 
with the Senator from Washington. Every politician who runs for office 
runs on an education platform. I don't know a Governor in this country 
who hasn't run on an education platform. I don't know a Senator in this 
country who hasn't run on an education platform. Somewhere out there, 
there is probably a coroner and a dogcatcher who will run on an 
education platform. And yet education doesn't have the financial 
support at any level that it needs to have. That should be evident in 
how we are coming in on these international tests and exams. The 
response that I see from all too many of my colleagues is to say, as 
the Senator so eloquently put it, public education has failed, let's 
run away from it. The old runaway response is not a response, because 
we can't afford to triage, to waste a single child.
  Again, I commend my colleague for requiring some of us to put our 
money where our mouths are, that we really support education and begin 
to vote for education and fund education and to put real meat on the 
bone of our commitment to public education.
  Mrs. MURRAY. I thank my colleague. I absolutely agree. I believe we 
are at a fundamental crossroads in this country, where we are going to 
decide now, today, whether we are going to go down a narrow path of 
just letting a few kids succeed in education across this country, with 
vouchers, block grants, and eliminating the Federal role altogether; or 
we can collectively say, no, not in my country, not in my home, not in 
my community, not in my State.
  In this country, where we believe that public education is critical 
for every student, we want to go down the road that makes a difference. 
By making sure our crumbling schools are fixed, making sure that there 
are teachers who are well-trained, and making sure there is a number of 
students in a classroom that allows them to learn those math skills and 
English skills they so desperately need in today's and tomorrow's 
economy. I look forward to working with my colleague to make sure we go 
down the right road and not the wrong road. We will find out today what 
the Senate says.
  I yield 5 minutes to my colleague from California.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
  Mrs. BOXER. I thank my colleague for yielding me this time. Senator 
Moseley-Braun had to leave the floor, but her leadership on the 
crumbling schools initiative has just been incredible. She is the one 
who called our attention to the fact that if our kids are going to 
learn, they have to have decent schoolbuildings. I was saying the other 
day we want our kids to learn about gravity by reading about it in

[[Page S2795]]

the science book, not by having the ceiling falling on them while 
sitting in the classroom.
  I say to my colleague, Senator Patty Murray, how much I have enjoyed 
serving with her in the Senate and, beyond that, serving with her on 
the Budget Committee, because the two of us believe very strongly, as 
do a number of Democratic colleagues. If everybody is saying children 
are our priority, education is a priority, and everyone is saying this 
is so important, then it's time they voted with us and did something 
about it.
  When my colleague offered her amendment on children in the committee, 
suddenly our Republican colleagues were not there. I am hoping they are 
having second thoughts and that when we get to the vote on her 
amendment, they will come here and support it. We need bipartisanship 
on this issue.
  Now, I think it's interesting, as we look back on the Federal role in 
education, to recognize the President who, in my opinion, did more for 
the Federal role in education than anyone else, in terms of winning 
public approval for it, and that was President Dwight D. Eisenhower. 
Senator Murray is a little younger than I am, and I think about that 
now and then, but I well remember when the Russians launched the 
Sputnik and the Americans sat back and said: How could this be? We were 
the ones who had the educated work force. We were the ones who had the 
new technology. How could it be that they could get ahead of us in this 
way? Dwight Eisenhower came forward, a Republican President with broad 
bipartisan support, and said the following: ``The education of our 
children is just as important to our national security as the size of 
our military budget.'' He pushed for the National Defense Education 
Act.

  I say to my colleague, we are following in those footsteps with a 
series of amendments we will be offering--Senator Murray on class size, 
Senator Moseley-Braun on crumbling schools, myself on after school, and 
Senator Dodd on child care. We are following in the footsteps of a 
Republican President, who recognized in the 1950s that we have to do 
something about education.
  Now, in terms of my colleague's amendment, I am very proud to support 
it. I want to say a thank you not only to her, which I have done, but 
to our President, because our President shared with us his vision of 
100,000 new teachers in schools, and everybody sat back and said that 
is a goal we ought to attain. At least the vast majority of the 
American people--and we will find out if it is a majority of this 
body--said yes. This is the same President who had the goal of putting 
100,000 police on the street. If you put 100,000 police on the street, 
which I have strongly supported--what happened in California is that we 
have a 20 percent reduction in crime because we have community police. 
If you listen to those community police, let me tell you what they will 
say. I have had many townhall meetings throughout my State. They say to 
me: ``Senator, we have to prevent a lot of these problems before they 
start.'' Yes, we can help. But the fact is, once a child gets into the 
juvenile justice system, sometimes we can't turn them around. So we do 
need to give our children something to say yes to. And law enforcement 
looks at these measures--in my State at least--with great support.
  I have an after-school bill that I will be offering. We know that, in 
California, when we give the kids something to say yes to in after-
school programs--we give mentoring, tutoring, help with homework, and 
we bring in business and they learn on computers--their performance has 
gone up 75 percent in Sacramento's START program and in L.A.'s BEST. 
There has been a 75 percent increase in performance. Now, we can't 
expect that for every child, but this is the experience that we are 
having.
  I submit to my colleague that when you put a child in a smaller class 
where that child doesn't get lost in the shuffle, where that child gets 
the individual attention from the teachers, from the teacher's aide, it 
makes an enormous difference. I sometimes think a lot of our kids' 
problems are overlooked because the teachers cannot possibly, if they 
have a class of 40 children, pick up every nuance and problem a child 
is having in learning or in their social behavior. That issue has come 
to the floor lately.
  I say to my friend in closing that, in California, in a bipartisan 
way, the Governor, the superintendent of public instruction, from 
different parties, all agreed that we should lower class sizes in the 
lower grades. We do not have the official studies because this is a new 
program. But the reports that are coming back are extraordinary. The 
stories we are hearing from the children, from the parents, from the 
teachers, from the principal, from our Governor, who is a Republican, 
from our superintendent of public instruction, who is a Democrat, all 
of what we are hearing is positive. It's not really rocket science to 
figure out that, if you can spend more time with each child, you are 
going to have a better result.
  So, again, I say to my colleague how much I enjoy working with her. 
She has put children first from the moment she came on to the Senate 
floor. It has been a breath of fresh air for all of us. I really look 
forward to helping her with this amendment. If we do not succeed today, 
if the other side puts up procedural hurdles and tells us you need 60 
votes, I hope you will keep bringing this issue back again and again 
and again--for one reason: The parents want it, the children need it, 
and America supports it.

  I thank my colleague and I yield the floor.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I thank my colleague.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 2 minutes remaining.
  Mrs. MURRAY. I thank my colleague for her tremendous leadership on 
this issue. There is nobody from the other side on the floor here. If 
they can find the chairman, we would like to find out what their intent 
is on this vote.
  Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I have concurred with the minority 
regarding an agenda from now until some time after 4 o'clock this 
afternoon. And I would like to propose it by way of a consent decree 
which I understand is satisfactory to the other side.
  I ask unanimous consent that the following be the sequence of 
amendments debated between now and 4 p.m. today, and that a vote occur 
on or in relation to the Murray amendment at 2:20 p.m., with the time 
prior to 2:20--5 minutes--to be equally divided between Senator Murray 
and Senator Domenici or his designee. I further ask unanimous consent 
that the Gregg amendment No. 2167, and the Dodd amendment No. 2173--
that votes occur on or in relation to the remaining above listed 
amendments beginning at 4 p.m., with 2 minutes of debate between each 
vote for an explanation, and with no second-degree amendments in order 
prior to the votes at 4 p.m.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I apologize to the Senate for the lack of business in 
the last few moments. We had some amendments that we had to clarify 
with sponsors. So let me continue and make sure we are clear on the 
unanimous consent that I have proposed. Let me start over since none of 
it had been granted.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the following be the 
sequence of amendments debated between now and 4 p.m. today, and that a 
vote occur on or in relation to the Murray amendment at 2:20 p.m. with 
the time prior to 2:20 being equally divided between Senator Murray and 
Senator Domenici or his designee; that regarding the Gregg amendment, 
No. 2168, and the Dodd amendment, No. 2173, votes occur on or in 
relation to those amendments beginning at 4 p.m., with 2 minutes of 
debate between each vote for explanations, with no second-degree 
amendments in order prior to the vote at 4 p.m.

[[Page S2796]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Parliamentary inquiry. Are we scheduled to go in recess 
at 12:30?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, we will recess for 
the caucus luncheons at 12:30.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Let me say we now have a starting list of about 12 
amendments. When we start at 2:15, I will make sure everybody knows 
what they are. We are asking that we sequence them in some way so we 
know where we are going. Frankly, I think either we are going to have 
to be relieved of some time on the resolution or we are going to stay 
in tonight and use some time because we really have to finish this this 
week.
  Mr. President, let me use the remaining time that I have, with 
Senator Murray having half of the 5 minutes, to debate her amendment 
prior to the vote.
  First, let me say I understand the sincerity and the genuine concern 
that the distinguished Senator who proposes this amendment has 
expressed here on the floor, and that she genuinely and generally 
expresses with reference to education. But I think it is very 
interesting; we all want to educate our children, but it seems that we 
are having a little trouble with math, mathematics, adding and 
subtracting, right here on the floor of the Senate.
  I have read and reread the amendment of the distinguished Senator, 
and I cannot find any way that it truly means anything with reference 
to classroom size. A reserve fund is set up and there is nothing in it, 
zero. There are no dollars, there are no taxes, there are no statements 
that we should cut certain programs. As a matter of fact, this 
amendment says at sometime in the future we sure hope Congress will 
find a way to cut spending someplace, perhaps cut a mandatory program, 
that is an entitlement, someplace; or perhaps increase taxes sometime. 
Then it says: Put those in this reserve fund, this box, and we will 
spend it for reducing classroom sizes.
  That is very interesting. If somebody thinks he or she is going to 
tell the American people that Senators who vote against this measure 
voted against a reduction in classroom size, then just take it from me, 
we will put an ad right up under that that says, ``The program had no 
money in it, no way to pay for it, did not have enough courage to say 
what program you would cut or which taxes you would raise. It just 
said, I am for--and I want--and I hope--and I wish--and it would be 
great if we have--a reserve fund someday, if we use it for classroom 
size reduction.''

  That is essentially the amendment. It is out of order under the 
Budget Act and under the processes, and we will raise that point. The 
vote will be on whether or not it is out of order, for I assume the 
distinguished Senator will move to waive it. But I cannot find it.
  Normally, you set up a reserve fund and you say, We are going to put 
taxes in this reserve fund or receipts from someplace, or we say, We 
are going to cut certain entitlement programs and use that money for 
some program, project or activity. What has happened here is the 
following: No one yet on that side of the aisle who wants to spend more 
money than required in this budget resolution has found a way to cut 
any program to pay for it--not yet. I have been looking. There are 
already a series that I have looked at. None cut any program to pay for 
a higher priority program.
  Second, none say, even though we insist on keeping a balanced budget, 
and they do also, these amendments--they don't want to break that 
balanced budget era we have--nonetheless, the amendments go right back 
to the era when we had programs for which we did not know how to pay. I 
defy anyone to tell me how we are going to pay for this program if we 
ever did it.
  Frankly, that is a statement of where we are. The same is going to be 
true for the amendment of my good friend, Senator Dodd, on child care. 
They found a way to set up a reserve fund with nothing in it and they 
say, ``When something happens, then we will pay for this wonderful 
program for the American people.'' I use that word in its fairest 
sense. Some people think these programs ought to be paid for by the 
Federal Government. I do not.
  I just want you to look at one chart. Everybody can look at it here. 
The business of classroom size in the United States is the business of 
the sovereign States of America, and they know there is a problem. Mr. 
President, they are spending more and more money in the school 
districts across America to reduce class size than on almost anything 
else they are doing, and they are doing a wonderful job of it. This 
simple chart up here says from 1960 to 1996 classroom sizes have been 
reduced 51 percent, from 25.8 to 17.6. That is the green line. That is 
because the red line shows how many more teachers have been added. Not 
because we are paying for them at the national level, but because our 
States are paying for them and the school boards are paying for them. 
In New York, where the cities pay for it, they are paying for it.
  Now we are going to come along in an amendment and try to tell the 
American people if you don't vote for this, you are against education, 
which amendment has no way of paying for the teachers. These States 
cannot do that. You know that green line did not come about because 
somebody set up a reserve fund and said if we ever find that we raise 
taxes, we can put the taxes in that reserve fund--``if''--or we can cut 
some other program and put that in there--``if.'' You know that green 
line would not have come down one bit if that is what States said. That 
is what we are saying here today.
  The truth of the matter is the teacher ratio is coming down and it is 
coming down dramatically. Frankly, I am not very impressed with Senator 
after Senator from whatever side of the aisle coming down here and 
essentially saying, ``Education is not going well in America and we 
know how to fix it up here in Washington. What we ought to do is have a 
new program, a new mandate.'' But this one is even worse than that, 
because it suggests we ought to do that, and there is no money to do 
it, which is a very interesting phenomenon--if you can help education 
without putting any money into a program but saying you wish it would 
happen.

  The truth of the matter is that the National Center for Educational 
Statistics, commonly known as NCES, projects that trend is going to 
continue and, I might say, continue without anybody ever having thought 
the Federal Government would start paying for reducing classroom size. 
They estimate, in their publication, that by the year 2006 there will 
be as many as 3 million K-12 public school teachers, an additional 16 
percent over the 1996 number. This same organization, highly renowned, 
says that the pupil-teacher ratios will continue to decline and they 
will continue to drop as low as 15.4 in the year 2006, an 11 percent 
decrease from 1996. And, Mr. President and fellow Senators, let me 
repeat: They did not expect that the Federal Government would get 
involved in telling these schools how they can reduce class size.
  Let me also suggest this is an interesting reserve fund in another 
way, because it proposes to fund a program that is unknown. The 
President suggests that there be this program. And, incidentally, for 
those who wondered how he paid for it--for he paid for it--he paid for 
it out of the cigarette tax, the settlement. But the budget office said 
you can't do that, because in doing that you break the budget. But he 
did plan to pay for it. Let me suggest that NCES projects these without 
ever contemplating that the United States of America would get involved 
in paying for pupil-teacher ratio reductions.
  Where is the program? The White House has not sent up their program, 
but let me tell you there is a formula about. For Senators who might 
think this amendment is determinative of something--I don't believe it 
is determinative of anything, but let's assume you really think it 
might be--then I suggest you might not like the proposal if it was to 
be carried out, because, since 20 States have invested additional funds 
in targeted efforts to reduce class size, that means that under the 
formula they are not even given credit for that. They are penalized, 
for more money goes to States that have not done that. You know if we 
get a bill, if ever--and I don't think it will ever happen that we get 
a bill on the floor of the Senate that attempts to get the U.S. 
Government into determining class sizes--you know that the formula is 
not going to work. But there is no bill, no substance. Nobody has

[[Page S2797]]

written the flesh on the bones that will tell us what kind of program 
this is.
  Senator Murray does not know how much or how it is paid for. The 
President's plan actually estimates $12 billion over 7 years --$12 
billion. If that is the plan, I wonder why the sponsors --and there are 
more than one--don't look through the budget and find $12 billion to 
spend. I wonder why they don't say maybe we are going to increase taxes 
to pay for it. Is the era of balanced budgets gone? Are we going to 
come up with a program we don't know how to pay for and try to let 
somebody think it is a real, vital, operative set of words called a 
``reserve fund'' that will get anything done about classroom size?
  Frankly, I am very grateful that to this point in our history we have 
not asked the Federal Government to do this kind of thing. I am very 
grateful because, as a matter of fact, everything they get into of this 
type ends up with more bureaucracy, more redtape, more mandates on the 
States than do most programs that truly produce beneficial results.
  But I am also thankful we are not in it because the States and school 
districts see the problem. They do not come up to the floor of the 
Senate when the problem is getting solved. They start solving it. They 
didn't start solving this problem when we were already down to about 
16.8, they started solving it when it was 25. So it is obvious to me 
that there is a reason for this amendment being subject to a point of 
order. That point of order should be sustained.
  I am not going to second-degree amendments which should fall by a 
point of order, because I believe that is what we should do to them: 
One by one, every one that is subject to that, like this one is, we 
ought to quickly not waive the budget process and not waive the rules 
of the Senate and say the program just doesn't fit. Having said that, I 
will have 2\1/2\ minutes later. Let me conclude.
  Mr. President, I do want to say to the distinguished Senator, Senator 
Murray, I, too, was a schoolteacher--not with the great prowess and 
experience that she had, but I taught one of those subjects we are all 
worried about, mathematics. I taught that. I didn't take political 
science; I took chemistry and math. I don't know how that prepared me 
to be a Senator, but I did teach algebra and arithmetic. Frankly, it is 
hard work. Frankly, believe it or not, I believe I taught every single 
child in my class who knew how to add and subtract--I believe I taught 
them algebra.
  Frankly--God forbid--I have to tell you, I had 44 students in each 
class. I am not suggesting we do that. I am delighted to see this green 
line. In fact, for some of our children--and our States are on to this, 
too--with great disabilities, we are going to have to do better than 
this. And they are, they are. They are doing better than this.
  Let me just close by suggesting that if this program which is 
encapsulated in these reserve language words is as important as my good 
friend contends, then it would seem to me we ought to find some other 
program in the U.S. Government's litany of programs--which is still 
around 2,600 and growing--we ought to find some programs we could 
terminate or cut to pay for it. As a matter of fact, the entitlement 
programs of America, while somewhat under control, are a burgeoning 
part of the American budget. Essentially, if you want a real reserve 
fund, you ought to be able to find something in this enormous number of 
billions of dollars of entitlement programs that is a little less 
important than the program the distinguished Senator says is so 
important.
  Frankly, I do not in any way contend that we know that classroom size 
is the answer to every issue. I don't want to get into a debate on 
that. We will just accept the Senator's language and words about how 
important it is. But there is a growing dispute, nonetheless, between 
competent schools of academics and education, as to whether the current 
problem in the American schools is as much related to classroom size as 
one of the other groups says. There is one group of experts who say it 
is not as important as some other things.
  The reason I say that is because that is exactly the kind of thing we 
should not be resolving up here. It is right at the State legislatures, 
it is right in the offices of superintendents and boards of education, 
and it is not right in Washington with another Washington-based 
program.
  I see that the time for recessing has arrived. I will be asking 
Senators to concur with me that this amendment should fall because it 
is subject to a point of order under our rules, and in this case the 
rules make great sense, for to vote on a program like this as if it did 
something, as if there was real money in it, as if there was a way to 
find real money--our processes are pretty good when they say that kind 
of amendment, for whatever reason, is subject to a point of order in 
the Senate.
  I yield the floor.
  Mrs. MURRAY addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I ask for 5 minutes off the budget time 
on the Democratic side.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Time is up. I understand there is an order to go into 
recess.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, we were to be in 
recess at 12:30.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I ask for the regular order. I will be glad to give her 
some additional time when the amendment comes up again. I think we are 
supposed to go into recess right now.

                          ____________________