Patty Murray

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, today I am pleased to join my colleague Senator DeWine in introducing legislation to provide a high-quality education to homeless and foster children with disabilities. The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) is based on the bedrock American principle of equal opportunity. IDEA recognizes that students have a civil right to a free, appropriate public education, even if their special needs require additional resources. Because most foster and homeless children face distinct challenges, they require even more attention and consideration to make sure their educational needs are met. The Improving Education for Homeless and Foster Children with Disabilities Act would make small but critical changes to ensure these children have a real opportunity to fulfill their potential. Students with disabilities face additional challenges in school as do foster and homeless children. But to live in a foster home or in no home at all and to have a disability is truly to have the deck stacked against you. Congress has a long and proud tradition of supporting and protecting educational opportunity for our most vulnerable young people. It's what we did when we passed the Elementary and Secondary Education Act in 1965. It's what we did when we created Head Start, and it's what we did when we started giving out Pell Grants. It's time for us to step up once again and make the changes to make IDEA work for homeless and foster children with disabilities. The bill that Senator DeWine and I are introducing today addresses the unique educational needs of children with disabilities who are in foster care or who experience homelessness. Foster children and homeless children face a unique set of challenging circumstances. There are over 500,000 children in foster care. Thirty percent of them are in special education. We know that foster children often do not function well in school. Foster children have usually been separated from their biological families as a result of child abuse or neglect, which can leave both emotional and physical marks for life. Given the shortage of foster parents in this country, children in foster care are often shuttled between many different homes and schools. One young man has shared with me his story of living in more than 100 homes throughout his childhood. Every time these children move to a new home, they may have to attend a new school. And every time these children enroll in a new school, they must start over in securing the supports and services they need to receive the free and appropriate public education that is their civil right. In addition to frequent absences and transfers, foster children often don't have parents to advocate for their educational needs. Almost every parent whose child has a disability will tell you that their role as advocate for their child correlates directly to the quality of the education their child receives. Without a parent to advocate for them, foster children can languish for years with unrecognized disabilities or insufficient services to help them succeed in school. These experiences can leave children in foster care without the education and support to lead functional, productive lives. Homeless children in our country also face significant hurdles to succeed in school, which are exacerbated for children with disabilities. The Urban Institute estimates that 1.35 million children experience homelessness each year. A high proportion of homeless children with disabilities also need special education services, yet many homeless children have great difficulty accessing these services. Children who experience homelessness desperately need stability in their lives, but they often lack the continuity of staying in one school or even in one school district long enough for an Individualized Education Plan--or IEP--to be developed and implemented. In addition, like foster children, some homeless youth have no legal guardian to watch out for their educational needs and to advocate for their best interests. Despite this difficult situation, we can help these children with a high-quality education. The Improving Education for Homeless and Foster Children with Disabilities Act amends IDEA to help States and districts meet these challenges. It facilitates greater continuity for students who change schools or school districts, by ensuring that students' IEPs follow them from school to school. It increases opportunities for early evaluation and intervention for homeless and foster infants and toddlers with disabilities. It also provides for representation of foster and homeless children on key committees that make critical decisions affecting special education. This bill expands the definition of ``parent'' to include relatives or other caregivers who are equipped to make sound decisions in a child's best interest when there is no biological parent available to do so. Finally, it improves coordination of services and information so educational and social services agencies can function more efficiently to benefit these children. As we reauthorize IDEA, we have an obligation to pay extra attention to these children and to provide the resources and support they need. The real test of how we treat children in America is measured in how we treat the most vulnerable among us, and this bill gives us a chance to do the right thing. I urge the Senate to truly ensure that no child is left behind by passing the Improving Education for Homeless and Foster Children with Disabilities Act.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, like many Americans, I was disappointed by the Federal Communications Commission's recent order on media ownership. As my colleagues know, on June 2 the FCC voted to relax the rules on media ownership. That order could reduce local news coverage and could hinder the diversity of views presented in the news media. I rise in support of the bipartisan resolution offered by Senators Dorgan and Lott to invalidate the FCC's media ownership order. Passage of this resolution will help ensure that the marketplace of ideas is not dominated by a few corporate conglomerates at the expense of our citizens and our democracy. Since its founding, our Nation has always recognized the importance of a free press in helping citizens make informed decisions on critical public issues. Over the past few years, we have seen massive mergers take place in many industries, but Americans recognize that the news media are different. They don't just produce a product to make a profit. They also provide a vital public service that could be undermined if just a few mega-corporations control what we can read, see and hear. That is why the FCC's order has provoked such a large public backlash. By a 3-2 vote, the FCC made two major changes. First, it lifted a restriction that prevents mergers between newspaper and television stations in the same market. This is known as the cross-ownership rule. Until now, that restriction has ensured that one company does not control both newspaper and television coverage in an area. That helps ensure that consumers have access to diverse sources of information. By eliminating this cross-ownership rule, however, consumers could end up with fewer voices and perspectives on the public airwaves and in the newspaper. The number one television station in a market could be owned by the dominant newspaper or even the only newspaper in that same market. We are not talking about something that could happen in just one or two cities. This could happen all over the country. Down the road, the order could encourage just a handful of powerful corporations to own nearly every media outlet. That could hinder diverse and alternative viewpoints. It could also mean fewer reporters and resources for covering local and community events. The newspaper market is already much less diverse than it was 25 years ago. Since 1975, two-thirds of independent newspaper owners have disappeared. The FCC's first order sets the stage for a further reduction in independent newspaper ownership. The FCC's second order would allow broadcast networks to own more stations across the country. Currently, one broadcast network cannot own stations that reach more than 35 percent of the public. The FCC just raised that limit to 45 percent. This order threatens to reduce the amount of local news coverage available to citizens. Just look at what has happened in the radio industry. National radio networks have gobbled up local stations. Many have consolidated their news operations to the detriment of local consumers. Getting rid of local news coverage is not good for our local communities and their residents. This change could be especially troubling in rural areas. I have been working on this issue for several months, and I believe we have reached a critical juncture that calls for Senate action. On April 9, nearly 2 months before the ruling, I sent a letter to FCC Chairman Michael Powell along with 14 other U.S. Senators from both political parties. We asked the FCC to let the Congress and the public review and comment on the proposed changes before they were enacted. When the order came out in June, I expressed my concerns. A couple of weeks ago in the Appropriations Committee, I echoed the comments of Senators Dorgan and Hutchison on the need to either fix or eliminate this order through action on the Senate floor, and that is why I'm here today in support of this resolution. The rule was scheduled to take effect on September 4, but was postponed when the Third Circuit Court of Appeals issued a temporary stay. This stay could be lifted if the FCC meets the court's requirements, so the Senate needs to act quickly. One option before the Senate is to pass a law invalidating the FCC's order. Unfortunately, that approach would still leave the door open for the FCC to simply rewrite the rule and do an ``end run'' around Congress. A better way to invalidate the rule is to use the Congressional Review Act, CRA. It would stop the rule and would also prevent the FCC from re-imposing it later under a different name. In the Appropriations Committee, we included a provision that would lower the media cap back to 35 percent. That mirrored a similar provision in the House's Commerce, Justice, State, and Judiciary Appropriations bill. We must finish the job today by using the CRA to invalidate the whole rule. Mr. President, 80 percent of Americans get their news from local TV and newspapers. We cannot allow a handful of corporations to dictate what all Americans can see, hear, and read as they make decisions on critical public issues. I urge my colleagues to vote for diverse media ownership by supporting this resolution.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, today I am pleased to join my colleague Senator DeWine in introducing legislation to provide a high-quality education to homeless and foster children with disabilities. The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) is based on the bedrock American principle of equal opportunity. IDEA recognizes that students have a civil right to a free, appropriate public education, even if their special needs require additional resources. Because most foster and homeless children face distinct challenges, they require even more attention and consideration to make sure their educational needs are met. The Improving Education for Homeless and Foster Children with Disabilities Act would make small but critical changes to ensure these children have a real opportunity to fulfill their potential. Students with disabilities face additional challenges in school as do foster and homeless children. But to live in a foster home or in no home at all and to have a disability is truly to have the deck stacked against you. Congress has a long and proud tradition of supporting and protecting educational opportunity for our most vulnerable young people. It's what we did when we passed the Elementary and Secondary Education Act in 1965. It's what we did when we created Head Start, and it's what we did when we started giving out Pell Grants. It's time for us to step up once again and make the changes to make IDEA work for homeless and foster children with disabilities. The bill that Senator DeWine and I are introducing today addresses the unique educational needs of children with disabilities who are in foster care or who experience homelessness. Foster children and homeless children face a unique set of challenging circumstances. There are over 500,000 children in foster care. Thirty percent of them are in special education. We know that foster children often do not function well in school. Foster children have usually been separated from their biological families as a result of child abuse or neglect, which can leave both emotional and physical marks for life. Given the shortage of foster parents in this country, children in foster care are often shuttled between many different homes and schools. One young man has shared with me his story of living in more than 100 homes throughout his childhood. Every time these children move to a new home, they may have to attend a new school. And every time these children enroll in a new school, they must start over in securing the supports and services they need to receive the free and appropriate public education that is their civil right. In addition to frequent absences and transfers, foster children often don't have parents to advocate for their educational needs. Almost every parent whose child has a disability will tell you that their role as advocate for their child correlates directly to the quality of the education their child receives. Without a parent to advocate for them, foster children can languish for years with unrecognized disabilities or insufficient services to help them succeed in school. These experiences can leave children in foster care without the education and support to lead functional, productive lives. Homeless children in our country also face significant hurdles to succeed in school, which are exacerbated for children with disabilities. The Urban Institute estimates that 1.35 million children experience homelessness each year. A high proportion of homeless children with disabilities also need special education services, yet many homeless children have great difficulty accessing these services. Children who experience homelessness desperately need stability in their lives, but they often lack the continuity of staying in one school or even in one school district long enough for an Individualized Education Plan--or IEP--to be developed and implemented. In addition, like foster children, some homeless youth have no legal guardian to watch out for their educational needs and to advocate for their best interests. Despite this difficult situation, we can help these children with a high-quality education. The Improving Education for Homeless and Foster Children with Disabilities Act amends IDEA to help States and districts meet these challenges. It facilitates greater continuity for students who change schools or school districts, by ensuring that students' IEPs follow them from school to school. It increases opportunities for early evaluation and intervention for homeless and foster infants and toddlers with disabilities. It also provides for representation of foster and homeless children on key committees that make critical decisions affecting special education. This bill expands the definition of ``parent'' to include relatives or other caregivers who are equipped to make sound decisions in a child's best interest when there is no biological parent available to do so. Finally, it improves coordination of services and information so educational and social services agencies can function more efficiently to benefit these children. As we reauthorize IDEA, we have an obligation to pay extra attention to these children and to provide the resources and support they need. The real test of how we treat children in America is measured in how we treat the most vulnerable among us, and this bill gives us a chance to do the right thing. I urge the Senate to truly ensure that no child is left behind by passing the Improving Education for Homeless and Foster Children with Disabilities Act.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I wish to address two parts of the Senate energy and water bill that are extremely important to Washington State: the environmental cleanup program, which impacts the Hanford Nuclear Reservation, and the Army Corps of Engineers. First, let me express my deep appreciation to Chairman Domenici and Senator Reid for their work on this bill. As always, they have taken limited resources and produced a well-balanced bill. That's a big challenge given the great needs our country faces in infrastructure, water, and energy. They have worked hard to understand the needs of my State and every State, and I thank them. I also thank the subcommittee staff. Clay, who is now at the White House, Drew, Tammy, Roger and Nancy do a remarkable job dealing with the thousands of requests from Members, and I thank them as well. I want to begin by talking about the environmental cleanup program at the Department of Energy. That program is charged with cleaning up nuclear sites across the country, including the Hanford Nuclear Reservation in Washington State. For many years, I have had to fight the efforts of this and other administrations to under-fund this critical responsibility. This year, I am pleased that we don't have to fight for increased funding. I think that success is due to several factors. First, we have a bipartisan group of Senators who are committed to cleaning up sites in their States, and our group has pushed hard for this increased funding. In addition, we are fortunate to have the subcommittee chairman and Senator Reid as allies in this effort. The Department of Energy also deserves credit for putting forward a good budget request that puts these funding issues behind us this year. But despite the agreement on funding levels, there is another problem that is brewing which I believe threatens the effective cleanup of these sites. Like the people of the Tri-Cities, WA, I want to make sure that dangerous waste is cleaned up. I am concerned that this administration may try to change the ground rules so it could declare victory and walk away from the site, without doing all the clean up work that's required. That could happen if the administration changes the definition of high-level nuclear waste. To prevent that type of game-playing, the Natural Resources Defense Council, NRDC, brought a lawsuit against the Department of Energy. That suit sought to block new DOE rules on the reclassification of nuclear waste. Before that case went to trial, the NRDC and the States offered to settle the issues. Unfortunately, the Department of Justice and the Department of Energy rejected that cooperative approach. The case went to court, and the Department of Energy lost. One would expect the DOE to go back to the plaintiff and the states to settle the issues, but that's not what happened. Instead the DOE came running to Congress, asking for legislation to do what it could not do in court. Unfortunately, this tactic of fighting the states and trying to do an ``end run'' around the other partners in the cleanup is not new for this administration. The truth is that the fastest, most effective way to clean up these sites is for the DOE to work in partnership with the States and Federal regulators. Time and time again, however, this administration has tried to go it alone to the detriment of the residents who live near these contaminated sites. To make the best use of the funding provided in this bill, the Department of Energy needs to get back to working in partnership with the States and Federal regulators. A unilateral approach will simply cost more money and will only create further delays. I understand the Department and contractors want to get on with their work, but they must recognize that State and Federal regulators also have a job to do. And most importantly, the people who live near these sites deserve to know, understand, and have input on the activities taking place near their homes. In a letter to Speaker Hastert, the Department claims the loss in court will greatly impede the cleanup of waste in Idaho, South Carolina, and Washington State. That simply is not true, according to the NRDC, the attorneys general of those three States, and the environmental directors of each State. I strongly urge my colleagues to reject the Department's request for a change in law. I also strongly urge the Department of Energy to get back to its job of cleaning up the waste, rather than wasting valuable time seeking help from Congress over a court case that it lost. I would also like to applaud the report language in the Senate bill that directs the Office of Management and Budget to review the Department of Energy's cleanup agreements, contracting, and cost estimates. I believe we should press the Department and contractors to cleanup these sites faster and more cheaply. Everyone supports this goal. However, we should not reduce the cleanup standards or threaten the safety of workers and surrounding communities. We must examine agreements and contracts to make sure they are realistic and that they don't rely on regulatory agreements and technologies that do not exist today. I do not want to stand here in two, three or ten years and have to explain that the reason some agreement or contract did not meet success was because it was never achievable in the first place. Let me close this topic by making clear that we are making progress on cleanup around the country. This is a very challenging program that deals with the most dangerous materials in the world. That often requires new solutions and technologies, but our scientists, engineers, and workers have risen to the occasion. At Hanford, we are nearly done removing the spent fuel from the K-basins. This work is likely to be complete before the required timeline. Early success is also being achieved on the cocooning of reactors and cleanup of the plutonium finishing plant. In short, we are starting to make real and substantive progress in this effort. In this bill, we are providing the necessary funding. Now, we need the Department of Energy to take this money and work hand-in- hand with regulators and communities to make the cleanup a success. The second issue I would like to address is the budget for the Army Corps of Engineers. As Chairman Domenici and Senator Reid often say, we face the challenge of an inadequate budget for the Corps with every administration. In that simple sense, this year is nothing new. However, I think we are facing a compounding crisis this year when you consider: the scale of this year's cutback of the Corps' budget, the cumulative effect of years of inadequate funding, and the President's failure to fund low-use/shallow draft ports. First, the President's budget for the Corps is $445 million less than our current fiscal year budget. I commend the chairman and Senator Reid for restoring $233 million of this funding. In the end, however, it creates a downward trend at a time when we cannot afford to ignore our infrastructure. This funding shortfall means we are not keeping up on our time-lines to construct projects that are already underway. It also means we are not moving ahead on new projects that are critical for expanding our infrastructure capability and expanding our ability to export American products. Even more troubling is the growing backlog in our operation and maintenance funding. Our infrastructure is falling apart around us-- threatening our economy, and in some cases the lives of our sailors and boaters. In Washington and Oregon, we have many examples of Corps infrastructure that is falling apart. John Day Lock and Dam has a crack running the entire length of one monolith. That threatens the entire operation of the lock. This will require more than $8 million, which is twice what is included in the President's budget. I thank the Subcommittee for providing an increase for the John Day Lock in the Senate bill. Here's another example. Thousands of feet of the north and south jetties at the Mouth of the Columbia River have been lost to storms. The loss of these jetties creates greater dredging issues and threatens the safety of ships and boats that are navigating one of the most treacherous bars in the country. If left unchanged, the amount of funding provided in the budget for Bonneville Lock and Dam would result in a $4 million penalty against the United States. Again, thankfully, the Senate subcommittee increased funding and will avoid that penalty. These are just a few of the threats facing our existing, major water infrastructure. Clearly, the budget for the Corps is grossly inadequate. We also need to remember that the budget does not provide sufficient funds for low-use and shallow draft ports. In fact, in some cases there is no funding to meet these needs. The President's budget seems to take pride in under-funding or zeroing out funds for these ports and channels. There is an apparent belief in the administration that because of the low volume use of these harbors it would constitute an unwise use of Federal funds to keep them open. This narrow view of the situation abandons some of our most economically-challenged rural communities in Washington, in Oregon, and across the country. Look at the port of Chinook in Washington State where a failure to perform maintenance dredging on the Chinook channel has nearly closed the Port. It was only because the subcommittee intervened and the Corps responded quickly that the port will not be closed this fall and winter to fishing fleets. I express my sincere appreciation to the work of this subcommittee for protecting the jobs relying on this port. When the port of Chinook is properly maintained, the annualized cost of dredging the channel is about $400,000. That small investment produces major economic benefits. The commercial and recreational use of the Port's marina alone bring in more than $3 million. Add to that number the value of the Buoy Crab Company, which employs 40 year-round workers and 100 seasonal employees. It's the second largest crab processor in Washington State. And we cannot forget that the port is located in a rural county that is facing some of the highest unemployment rates in the State. Near Chinook is the port of Ilwaco, which generates almost $9 million in commercial seafood sales. Charter boat fishing generates an additional $2.8 million. Again, a consistent dredging program can maintain an economy that brings millions of dollars into a rural economy and keeps our people employed. In Oregon, they have 7 or more low-use, shallow draft ports. All of them are located in rural, coastal communities, and none of them received funding in the President's budget. The only bright note once again is that the subcommittee has chosen to fund these ports and to protect the jobs they support. It appears that there are more than 25 ports and channels that receive funding not included in the President's budget. These are ports and channels that will remain open only because this subcommittee decided to value jobs and economies in rural America. We must find a way to get this administration and future administrations to provide adequate budgets for the Corps. We cannot continue to underfund our existing infrastructure and fail to invest in building our economies. I thank Chairman Domenici and Senator Reid for their support of water infrastructure and for their efforts on this bill.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. I thank each of them for their leadership, and today I am on the Senate floor supporting this amendment to help carry out the agenda we discussed at the summit. I can tell you that even though we covered a host of topics, including economic development, civil rights and healthcare, the No. 1 topic people talked about was education. I was astounded to listen as leaders in the community, elected school board members, and city council members told me that when they were growing up, very few people, if any, looked at them and said: ``You know, you can be a success. You can pass first grade.'' Or that, ``You can go on to college, and you can become something in this country.'' If we adopt this amendment, we will tell a generation of young students: We need you. We need you to be the next generation of engineers. We need you to be the next generation of teachers. We need you to be the next generation of C.E.O.s. Today we are missing out on an entire young population, and what they can give back to this country someday in leadership, in economics, in paying taxes, and in being successful members of the community. This amendment will help knock down the barriers facing Hispanic students, and we must adopt it. Perhaps the most disturbing thing is that the underlying Labor-HHS bill we are debating cuts funding for critical Hispanic programs. That is why we need this amendment to stop those cuts and provide funding for critical services like extra help with preschool, English language acquisition, tutoring, mentoring, and financial aid. I want to highlight how this amendment will help in areas like Headstart, migrant education, and language skills. One program that I have seen bring help--and hope--to families for decades is Head Start. This amendment will expand access to Head Start programs for migrant and seasonal working families. Migrant and seasonal farmworkers work hard every day so that you and I can put affordable food on our tables. It is a good deal for us, but most of those families earn less than $10,000 a year. Many of their children pay a price beyond poverty. When families don't have access to child care, they are forced to take their children into the fields with them, exposing them to equipment and other hazards. Migrant and Seasonal Head Start programs meet the needs of these families, keeping their children safe while preparing them for school. Nationwide, 60 percent of children are being served by Head Start, but for migrant children, it is just 19 percent and for children of seasonal workers, it is just 2 percent. That is unacceptable. This amendment will boost the funding so we give more children of migrant and seasonal workers a place in Head Start so they can start school ready to learn. This amendment does more than just increase funding to serve more children. It also makes sure that vulnerable children are not cut off from the help they are counting on. The President's budget request slashed funding for the High School Equivalency Program, HEP, by 43 percent. The appropriations bill before the Senate implements the President's cut, with a $10 million cut to HEP. It also cuts funding for the College Assistance Migrant Program, CAMP, by $400,000. The funding cuts in the HEP program would eliminate the 23 oldest and best performing projects in the program, two of which are in Washington State. I have met with the leaders of HEP and CAMP programs in Washington state. They are doing critical work at Heritage College and Washington State University HEP programs. HEP provides education and counseling services to migrant students who have dropped out of high school so they can pass the GED examination. Some of the 23 projects that could be closed down have been providing services for 30 years. As a whole, 73 percent of their students received GEDs, an amazing success rate for a population of students who have already dropped out of school. The CAMP program is also critical. It recruits talented migrant high school and GED graduates, who want to go on to college, but don't have the resources. These programs introduce parents and students to campus during the summer before their freshman year. It helps those students in their first year of college with personal and academic counseling, mentoring, and stipends. Before we created CAMP programs, there was no record of a migrant child having completed college. Since then, nearly three-quarters of all CAMP students have graduated with baccalaureate degrees. Without HEP and CAMP, access to college would be out of reach for the vast majority of migrant students. The funding levels in this bill ignore the amazing successes we have had through HEP and CAMP. Because migrant children move around, they don't have a local school, a school district, or even a State that is responsible for their education. We need to keep this safety net at the Federal level. Currently, funding for the 102 HEP and CAMP projects can serve only 15,000 students, a small fraction of those who desperately need help. The Department of Education has estimated there are now over 750,000 school-aged migrant children. Since migrant children have the highest dropout rate in the Nation, with nearly 60 percent failing to complete high school, that means that over the next 5 years, 170,000 of these children will drop out of school and be eligible for HEP services. Over the next 5 years, 140,000 students will become eligible for CAMP services. It makes no sense for this bill to take away funding when so many students need help. Another area where our country cannot afford to make the cuts in this appropriations bill is in the English Language Acquisition program. This bill cuts the program by $20 million. That is unacceptable. This amendment would restore that funding. It will also increase support for limited English proficient, LEP, students to $750 million. The number of LEP students has almost doubled over the past decade. It has increased at nearly eight times the rate of total student enrollment. The teachers who are serving those students could use more preparation to teach students with limited English proficiency. This amendment will help provide title III dollars so that these teachers can receive ongoing professional development. The Reid-Bingaman amendment will help students overcome barriers at almost every level of school. Congress has a proud tradition of ensuring that our most disadvantaged kids get a shot at the American dream. It is what we did when we passed title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. It is what we did when we created Head Start. And it is what we did when we started giving out Pell Grants. We need to carry on that tradition today, not out of charity, but because we recognize that these children are our bridge to a successful future. I urge my colleagues to vote for this amendment and give Hispanic students in Washington State and around the country a change at the American dream and a better life. amendment no. 1629

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I've come to the floor today to discuss my disappointment that the chairman's mark zeros out funding for the Community Access Program, a community-based program that seeks to coordinate health care of the uninsured and underserved. This development is especially disappointing because less than 8 months ago, the Senate overwhelmingly adopted my amendment to provide full funding for the CAP program in the FY 2003 Omnibus Appropriations bill. Since early 2001, the current administration has targeted this program for elimination. It is difficult to understand why the President's budget eliminate a program that seeks to get care for the uninsured at a time when the ranks of the uninsured continue to grow. As more and more families lost their insurance coverage, programs like CAP will become even more important. The CAP program helps increase the capacity and effectiveness of community health care institutions and providers who serve patients regardless of their ability to pay. The program supports community-based groups that coordinate care for the uninsured. CAP has been very successful, and it enjoys broad bipartisan support. The CAP program was authorized in October 2002 as part of the Health Care Safety Net Authorization bill, which was unanimously adopted by the Senate. The purpose of the CAP program is spelled out in the Health Care Safety Net Authorization bill. Let me read from the Committee report. The purpose is ``to provide assistance to communities and to consortia of health care providers, in order to develop or strengthen an integrated health care deliver system that coordinates health services for individuals who are uninsured and individuals who are underinsured. And, to develop or strengthen activities related to providing coordinated care for individuals with chronic conditions.'' I believe these are goals and objectives that we must achieve, but eliminating CAP will make this impossible. I understand the fiscal pressures facing Chairman Specter, and I believe he has done the best job possible. But we are facing a major health care crisis in this country. I know the important role CAP can play in working to address this crisis. Washington State has four CAP grantees. They have worked hard to expand access to quality, comprehensive care for those who have no health care safety net outside of the emergency room. Washington's CAP grantees are based in Spokane, Wenatchee, Olympia and Seattle. As I've met with our CAP grantees, they've shown me a glimpse into the future of affordable health care. For example, almost a year ago, I visited the Odessa Brown Children's Clinic in Seattle. I saw a doctor, a dentist and a psychologist all in the same room, not just treating individual body parts, but treating the whole child in a comprehensive, compassionate way. Today that project--known as ``Kids Get Care''--is connecting more than 3,000 children to comprehensive health care. These efforts are making a real difference for low-income families, and they need more investment, not elimination. Our CAP grantees have worked to ensure that our increased investment in Community Health Centers reaps the greatest benefit possible. They have worked with vulnerable populations to tear down all barriers to care--not just economic barriers. They have used this small investment to better served the uninsured. We should be strengthening efforts like this--not eliminating them. Currently, one in nine Washington residents is uninsured. With my State's ongoing economic crisis, demand will grow for programs that provide care for the uninsured. We need to meet the immediate needs of families who today can only access care in the Emergency Room. CAP provides the seed money that gives community health care providers the ability to serve those who have nowhere else to go. I had considered offering an amendment to restore full funding for CAP. However, because of the budgetary constraints, to secure the votes needed, I would have to cut other vital Labor, HHS and Education programs, many of which are already taking cuts. Instead, I would like to yield to the chairman of the subcommittee for the purpose of engaging in a colloquy. Chairman Specter, again let me stress my appreciation for your efforts. You have been given an almost impossible task. The bottom line is our Subcommittee allocation for LHHS is simply not sufficient to meet the important priorities of labor, health care and education. I know you did the best job possible, but I am asking for your support of CAP in conference. When I raised this issue in the subcommittee markup, you indicated your willingness to work to ensure that this program is funded when the final bill emerges from conference.

Mrs. MURRAY. I thank the chairman and ranking member of their support in conference, and as a conferee, I will continue to work with you to ensure the $104.317 million in FY 2004 for the Community Access Program. dislocated worker amendment

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, my amendment helps States implement the No Child Left Behind Act by providing $80 million for high quality data systems. I was proud to create this program as part of our reauthorization of the Institute of Education Sciences last year because I saw a real need to help States do this right. Requiring lots of testing only has a benefit to our students if the results of those tests are used to help teachers focus their teaching on weak spots and to help superintendents, principals and policymakers direct resources where they are needed most. Funding these data systems with this amendment will make sure that the testing and attendance data required by No Child Left Behind are put to good use. Frankly, when I come down here to the Senate floor I usually prefer to talk about students, teachers and parents--not data systems. But it is clear to me that funding these data systems will do a lot more than buy computers and pay programmers. When I wrote this program I worked closely with the Harvard Civil Rights Project. They also see the danger to students--mostly poor and minority students--if no one is keeping track of what's happening to them. All the new testing and accountability required in No Child Left Behind creates a real risk that kids who are having trouble passing those tests will drop out or be pushed out of school. The newspapers have been filled in recent months with stories of these so-called ``pushouts''--students who are discouraged from completing school because their test scores are low and threaten the school's ``adequate yearly progress.'' The focus on this new phenomenon has raised serious questions about the ``Texas Miracle'' by pointing out the large numbers of students who are simply disappearing from our school systems. In July, the Houston Chronicle ran an article celebrating a new system--funded through a Federal grant--that is helping educators in Houston keep kids in school. They are using a data system to help lower their dropout rate, and they are definitely not the only ones who need help to do that. The high quality, longitudinal, statewide data systems that this amendment would help build are one of the best tools we have to keep kids in school. Information is a powerful tool, and only by knowing which students are not showing up can our schools make an effort to find those students and help them. There are a lot of challenges today to keeping our teenagers in school, and I am not saying that data systems are the only answer. In fact, I have introduced a whole bill focused on literacy and counseling and school reform to address many of the issues contributing to high dropout rates. But I know that funding these data systems can make a difference. Over the last few years I have secured funds to help Washington State develop a data system that will truly support the mission of leaving no child behind by ensuring that every child is counted. The work they have done to develop a high-quality, statewide system is really impressive, and I know that they and other States across our country need this funding to make that possible. I'd like to thank the Senators from New Hampshire and Nevada for working with me to fund this program. You can see that this is not a partisan issue. We need to pass this amendment and provide this funding to give States a critical tool to implement the No Child Left Behind Act. I hope my colleagues will join me in supporting funding for this program. I ask unanimous consent to have two articles printed in the Record.

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I am proud to cosponsor the Hispanic educational opportunities amendment which will help address the challenges facing Hispanic students from coast to coast. I thank Senator Reid and Senator Bingaman for offering this amendment, and today I want to highlight how this bill will help so many people in our communities. Just last month in Washington State, I saw once again how important education is to our entire state and especially to the Hispanic community. On August 11, I had the opportunity to hold a day-long summit of Hispanic leaders in Yakima, WA. The turnout was overwhelming. In one room, we brought together Hispanic elected officials from across the State, along with public and private-sector leaders, on a host of issues. Congressman Ciro Rodriguez, the chairman of our Congressional Hispanic Caucus, served as a cohost, and shared his national perspective on the issues. We had also had international leaders, including Peruvian Consul Miguel Velasquez and Mexican Consul Jorge Madrazo. I am especially proud that we had more than a dozen panelists who shared their expertise and led our discussion. I publicly thank each of our panelists for their time not only at the summit, but for dedicating their lives to helping the community. Many of them had to overcome significant barriers in their own lives, and today they are working to knock down barriers for all Hispanics. Their participation that day was just one example of the leadership they show every day of the year. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to print the names of the panelists in the Record.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I came to the floor this afternoon to speak about the amendment offered by Senator Harkin, and I will do so in just a minute. But first I want to congratulate Senator Byrd for his tremendous work on education and thank him for his extremely strong voice in this area. I know many students are starting school this week. Many young people are just starting out in kindergarten across the country this year. They will be grateful for Senator Byrd and his strong support of education. But so will the many students who have traveled to school while he has been here in the Senate advocating for them. I thank him for his work on their behalf over the many years. For all the young people out there who benefited from his wisdom and support but also, very importantly, for the teachers who will benefit as well, I thank my colleague from West Virginia.

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I came to the floor today to speak in strong support not only of Senator Byrd's amendment but also of the amendment offered by Senator Harkin. The amendment Senator Harkin has offered is extremely critical in today's world. It is offered in order to protect hard-working Americans such as our police, firefighters, and our nurses who rely today on overtime pay. It is unbelievable to me that today as families struggle in this extremely difficult economy, the Bush administration wants to cut overtime pay for millions of Americans who depend on it just to make ends meet at home. My colleagues have been in the Chamber discussing the Bush administration's proposed changes to the Fair Labor Standards Act which sets the rules regarding overtime pay in this country. According to the Economic Policy Institute, those changes are going to mean a pay cut for up to 10 million working families. These proposed changes will mean a pay cut for up to 10 million working Americans. These families are working really hard today. They are playing by the rules. They are trying to make ends meet. And this administration is squeezing them once again. To me that is unacceptable. That is why the Harkin amendment is so important today. The question I have is this: Haven't American workers been punished enough by this President's economic policies? Not only have we seen millions of Americans lose their pensions but we have seen massive tax cuts for the few while everyone else struggles just to get by. In my home State of Washington alone, we have lost more than 73,000 good-paying jobs since this administration came into office. My State unemployment rate is now the third highest in the Nation at 7.5 percent. In fact, just recently one of our business columnists suggested that the actual unemployment rate for Western States could be as high as 11.8 percent, if you count all of our unemployed workers. Here we are with so many people out of work and so many people struggling to keep their jobs. Now this administration wants to force a pay cut on those people who are working overtime for their employers and are just trying to make ends meet. I don't think we should forget that these workers are now often the only breadwinners in their family. This change will hurt up to 10 million hard-working Americans. I come to the floor today to talk about some of the real people who are going to be squeezed by this amendment. Right now, our firefighters, our policemen, and our EMTs are working very hard on the front lines on homeland security. They have gone above and beyond the call of duty, often with inadequate training and often with inadequate equipment. But they are doing it to protect us in this dangerous age. Today, many of them are working overtime in order to do that. Now the Bush administration is telling our firefighters, our policemen, and our EMTs that they don't deserve overtime pay for the extra work they do. I find that very insulting. We know it will hurt their ability to provide for their families who every day watch these men and women go off to work and hope they return safely at the end of the day. Even worse, it really violates the great trust we place in this country on our first responders. The International Union of Police Associations has estimated that 200,000 midlevel police officers will lose $150 million in overtime pay if these new regulations are implemented. I believe our firefighters, our policemen, and our EMTs deserve overtime pay for their overtime work. The Bush administration is trying to squeeze them, and that is wrong. Let me give you another example of whom this change will hurt. In communities across the country we have a shortage of nurses. I hear it from everyone who comes into our office. It is really causing hardship everywhere. These nurses are working really hard. They are providing care under extremely difficult conditions. Now the Bush administration is going to prevent more than 230,000 licensed practical nurses from getting overtime pay. They work hard for it. Frankly, in my view, they deserve every penny they get. When I first heard about this disturbing proposal, I joined with my colleagues to tell the Bush administration they are on the wrong track. As the ranking Democrat on the Subcommittee on Employment, Safety, and Training, I was proud to join with Senator Kennedy and 40 other Senators in sending a letter to Secretary of Labor Chao. We asked her not to implement the proposed regulation that would deny overtime pay to hard-working Americans. In our letter, we asked the Secretary to consider millions of workers who depend on overtime pay to make ends meet and to pay for things such as food, childcare, housing, health care, and sending their kids to college--what every family wants today. We know overtime pay also makes up to 20 to 25 percent of an eligible worker's wages. But it seems this administration would rather provide tax cuts for the rich--that is where their priorities are--while cutting the pay of working Americans who most often live paycheck to paycheck. During this debate, we heard some dubious arguments from the other side. We heard that we need to update the Fair Labor Standards Act because it was passed back in 1938. But what they haven't told us is that Congress has updated that act in fact eight times. In 1985, Congress reviewed the law and extended it to State and local governments, leaving in place the current overtime exemptions. Furthermore, the Bush administration is taking some unprecedented steps. Never before has the legislative branch authorized changes in the overtime rule. Never before has Congress directed the Department of Labor to take overtime pay away from millions of American workers. You have to wonder, why the urgent need now to gut these time-tested worker protections? Could it be that the Bush administration and its business allies want to reduce the amount they pay in wages? Maybe it is because employers know in this very tough economy employees will just go along and accept the loss of overtime because they are so afraid they will be laid off. I will leave it to others to answer those questions. The Senate should not support this coercive antiworker proposal. It will drain the wallets of millions of Americans who are working hard today to put food on the table. This proposal from the White House, in my opinion, is just another slap to working Americans. We need to stop it in the Senate. I commend the Senator from Iowa for offering this critical amendment. Senator Harkin has always been a great friend to working Americans, and today those Americans need this Harkin amendment to protect them from this administration's designs. I urge my colleagues to stand up for our firefighters, stand up for our police, stand up for our EMTs, stand up for our nurses who work every day for Americans. Stop this proposed pay cut for American workers. I yield the floor.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. The Senator from Massachusetts is absolutely correct. As I traveled around in August to talk to people in my State, where we have been severely impacted--we have the third highest unemployment in the Nation--I talked to students just out of high school who cannot afford to go college because of tuition increases and who do not have the skills to simply enter the workforce. It is very different than talking to a young father who is 35 years old with three young kids, who was an engineer at Boeing, who will not get that job back and doesn't have the computer training skills to get into another job that will provide him with the income to sustain a family with three children. There are different programs funded in my State which we have worked on and which were supported in the HELP Committee. They are different for dislocated workers or for adults or for youth.

Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, I ask the pending amendment be laid aside so I may offer an amendment.

Mrs. MURRAY. I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, I come to the floor this morning to offer an amendment to help some of the millions of Americans who are looking for work in this very tough economy. The amendment I am offering right now provides an additional $801 million for critically needed worker training and retraining programs under the Workforce Investment Act. I am proud that Senators Kennedy, Dodd, Leahy, Jeffords, and Bingaman are cosponsors of this important amendment. Today our Nation faces both a jobs crisis and a skills crisis. There are 9.1 million Americans searching for jobs and another 5 million more Americans are working part time because they cannot find full-time work in this stagnant economy. Those millions of workers need training and skills to get good jobs that are going to last, and that is what this amendment before us provides. I am proud that a wide range of organizations have endorsed my worker training amendment, including the U.S. Conference of Mayors, the National Association of Counties, the National Workforce Association, the Paralyzed Veterans of America, and the National Association of Workforce Boards. My office has also received hundreds of letters of support from local workforce boards, mayors, county executives, employers, and just ordinary Americans. They all want this Senate to provide additional training opportunities for our workers. The amendment before us would provide training opportunities for an additional 200,000 adults, young people, dislocated workers, Native Americans, and migrant and seasonal farmworkers. Most of these workforce and training programs have not had any--none--increases in funding for the entire last decade. Think about that. We are in the middle of a jobs and skills crisis but most of our training programs have not had any funding increases in a decade. My amendment will increase funding for adults by $100 million; for dislocated workers by $159 million; for youth by $99 million; for youth opportunity grants by $250 million; for migrant and seasonal farmworkers by $23 million; for Native Americans by $20 million; and for one-stop infrastructure by $150 million. That funding is going to make a huge difference. I think any Senators who spent time with their constituents during the August recess from which we have just returned will recognize the urgent need for jobs and job training. Last month when I was home I visited two of our one-stop employment centers in my State and I met with staff members who are working to train residents. I met with local employers who want to hire people in the community if they have the right skills. I met with workers, from young people who are just starting their careers to established workers who have been displaced by much larger economic forces. All of them want the skills they need to find a good job. But for many of them it is very tough going. In King County, where Seattle is located, there is currently a 10,000 person waiting list for training. That is appalling. These are people who want to work. They desperately want training. But in King County alone they are stuck on a waiting list with 10,000 other people. They have been waiting a long time. In King County, the freeze on training services began last January. It has been a very long and very difficult year for everyone on that waiting list. They need our help and the Murray amendment will provide it. Residents of the State of Washington continue to suffer with the third highest unemployment in the country, 7.5 percent. Since January of 2001, my State alone has lost 73,000 good-paying jobs in areas such as technology, aerospace, and manufacturing. Workers who were accustomed to earning $30 to $40 an hour as engineers in my State are now forced to accept warehouse jobs that pay $8 to $12 an hour. Today, one-stop employment centers across the country are being asked to serve more people than ever before, yet their funding remains below what it was in fiscal year 2001 when our country was still experiencing relative economic prosperity. As a result, workers who are searching for jobs are taking longer than in previous recessions to find work. In 2000, it took an average of 12 weeks to find a new job. Currently, it takes approximately 20 weeks, and that is only if there are jobs to be found. According to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, some 1.1 million workers have exhausted their extended unemployment benefits with no employment prospects on the horizon. These workers have worked hard and they have played by the rules, yet they are losing their homes in record numbers and even foregoing medical treatment for their children. Unfortunately, there is no guarantee these jobs are going to return, making it even more crucial that this Senate provide the retraining dollars to help those workers find jobs in the industries and sectors of the economy that have the greatest potential for growth. Unfortunately, young people seem to be the hardest hit by the current job crisis. The youth unemployment rate has hit a 10-year high of 19.3 percent. The minority youth unemployment rate continues to hover around 30 percent. Recent studies have shown that nearly 50 percent of the job losses in this recession have occurred to young people who are 16 to 24 years old. Young people desperately need help but our Federal workforce dollars currently serve only about 7 percent of our eligible youth nationally. My amendment would increase the youth formula grant money to States and localities, and would fully fund the Youth Opportunity Grant Program, which has a real track record of success in many communities and on Indian reservations around the country. My amendment also provides desperately needed modest increases for some of our most vulnerable populations--migrant and seasonal farmworkers and Native Americans. These two groups often have unemployment rates above 50 percent with few prospects for jobs that will provide a sustainable income to support themselves and their families. As a nation, we have to place a higher priority on helping these chronically underserved populations. My amendment does just that. Finally, my amendment provides critical infrastructure funding for our national network of 1,900 one-stop employment centers. These one- stop employment centers integrate nearly 20 Federal workforce and social service programs at the local level. In the HELP Committee, we have been working very hard to reauthorize the Workforce Investment Act, and to include more related programs such as TANF, small business, and transportation into the one-stops with an additional emphasis on program integration and seamless service delivery for all eligible Americans. In summary, the Murray amendment that is before this body will provide additional hope and opportunity for citizens who need jobs today. Given the employment trends we will face over the next decade, we cannot afford to waste the talents of any worker as we continue to compete in the global economy. I hope all Senators will agree with me that taking care of the training needs of our workers at home should be a top priority for our Government. The rest of the world is monitoring how we train our workforce because these foreign governments are looking for every advantage to capture additional market share for goods and services that are currently produced in the United States. Let us not give our competitors a leg up. Let us support the Murray amendment so we can continue to have the most highly skilled and productive workforce in the world and so we can put our Americans back to work in good jobs that will last. I urge my colleagues to support the Murray amendment.

Mrs. MURRAY. I am happy to yield to the Senator.

Mrs. MURRAY. The Senator from Massachusetts is correct. I heard the President on Labor Day. I was delighted to hear that he was facing up to the fact that our economy is struggling, with thousands of people out of work. I am very perplexed that he is not willing to add additional money to train our workers. As the Senator from Massachusetts knows, when a young man or woman is laid off, they don't have the money to provide for their family. It impacts not just themselves but their entire family and their entire community as they struggle. They are not going to find the same jobs. Our economy is changing. The only way they are going to get back into the workforce is if we give them the skills and training to get into the economic sectors that have job openings. These programs are critical in getting our economy back on track. They are fundamental to getting our economy back on track. It is very perplexing to me that the President has not asked for nor supports the amendment before us that will help those workers.

Mrs. MURRAY. I thank the Senator from Massachusetts for his support, his words of wisdom, for his longstanding commitment to people in this country who do not have the opportunities, and for making sure that every American, no matter who they are, where they come from, or what circumstances have hit them in their lives, gets the opportunities for the American dream that all of us want. Certainly this amendment is part of that effort. Thank you, Madam President. I yield the floor.

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Wyoming, and I understand he is opposing the amendment. I just say we are in a crisis in this country. We are in a crisis when there are 10,000 people on a waiting list in King County alone to try to get into a training program in order to get the skills they need to get back to work. We are in a crisis when our economy continues to struggle and people are unable to put food on the table, send their kids to college, and to be able to feel secure when it comes to their jobs. We all know we are spending $1 billion a week in Iraq in order to reconstruct that country. It seems to me totally reasonable to ask for $801 million for next year to help train our workers, to get our economy back on track, and to give American families the security they need in their homes to know they can take care of their own. Mr. President, I encourage my colleagues to support this amendment at the appropriate time.

Mrs. MURRAY. I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I thank the chairman and appreciate his accommodating me. The amendment the Senate is about to vote on is a really important one. Across this country thousands of people who have lost their jobs will never get these same jobs back. Today, in my home State of Washington, there are 10,000 people on a waiting list in King County alone trying to get into a retraining program in order to obtain the skills they need to get back into the workforce and put food on the tables for their families. Certainly, at this time in our country's history, when our economy is sluggish, when people are struggling everywhere, the best we can do-- and one of the most important things we can do--is give these workers the skills they need to get back into the workforce. This amendment is critically important. Many of these training programs have not received any increase in funding in a decade. It is important to us as a country that we have a workforce that has the skills to be marketable. That is what this very critical amendment does. I urge my colleagues to support it. Thank you, Mr. President.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I am proud to be a cosponsor of the Reid- Bingaman amendment which addresses Hispanic educational opportunities. This is an extremely important measure. Over the August recess, I had the opportunity to put together a summit of Hispanic elected officials, families, interested people, in my home State. There was an overwhelming turnout that day. We had everyone from elected officials to people who are active in the community or members of the Hispanic community who just wanted to come and find out what we were doing at the Federal level on issues that affected them. The No. 1 issue people talked about that day was education and opportunity for the young Hispanic students in our schools, in their communities, and across the country. I was astounded to listen to leaders in the community, elected school board members, city council members, who told me that when they were growing up, very few people, if any people, looked at them and said: You can be a success. You can pass first grade--many of them had flunked first grade. You can go on to college. You can become something in this country. I think it is so important that this amendment pass so we can put the education in place that says to these young students in our country today that we need them, we need them to be the next generation of engineers; we need them to be the next generation of teachers; we need them to be the next generation of CEOs. We are missing out on an entire young population and what they can give back to this country someday in leadership, in economics, in paying taxes, in being viable members of this community, if we do not fund opportunities for them today. So I am very proud to be a sponsor of the Reid-Bingaman amendment and I encourage my colleagues to support it. It is really critical. Amendment No. 1543 Mr. President, I also want to talk about the Byrd amendment that was offered yesterday. As we all know, children across the country this week are returning to school. We in the Senate now have a choice to make that will determine whether they are successful in school and, ultimately, in life. The choice is, really, will our country's most vulnerable children get the education they need? When we vote on the Byrd amendment, that is really what we are going to be voting on: Are we going to help low-income children succeed in school or are we going to leave them behind? I thank Senator Byrd for his leadership on this amendment and on so many other important debates. This particular fight is one that will impact many children across the country. I am not talking about a few kids in a few classrooms. I am not talking about kids who are well off. I am talking about millions of children who are growing up in poverty today. These are kids who are in the most danger of falling behind right now, and they are the kids who most need our help. Today, it is estimated that there are 9 million needy children in America. For many of them--in fact, for all of them--education is the only way out of the poverty they see before them. Often these children need extra help before and after school. They might need tutoring or mentoring or one-on-one attention from somebody who cares, from somebody who looks at them and says: You can be somebody; you can succeed in school; you can go on and be a success in this country. That kind of tutoring and mentoring and one-on-one attention needs to come from somebody they see in their everyday lives, and that is why this amendment is so important. Fortunately, in this country today we try to provide that one-on-one help with a program called title I. That is a program that targets funding directly to disadvantaged children and to low-income schools, and it makes such a critical difference for so many of our vulnerable children today. Unfortunately, this year, once again, the President has offered a budget that falls exceedingly short of what these kids need. The budget that has been proposed by the President and is now before the Senate would serve only 4.1 of those 9 million needy students in our country. That means we are helping fewer than half of those kids who need help in this country today. I think we can do better. I think we must do better, and the Byrd amendment provides $6.15 billion in additional funding for title I. Let me help put that number into context for everyone. The Byrd amendment is going to help 6.2 million children. That is a huge improvement over the President's plan. If we just go with the President's budget, 2.1 million disadvantaged kids are going to be left behind. So I ask all of my colleagues, how do we leave behind 2 million children in this country? Do they not deserve a road out of poverty? Do they not deserve an education that will help them rise above tough circumstances? Of course they do. These kids will get the support they need if we pass the Byrd amendment. The Byrd amendment is not asking us to do something new or extraordinary. It is asking us to do what Congress and this President said they would do nearly 2 years ago when we passed the No Child Left Behind Act. That education act was passed on two related ideas, two promises: First, that we would hold schools accountable for their progress; secondly, we promised we would provide schools with the resources to meet those new requirements we were putting in place. Both accountability and funding are needed to make progress. Since that act was passed 2 years ago, the second part of that promise has simply been abandoned. I have been across my State, as I know all Senators have over the August recess, and I have talked with educators and visited classrooms. It is really clear that schools need help meeting these requirements. I think it is important to not forget that our States today, in this economy, are in no position to provide the extra funding that Congress promised but has not delivered. Most of our States, including mine, are facing huge deficits and are cutting back on education and other priorities. So it is clear that the Federal Government needs to step in and provide this funding for our most vulnerable kids.It is not something new. It is something we said 2 years ago we would do. I should also point out that this debate in the Senate is taking place as many schools are now getting the results of their State tests. In Washington State, a number of schools have been labeled as failing because of these test results. These schools need the resources now to improve. They want to improve. They want to be held to high standards. They want to meet the accountability standards we have put in place, but they cannot do it with the resources that have been provided. Before I conclude, I commend Senator Byrd for the way he has chosen to fund this amendment. The Byrd amendment uses the exact same funding method that our Republican colleagues have used to fund their priorities. So if anyone criticizes the Byrd amendment, I do not see how they could argue against the funding source because it is exactly what has been done already. With no real challenge on the funding size, that leaves us to debate the substance of this amendment. I do not see how anyone could vote to prevent millions of low-income children from getting the help they need in school. So let me make the choice before us as simple as possible. A vote against the Byrd amendment is a vote to leave 2 million poor kids behind. A vote for the Byrd amendment will help those 2 million poor kids get a great education and lift them out of poverty. So I urge my colleagues to hear the voices of more than 2 million children who are depending on us as their lives hang in the balance.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, today I'm pleased to introduce a bill that will help America's teenagers graduate from high school, go on to college, and enter the working world with the skills they need to succeed. I'm proud to introduce the PASS Act--which stands for the Pathways for All Students to Succeed Act. Today, far too many students drop-out of school and never have a chance for college and a better life. My bill will reach out to vulnerable students during high school by providing the training, guidance and resources they need to stay in school and go on to college. Specifically, the PASS Act will: help schools hire literacy coaches to strengthen essential reading and writing skills. It will provide grants for high-quality Academic Counselors to ensure each student has an individualized plan and access to services to prepare for college and a good job. And finally, the PASS Act targets resources to those high schools that need the most help, so they can implement research- based strategies for success. Many of America's high schools and high school students are in serious trouble, and it's only getting worse. With each new school day, 3,000 secondary students drop out of school. This year alone, nearly 540,000 young people will leave school without attaining a high school diploma. Our Nation's high school graduation rate is 69 percent. And in urban areas, that figure is even worse. Many urban school districts graduate fewer than half of their students. Dropping out has an enormous cost to these students, their families and our communities. Sadly, even those students who do receive a high school diploma are not guaranteed success in college or in life. Many graduate from high school unprepared for the academic rigor of post-secondary study. About 40 percent of four-year college students and 63 percent of community college students are enrolling in remedial courses in reading, writing, or math when they enter college. And although approximately 70 percent of high school graduates enroll in college, only 7 percent from low-income families will have earned a bachelor's degree by age 24--in part because they have not been properly prepared for college academics. That's why today I'm introducing a bill to improve our Nation's secondary schools, especially those serving high-need students. First, the PASS Act would ensure that middle or high school students who are still struggling to master literacy will get additional help. About 60 percent of students in the poorest communities fail to graduate from secondary school on time, in large part because they don't have the reading or writing skills they need. We took a good step in creating the Reading First program to strengthen students' reading skills in the elementary grades. These skills are the foundation of their success throughout their academic careers. However, many middle and high school students struggle with serious reading deficits and substandard literacy skills that have gone unattended for years. The 2002 National Assessment of Educational Progress shows that the reading achievement of 12th grade students has declined at all performance levels since 1998. Thirty-three percent of 12th grade boys, and 20 percent of 12th grade girls read below the ``basic level.'' While the percentage of 4th and 8th graders writing at or above a basic level has increased between 1998 and 2002, the percentage of 12th graders writing at or above basic has gone down. These numbers show that our concentrated efforts for elementary and middle school students have improved their writing skills, but by neglecting the needs of secondary school students. We are squandering these gains. In response, Title I of my bill creates a $1 billion ``Reading to succeed'' grant program. Building on the strong foundation of the Reading First program, this grant program will establish effective, research-based reading and writing programs for students in our middle and high schools, including children with limited English proficiency and children with disabilities. These grants will provide resources for schools to hire literary coaches at a ratio of at least one for every 20 teachers. The coaches will help teachers incorporate research-based literary instruction into their core subject teaching. This will strengthen the reading and writing skills of all students, while identifying and helping those students whose skills are especially poor. These coaches will assess students and coordinate services to address significant reading and writing deficits. In addition to hiring literacy coaches, funds can be used to provide relevant professional development, strengthen curricula in secondary schools, and implement diagnostic assessments, research-based curricula, instructional materials, and interventions in middle and high schools. These literacy coaches can help us make sure that no more students slip through the cracks because they never learned to read. In addition to strong literacy skills, careful planning, sound advice and strong academic support are critical to guiding students to success. Too many high school students make it to graduation, only to find that they cannot attend the school of their choice or enter a chosen career because they are not prepared. Many high school students are floundering--unable to find out what courses they need to take or how they can get past academic or other barriers. Unfortunately, most of our school counselors serve too many students with too few resources. High school counselors work with an average of 450 students each, making it impossible to guide each individual student along the pathway to high school graduation and work or college. Title II of my bill seeks to address this problem by creating grants for thorough, high-quality academic and career counseling for our high school students. These grants will cultivate and promote parent involvement in their child's education, and will coordinate support services for at-risk high school students across the country. This ``Creating Pathways to Success Program'' would complement other existing successful high school programs by providing $2 billion to support systemic change in the way we guide our high school students to success. The funds could be used to hire and train Academic Counselors to work with no more than 150 students each, and to equip these counselors with the time, skills, and resources to work directly with students, parents, and teachers to give each student the individualized attention and service they need. Academic Counselors will work with students and parents to develop 6- year plans outlining the path each student will take to reach his or her goals. They will coordinate new resources with existing ones such as GEAR UP, TRIO, Title I, IDEA and Perkins Vocational and Technical Education programs to ensure students receive the services identified in their plans and to facilitate a smooth transition to postsecondary education or a career. Schools that get these new funds must offer a rigorous college preparatory curriculum to all students, including access to Advanced Placement or International Baccalaureate courses. Working together we can make sure that our adolescents graduate prepared for any dream they may choose to pursue. Finally, my bill includes a third title called ``Supporting Successful High Schools'' to ensure that we take action to help turn around our low-performing high schools. Approximately 10 percent of the schools which have been identified so far as ``in need of improvement'' according to the requirements of No Child Left Behind are high schools. In about 1100 high schools, 75 percent or more of the students enrolled are living in poverty. Despite these numbers, most reform efforts are focused on elementary schools. We've overlooked struggling middle and high schools. Under the No Child Left Behind Act, Title I funding should be used to help all schools that need improvement, but high schools receive only 15 percent of Title I funds, even though they enroll 33 percent of low- income students. Until Title I is fully-funded, it is unlikely that high schools will receive a significant amount of these funds to address the problems they have identified. Meanwhile, high schools are being held to the requirements of No Child Left Behind without a targeted source of funding to turn around schools in need of improvement. Our states and districts have worked hard to figure out which high schools need improvement the most, and now it's time we improve them. That's why my bill would create a $500 million grant program that allows districts to identify, develop, and implement reforms that will turn around these low-performing schools. School districts can use funds for research-based strategies and best practices that will improve student achievement and bring success. Districts would work with parents, teachers, students and communities to choose any effective reform such as small schools, block scheduling, whole school reforms or individualized learning plans. For example, since research shows that small schools enhance student outcomes by allowing teachers to offer personalized assistance and connect with students, some districts may reduce the size of low- performing high schools by creating smaller schools or academies within larger schools. Working together, we can do more than identify our schools in need of improvement--we can improve them. In conclusion, the Pathways for All Students to Succeed Act provides the grants America's students need to promote adolescent literacy, support college and career pathways for all our students, and to improve struggling high schools nationwide. I hope my colleagues will join me in supporting this bill and addressing the needs of our high school students.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, today I'm pleased to introduce a bill that will help America's teenagers graduate from high school, go on to college, and enter the working world with the skills they need to succeed. I'm proud to introduce the PASS Act--which stands for the Pathways for All Students to Succeed Act. Today, far too many students drop-out of school and never have a chance for college and a better life. My bill will reach out to vulnerable students during high school by providing the training, guidance and resources they need to stay in school and go on to college. Specifically, the PASS Act will: help schools hire literacy coaches to strengthen essential reading and writing skills. It will provide grants for high-quality Academic Counselors to ensure each student has an individualized plan and access to services to prepare for college and a good job. And finally, the PASS Act targets resources to those high schools that need the most help, so they can implement research- based strategies for success. Many of America's high schools and high school students are in serious trouble, and it's only getting worse. With each new school day, 3,000 secondary students drop out of school. This year alone, nearly 540,000 young people will leave school without attaining a high school diploma. Our Nation's high school graduation rate is 69 percent. And in urban areas, that figure is even worse. Many urban school districts graduate fewer than half of their students. Dropping out has an enormous cost to these students, their families and our communities. Sadly, even those students who do receive a high school diploma are not guaranteed success in college or in life. Many graduate from high school unprepared for the academic rigor of post-secondary study. About 40 percent of four-year college students and 63 percent of community college students are enrolling in remedial courses in reading, writing, or math when they enter college. And although approximately 70 percent of high school graduates enroll in college, only 7 percent from low-income families will have earned a bachelor's degree by age 24--in part because they have not been properly prepared for college academics. That's why today I'm introducing a bill to improve our Nation's secondary schools, especially those serving high-need students. First, the PASS Act would ensure that middle or high school students who are still struggling to master literacy will get additional help. About 60 percent of students in the poorest communities fail to graduate from secondary school on time, in large part because they don't have the reading or writing skills they need. We took a good step in creating the Reading First program to strengthen students' reading skills in the elementary grades. These skills are the foundation of their success throughout their academic careers. However, many middle and high school students struggle with serious reading deficits and substandard literacy skills that have gone unattended for years. The 2002 National Assessment of Educational Progress shows that the reading achievement of 12th grade students has declined at all performance levels since 1998. Thirty-three percent of 12th grade boys, and 20 percent of 12th grade girls read below the ``basic level.'' While the percentage of 4th and 8th graders writing at or above a basic level has increased between 1998 and 2002, the percentage of 12th graders writing at or above basic has gone down. These numbers show that our concentrated efforts for elementary and middle school students have improved their writing skills, but by neglecting the needs of secondary school students. We are squandering these gains. In response, Title I of my bill creates a $1 billion ``Reading to succeed'' grant program. Building on the strong foundation of the Reading First program, this grant program will establish effective, research-based reading and writing programs for students in our middle and high schools, including children with limited English proficiency and children with disabilities. These grants will provide resources for schools to hire literary coaches at a ratio of at least one for every 20 teachers. The coaches will help teachers incorporate research-based literary instruction into their core subject teaching. This will strengthen the reading and writing skills of all students, while identifying and helping those students whose skills are especially poor. These coaches will assess students and coordinate services to address significant reading and writing deficits. In addition to hiring literacy coaches, funds can be used to provide relevant professional development, strengthen curricula in secondary schools, and implement diagnostic assessments, research-based curricula, instructional materials, and interventions in middle and high schools. These literacy coaches can help us make sure that no more students slip through the cracks because they never learned to read. In addition to strong literacy skills, careful planning, sound advice and strong academic support are critical to guiding students to success. Too many high school students make it to graduation, only to find that they cannot attend the school of their choice or enter a chosen career because they are not prepared. Many high school students are floundering--unable to find out what courses they need to take or how they can get past academic or other barriers. Unfortunately, most of our school counselors serve too many students with too few resources. High school counselors work with an average of 450 students each, making it impossible to guide each individual student along the pathway to high school graduation and work or college. Title II of my bill seeks to address this problem by creating grants for thorough, high-quality academic and career counseling for our high school students. These grants will cultivate and promote parent involvement in their child's education, and will coordinate support services for at-risk high school students across the country. This ``Creating Pathways to Success Program'' would complement other existing successful high school programs by providing $2 billion to support systemic change in the way we guide our high school students to success. The funds could be used to hire and train Academic Counselors to work with no more than 150 students each, and to equip these counselors with the time, skills, and resources to work directly with students, parents, and teachers to give each student the individualized attention and service they need. Academic Counselors will work with students and parents to develop 6- year plans outlining the path each student will take to reach his or her goals. They will coordinate new resources with existing ones such as GEAR UP, TRIO, Title I, IDEA and Perkins Vocational and Technical Education programs to ensure students receive the services identified in their plans and to facilitate a smooth transition to postsecondary education or a career. Schools that get these new funds must offer a rigorous college preparatory curriculum to all students, including access to Advanced Placement or International Baccalaureate courses. Working together we can make sure that our adolescents graduate prepared for any dream they may choose to pursue. Finally, my bill includes a third title called ``Supporting Successful High Schools'' to ensure that we take action to help turn around our low-performing high schools. Approximately 10 percent of the schools which have been identified so far as ``in need of improvement'' according to the requirements of No Child Left Behind are high schools. In about 1100 high schools, 75 percent or more of the students enrolled are living in poverty. Despite these numbers, most reform efforts are focused on elementary schools. We've overlooked struggling middle and high schools. Under the No Child Left Behind Act, Title I funding should be used to help all schools that need improvement, but high schools receive only 15 percent of Title I funds, even though they enroll 33 percent of low- income students. Until Title I is fully-funded, it is unlikely that high schools will receive a significant amount of these funds to address the problems they have identified. Meanwhile, high schools are being held to the requirements of No Child Left Behind without a targeted source of funding to turn around schools in need of improvement. Our states and districts have worked hard to figure out which high schools need improvement the most, and now it's time we improve them. That's why my bill would create a $500 million grant program that allows districts to identify, develop, and implement reforms that will turn around these low-performing schools. School districts can use funds for research-based strategies and best practices that will improve student achievement and bring success. Districts would work with parents, teachers, students and communities to choose any effective reform such as small schools, block scheduling, whole school reforms or individualized learning plans. For example, since research shows that small schools enhance student outcomes by allowing teachers to offer personalized assistance and connect with students, some districts may reduce the size of low- performing high schools by creating smaller schools or academies within larger schools. Working together, we can do more than identify our schools in need of improvement--we can improve them. In conclusion, the Pathways for All Students to Succeed Act provides the grants America's students need to promote adolescent literacy, support college and career pathways for all our students, and to improve struggling high schools nationwide. I hope my colleagues will join me in supporting this bill and addressing the needs of our high school students.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I rise today to support the amendment that has been offered by my colleague from Washington State, Ms. Cantwell, that will help protect our consumers from this electricity market manipulation. I begin by thanking Senator Cantwell for her tremendous work on the energy commitment and her long-time work on trying to make sure consumers in my home State of Washington finally receive the attention and the help they need from us at the Federal level because of the gouging that has gone on in this market manipulation. We have seen the dramatic impacts that she has so eloquently talked about. I thank her for speaking out on behalf of our Pacific Northwest consumers who are hurting. We have had the first, second, or the third highest unemployment rate for almost 2\1/2\ years, much of that precipitated by the fact of the energy spike costs that have hit the west coast, causing many of our cold storage companies, the aluminum industry, to shut down. They are laying people off. The effects of that reverberated throughout our economy, as other industries were hurt. Even our schools were hurt as they had to lay off teachers in order to pay energy bills. It has had a tremendous impact on our economy and continues to do so. Bringing this amendment to the Senate floor today is absolutely critical. If we are going to have an electricity title, and if we do not deal with what happened in market manipulation, we are only going to see this continue. We have a responsibility at the Federal level to protect our consumers at home. In fact, that is the responsibility of the Federal Regulatory Energy Commission. This amendment is so critical to making sure that we can go home and tell our consumers we are doing the right job of protecting them and the market manipulations that have occurred in the past will not occur again. Without this amendment, we will not have the ability to say that. As Senator Cantwell stated, all of us on the west coast remember the energy crisis of 2001. Our consumers and our businesses were hit with massive increases in the cost of energy. In California, they saw shortages and brownouts that were incredible. In Washington State we have felt the impact in every sector of our economy and in every home in our State. In fact, as I will talk about in a moment, we in Washington State are continuing to be penalized for the failures in the energy market and failures by our Federal energy regulators. There were certainly many causes for the energy crisis that hit us, but the most disturbing is the fact that energy companies manipulated the marketplace specifically to take advantage of the customers. As we saw throughout that crisis, the Federal Regulatory Energy Commission did not take aggressive action to protect consumers from market manipulation. The amendment that has been offered by my colleague, Senator Cantwell, will direct FERC, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, to revoke those market-based rate authority companies that have been found to knowingly engage in electricity market manipulation. Our experience on the west coast shows why this amendment is so important and why FERC needs to be better policed in the energy market. For more than 2 years, many of us in the northwest delegation have been urging FERC to better protect our consumers. In fact, way back in March and April of 2001 and again in May of 2002, I sent letters to FERC calling for relief from this energy crisis. I asked for Federal price caps to stabilize the market. I asked for Washington State utilities to receive refunds, as California utilities received, and I urged FERC to report criminal activity to the Department of Justice. Finally, on March 26 of 2003, FERC found that market manipulation occurred during the 2001 west coast energy crisis. Unfortunately, FERC indicated it was highly unlikely that Washington State ratepayers would be reimbursed for the harm that was caused by that market manipulation. That is really unfair when we look at what happened throughout that crisis. At the height of the 2001 energy crisis, when Enron and others were manipulating the system, FERC was urging companies to enter into long- term contracts. Many of our utilities in the Pacific Northwest followed their request and entered into long-term contracts at highly inflated rates. According to the Seattle Times, during the energy crisis the Northwest wholesale market averaged $276 per megawatt hour. That is 16 percent higher than the average prices in northern California, and 28 percent higher than in southern California. So it was really disturbing to all of us to see FERC agree that there was manipulation but then leave Washington State ratepayers holding the bag with no relief for the harm they experienced and continue to experience because of these contracts. Clearly, FERC needs to be more aggressive in protecting our consumers. It needs to uncover and it needs to report market manipulation much earlier. It needs to have the authority to take action against companies that defraud the public and defraud the people in our States by manipulating the electricity market. The amendment that Senator Cantwell has offered will direct FERC to take aggressive action against predatory energy companies that manipulate the market, and I strongly urge my colleagues to support this amendment. This amendment will improve the underlying bill. It is extremely important. We need to have this kind of confidence if we want to see our ratepayers able to survive in the coming years. I do have a lot of other concerns about the Energy bill and about an effort by Federal energy regulators. As my colleagues know, FERC is now pushing what they call a standard market design which would set uniform national standards for operating regional transmission grids, transmission grids that allow energy to be passed back and forth between communities that are in each region and their wholesale energy markets. Unfortunately, what FERC does not understand, what the bill does not understand, is that a one-size-fits-all solution is not going to fit the unique needs of the Pacific Northwest. In New England, if they want to increase or decrease energy production, they burn more gas or more coal. They can regulate that industry. But in the Northwest, we cannot make it rain more or less based on some kind of profit schedule. Standard market design does not work in the Pacific Northwest. We cannot run our system that way because it is not designed to meet all of the needs we have. It means more opportunities for market manipulation and price gouging by big out-of-State energy companies. As we have already talked about, we know FERC has already failed to protect Washington ratepayers from market manipulation. Given that, I think it is particularly unwise to allow FERC to take authority away from our State regulators through this standard market design and other proposals that are floating around through Congress and in this bill. I am also very concerned that the Energy bill repeals the Public Utility Holding Company Act of 1935 which restricts utility ownership. Although Senator Domenici's substitute electricity amendment--which we have just gotten, we are reviewing, and is now in this bill--does include some remedies to protect consumers, it does not go far enough. Just look at the devastating effects of the 2001 energy crisis to see we have to do more to protect our consumers. It is our utmost responsibility. I am concerned the electricity title in this bill fails to do that. It is clear this Energy bill we are debating does not do enough to protect consumers against market manipulation and could actually facilitate more opportunities for manipulation. As currently written, it does not provide enough remedies to help our consumers who have been victimized by market manipulation. That is why I am in the Senate today to support my colleague from Washington State, Senator Cantwell, and the amendment she has offered. We have the utmost responsibility to assure market manipulation is not going to continue again. We know the effects in the Pacific Northwest. Senator Cantwell has outlined the average rate increases that have hit our State because of market manipulation. Energy price increases affect every sector of our economy. They affect every person in our State. They affect everything from how we can operate our schools, how many teachers we can have versus how many energy bills our schools have to pay, to whether potential new homeowners can afford a home. A 51 percent rate increase means we have more families in the State of Washington who cannot afford to buy new cars, new refrigerators. That affects our economy in the Pacific Northwest and has a rippling effect to our businesses, which have laid off thousands of employees because they cannot afford to pay their increased electricity costs. The market manipulation amendment of Senator Cantwell is an absolutely critical amendment to assure we can protect our consumers in the future. Failing to pass it is a failure of the responsibility we have as Senators. I urge its passage. I thank my colleague for yielding on this critical matter.