Patty Murray

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. I send a technical amendment to the desk that has been approved by both sides.

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

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

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, this amendment, I have sent to the desk is offered by Senator Shelby and myself and it will strengthen the truck safety provisions in the bill as reported by the committee. It will require the Department of Transportation to implement a rigorous inspection regime under which every Mexican truck seeking to travel beyond the commercial zone will be required to be inspected at least every 90 days. This inspection system has shown some level of success within the State of California in bringing down the high level of safety noncompliance that has been found in Mexican trucks seeking to cross the border. We believe that his would improve upon the provisions already in place in the bill as reported by the committee. I know that Senators McCain and Gramm have an interest in these provisions. In deference to them, I will not seek adoption of the amendment at this time. I will leave it as the pending amendment to the bill. If need be, we can temporarily lay the amendment aside and take up amendments on other matters as debate occurs on this bill.

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that there now be a period of morning business with Senators permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes each.

Mrs. MURRAY. I amend my request.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Denise Matthews and Cyndi Stowe, Fellows on the staff of the Committee on Appropriations, be granted the privileges of the floor during debate on the fiscal year 2002 Transportation appropriations bill and the conference report thereon.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk in the nature of a substitute. Amendment No. 1025

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. I thank the Chair. Madam President, I rise today to support the Durbin amendment that will protect our national monuments from energy exploration. I am pleased to be a cosponsor of this important amendment, and I thank Senator Durbin from Illinois for his work and tremendous efforts on behalf of our national heritage and our national monuments. The truth is, we should not need an amendment to protect our country's national monuments from energy exploration. These unique landscapes, including the Hanford Reach National Monument in my home State of Washington, were designated as national monuments because they are important in their own right and they deserve to be protected. We should not need an additional amendment to keep oil derricks out of these lands, but unfortunately that is where we find ourselves today. The Bush administration has proposed exploring for energy even in our national monuments. When I go home every weekend and talk to my friends and neighbors and go to the grocery store, my constituents come up to me and ask: Is nothing sacred anymore? Drilling in our national monuments is just wrong. This amendment says the Federal Government should not promote energy exploration on our most precious lands, on our heritage. I recognize the need to find new sources of energy. The Federal Government has always actively promoted the extraction of new energy resources. This can and will continue. During the Clinton administration, thousands of new drilling permits were actually issued for Federal lands. Since the early 1980s, the projection of natural gas on Federal lands has been increasing steadily. Efforts to find energy on our Federal lands must continue. But attempts to find energy in our national monuments must never begin. Today, 95 percent of Bureau of Land Management lands in the Western States are open to coal, oil, and gas leasing. We do not need to open up our national monuments, as well. I realize this is a challenging time because we are facing an energy crisis. In my home State of Washington, we are experiencing dramatic rate increases because of the many factors involved, including a drought and too little energy production and a spike in gas prices. Thousands of my constituents are out of work because of high energy costs. No one needs to tell anyone in Washington State we have to increase energy production. We know we need to increase capacity and that is what we are doing. We are working to site new generation capacity. On the Oregon and Washington border, we are constructing the country's largest wind farm. We have natural gas plants going up. We have a proposal for a coal-fired plant. We are upgrading our transmission system to deliver new generation supplies. We know what we need to do and we are taking action. But we know we don't need to drill for natural gas in our national monuments. The Hanford Reach National Monument is a national treasure. It includes the last free-flowing stretch of the Columbia River. It is the most productive spawning ground for threatened salmon in the entire Columbia River Basin. It is home to threatened sage grouse and 2 plant and 40 insect species that are brand-new to science. The monument also includes and borders important historic and cultural features. The area is rich in important Native American, early pioneer, and nuclear production history. The Hanford Reach National Monument may be the most unique monument in the entire country. I have heard some people suggest that the national monument designations made by President Clinton were made too quickly, without public involvement, and without consideration of energy production values. That is simply not true. I have been working since my first year in the Senate, 9 years ago, to protect the Hanford Reach. I introduced legislation in the previous three Congresses to protect that area. We held numerous public meetings, we got lots of local input from local leaders, local folk, and we debated a lot of different proposals. The administration had 8 years of knowledge developed by the consideration of various protection proposals. The plans considered irrigation, farming, and the potential for gas outside the monument's boundaries. The plan considered commercial development of lands by ports and cities. In fact, the final designation even included a provision ensuring a new right-of-way for energy transmission lines to go across the Hanford Reach. All of those considerations helped define the final boundaries of that national monument. So for some to suggest now that we never thought about our future energy needs is just plain wrong. In the end, the final decision was that the ecological and historical values of the Hanford Reach merited protection as a national monument. We knew what we were doing by that designation. We knew we were choosing to protect the unique and vital habitats. We knew we were honoring important cultural sites, and we intended to leave this legacy to future generations. Protecting certain areas for generations to come is an admirable goal. These designations were made after full consideration. This Congress should not now in any way undermine those legacies in favor of the energy industry. We should not have to fight back these attacks on our very limited protected lands. I believe we should preserve these ecological and historic treasures for future generations. These lands belong to all of us. We are responsible for protecting them. That is why the Durbin amendment is so important. I urge my colleagues to support it. I thank my colleague from Illinois.

Mrs. MURRAY

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

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I come to the Senate Chamber this evening to join my colleague, Senator Maria Cantwell, in acknowledging four young Americans who lost their lives in service to our country last evening. Like many Americans, this morning I awoke to the very tragic news that four firefighters had died while battling a wildfire near Winthrop, WA. Today I want my colleagues and the American people to know the names of those four brave firefighters: Tom Craven, 30 years old, of Ellensburg, WA; Karen Fitzpatrick, 18 years old of Yakima, WA; Devin Weaver, 21, of Yakima; and Jessica Johnson, 19, also from Yakima. These were young people. These were people who put themselves in harms way to keep the rest of us safe. Today, my thoughts and prayers are with the families of those four courageous firefighters. It's hard to imagine the dangers that firefighters face every day. But they choose to fight fires to help protect the rest of us--our families and our communities. When something like this happens, it makes all of us stop and think about what they've sacrificed for our safety. My brother is a firefighter. For years, he fought fires. My family and I understand the risks. I know how those families feel every day when they send their loved ones off to work. They are proud of them. They know they are doing something important for their neighbors and their community. And they are always hoping they will get back home safely at the end of the day. This tragedy reminds us all of the dangers that firefighters face every day. To the families of those four brave young people, please know that we are a grateful nation, and you are all in our thoughts and prayers. I also want to wish a speedy recovery for the other firefighters who were injured while battling the wildfire. I want to thank the firefighters in Washington State--and across the country--for the work they do to protect us. We own them a debt of gratitude. Today, we owe four families our condolences and our thanks for their sacrifice. I yield to Senator Cantwell from Washington State.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Nevada for yielding me time. Families across our country are being denied the medical care they need. These are people who have insurance. They paid their premiums. They think they are covered, but when they need care, too often they find their insurance company is most concerned about its immediate bottom line rather than their health care. Like my colleagues, I cringe at the stories I have heard: A parent taking a child with a 105-degree fever to the emergency room in the middle of the night only to be told later that their insurance would not pay for the care that was needed; doctors offer their best medical opinions only to see them overruled by an insurance company. Too often the system makes it harder for patients to get the care they need. There is more of a focus on short-term costs than quality care. The truth is those decisions by insurance companies and HMOs have real consequences. A child's condition may worsen. A dad might not be able to go to work. A mom may need around-the-clock medical care. But under the current system, these patients have no legal recourse. If the company they paid medical coverage to makes a bad decision, there is little recourse. That is wrong. That is one of the problems I hope we can fix by passing the Bipartisan Patient Protection Act. For several years, I have been working in the HELP Committee, with my colleague presiding today, and here on the floor to make sure that patients get the kind of care they need. Last Congress, the other side put forth a very hollow bill that excluded many Americans and didn't provide the protection patients needed. But this year, we finally have a real chance to help families. That is why I am proud that this is the first major bill being offered in a Democratic-controlled Senate. I support S. 1052, the Bipartisan Patient Protection Act. It gives patients the protections they need. During this debate, many amendments will be offered. Some of them will weaken the bill and draw the debate away from patient protections. I will call those attempts as I see them. I will work to make sure that patients' rights are not watered down over the course of the debate. Health care quality and access are top issues for people in my home State of Washington. A few weeks ago, I spoke at a forum on health care in Olympia, WA. We were expecting at the most maybe 100 people would come to that event. When I arrived at the Olympia Center, I saw almost 600 people packed into the auditorium and into rooms they had opened for overflow. They turned out in tremendous numbers and spoke with such great passion because they are concerned about access to health care. As we begin this year's debate in the Senate, I want to outline some of the problems of our current system and some of the reforms I believe are really needed. I do mention that we are not trying to eliminate managed care. In fact, it is important that we have ways to coordinate care and focus on prevention and wellness and to diagnose problems sooner. When the incentives are right, managed care can work. In Washington State, it has helped play a role in improving life expectancy, lowering infant mortality, and ensuring women get mammograms. Unfortunately, however, today the incentives are all wrong. They focus more on cost than on care, more on a company's short-term financial health than on a patient's long-term physical health. We need to change the incentives so people are fighting illness, not fighting their insurance company. We need to make sure insurance protects you when you become ill and prevents you from becoming sick in the first place. We need a system where doctors are not spending 45 minutes on the phone with an insurance company so a sick child can be admitted to a hospital. We need a system where parents can take an injured child to the closest emergency room instead of one that is miles away because the insurer demands it. We need a system where the ultimate decision rests in the hands of patients based on the best medical advice of their own physician. We need simply to restore the doctor-patient relationship. Too often today a doctor is allowed to be little more than a consultant. Sometimes his or her recommendations are accepted. Other times they are not because someone else made a decision for that patient, someone who has not even seen that patient and who is not even a qualified or licensed health care provider. We need to help companies that are trying to do the right thing but are being beaten out by some bad players. We need a system where patients will know up front what their own rights are. These days it is only when they become seriously ill that patients learn how good or bad their insurer or their HMO is. That is why we need clear, uniform, Federal quality control standards that protect all consumers. Those are some of the changes we should seek. I now turn to a few specific points I will be fighting for in this debate. First of all, we need to guarantee access to specialty care. Secondly, we need to guarantee access to clinical trials and comprehensive care. We need to cover emergency treatment and not just the care provided in the emergency room itself. We need to make sure we protect as many Americans as possible. Some bills have such a limited scope that many patients would get no protection. Finally, we need to make sure that plans are held accountable for health care decisions and that the external review process is objective and timely. Those are some of the things I will be fighting to make sure we keep in this debate. We know that patients aren't getting the care they need. We know what the problems are, and we have a bill in front of us that will fix them. The American people have been waiting too long for real health care protection, and we have an obligation in the Senate to give them the coverage they need. That is what this coming debate will be about. I yield the floor and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Ten minutes.

Mrs. MURRAY. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mrs. MURRAY. I am happy to yield for a question.

Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, I want to respond quickly to the Senator from Oregon. I was concerned with his mischaracterization of those who oppose this amendment. As I heard him, I felt he was saying those who support this amendment support the Boy Scouts and the values of the Boy Scouts, and those who oppose it oppose the Boy Scouts. I tell the Senator from Oregon and our colleagues, that is absolutely not the case. I have sat here and listened to the entire debate. Everyone who has opposed this amendment has spoken about the Boy Scouts personally in their own lives, including me. I remind the Senator from Oregon that I was a Brownie. I was a junior Girl Scout. I was a Girl Scout. I was a Brownie leader. I was a junior Girl Scout leader. I was a senior Girl Scout leader, and I was a Boy Scout leader for my son. I think the Boy Scouts do a tremendous job in this country for a lot of young people, and I want them to continue to do that. The opposition to this amendment comes because the Boy Scouts already have equal access to our facilities. They have them under current law, and it has been affirmed by court decisions. The concerns on our side are that this amendment and the language of the amendment as written will give the Boy Scouts access above and beyond any other group that asks for a school facility. As a former school board member, the bind that will put our school districts in, as they look at this language and are told that if a church group comes to them and another group, perhaps seniors who are looking for tutoring, and Boy Scouts, is that they will have to pick the Boy Scouts over those other groups. School boards make these decisions based on a lot of different local decisions: On space, on how the facility will be used, on how many janitors they are going to have to hire, on what other kinds of demands there are on their facilities. Their underlying goal as a school board is to make sure the kids in their district are educated. We have to leave this decision in their hands and not put language into the Elementary and Secondary Education Act that forces them to choose one group over another. Equal access is currently provided under law and by the courts. What we cannot do is tie the hands of school boards to give unequal access to a group, even though all of us on the floor may agree that it is a great group.

Mrs. MURRAY. Equal access is already in the law. It was just upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court. Groups such as Scouts have equal access. Therefore, this amendment is not about the question of equal access. This amendment, however, is about special access. Frankly, we ought to call this proposal the ``unequal access amendment'' because it selects one group over all others for special protection. There is a second problem with the amendment. I served on a local school board. I know what it is to have limited meeting space in a school and to have organizations that want to use that space who come before you and beg and plead for that ability. Right now schools make those decisions based on their own circumstances within the law. Schools might not have enough space. They might not have the budget for the extra cleanup required for groups to use these facilities or additional groups to use them. They might not have the staff to lock up the building after hours. Teachers might not have the time in the schoolday to rearrange their classrooms. Maybe there are only a few rooms available after school and they are already needed for other things such as tutoring or they have already been given to another group. There might be insurance or liability concerns. Because of all those variables that local school boards have to live with on a weekly basis, those decisions are made at the local level. Sometimes those local policies keep schools from having to pick one group over the other, from picking winners or losers. The Helms amendment would overrule all of those local policies, all of those local decisions, and pick one winner and require every school to accommodate them or risk losing their Federal funding. Scouts already have the same protections as similar organizations, and local schools already make good legal decisions based on those circumstances. Before I close, I note that I am eager to see how some of my colleagues vote on this amendment which, as I have noted, is not about Scouting. It is about forcing decisions on local schools. In recent years some of my colleagues have spoken at great length about the importance of local control in educational decisions. Of course, having served on a local school board, I reminded them that most decisions are made at the local level and that there is a limited Federal role for efforts such as helping disadvantaged students and reaching national educational goals. Frankly, I do not see how setting up a special national privilege for just one organization falls in that role. Recently on the Senate floor my amendment to reduce school overcrowding was defeated on a party-line vote. Opponents on the other side said those decisions should be made at the local level. They ignored the fact that funding was optional and flexible, meaning it could be used for class size reduction or teacher training or recruitment. Opponents of my amendment said local control was more important than an effective, targeted, flexible initiative. Now we get to see if all those Members will stand up to the principles they have advocated. This Helms amendment is far more intrusive. It is not optional. Unlike my amendment, the Helms amendment has nothing to do with schoolday learning. It is definitely a Federal mandate on local schools. It definitely takes decisions out of local hands. Frankly, I do not see how anyone who has called for more local control will support this Helms amendment. This vote will be very telling. The Helms amendment addresses a problem that does not exist. Groups such as the Scouts already have equal access through existing law. Instead, this intrusive amendment provides special, unequal access for just one group and overrules what is happening at the local level. I will share with my colleagues how frustrating and difficult it can be, as a school board member, to make decisions about who can use your facilities. I have been in front of many parents who were unhappy with decisions that school boards have made. This Helms amendment may well force a school board to tell a group, perhaps a church group that is already using their gym, that because of the Helms amendment and fear of a lawsuit, if they don't change their mind, we will have to override facilities use by that group. This amendment may well force a school to tell another group that because of our Federal law, the Boy Scouts come in first. I care about Scouting. I want our Scouts to have facilities. I want it to be under equal access, not special protection. That is what the Helms amendment does. I thank my colleague from California and yield back my time to her. Exhibit 1 [From the Washington Post, June 1, 2001] Justices Back Bible Group access to school facilities widened (By Charles Lane) The Supreme Court ruled yesterday that a New York state school may not prohibit an evangelical Christian children's club from meeting on its premises, a decision that may have cleared the last legal obstacles to religious groups' long- sought goal of having the same access to school facilities as other organizations. By a vote of 6 to 3, the court held that the Milford Central School's effort to deny the after-school use of its building to the Good News Club, but not to other, nonreligious groups, was a form of discrimination on the basis of religious viewpoint, and thus violated the constitutional guarantee of free speech. The Good News Club, which operates thousands of chapters around the country, urges children as young as 6 to accept Jesus Christ as a personal savior. The school argued that, in barring the club from meeting there, it was following a New York law designed to avert any appearance of official sponsorship of religious worship and to protect children from getting the impression that the school endorses a particular religion. But the court rejected the notion that the club's use of the school would create a kind of pro-religious pressure on children, noting that children could not attend the club's meetings unless their parents approved. ``[W]e cannot say the danger the children would misperceive the endorsement of religion is any greater than the danger that they would perceive a hostility toward the religious viewpoint if the Club were excluded,'' Justice Clarence Thomas said in the opinion he wrote for the court. Conservative legal scholars noted that the case fits into a recent trend in which the court has adopted a more accommodating position toward religion in public places when it believes that it is merely maintaining a fair balance between religious and secular activity. That could mean future support for President Bush's ``faith-based'' social services initiative, or for school vouchers, they said. ``It will be much harder for anyone to argue that a faith- based organization's social service treatment program has crossed a line, becoming, in essence, `too religious,' '' said Douglas Kmiec, dean of the Catholic University law school. But Barry Lynn, executive director of Americans United for Separation of Church and State, said the decision maintains a distinction between state support for religious instruction and extracurricular religious activity, and therefore ``has no spillover into the voucher area.'' Of the 4,622 Good News Club chapters around the country, about 527 meet regularly in public school buildings. Supporters of the group said the ruling gives a significant boost to the club and others like it. ``It's no secret that it helps them attract children when they meet in a more convenient location,'' said Gregory S. Baylor of Annandale-based Religious Liberty Advocates, which filed a friend of the court brief on behalf of Good News's parent organization, the Child Evangelism Fellowship Inc. ``Prior to this, a lot of school districts were nervous about letting them in. Now I can say, `Read the Supreme Court case.' '' Opponents agree with this forecast, but they said it shows how the court has titled the church-state balance in favor of religion. ``This is really religious worship directed at young children,'' said Jeffrey R. Babbin, an attorney who filed a friend of the court brief on behalf of the Anti-Defamation League of B'nai B'rith, which backed the school. ``Our concern is that what can't be done in school shouldn't be done right after. Often kids can't go home right after school.'' The case began in 1996 when two parents, the Rev. Stephen D. Fournier and his wife, Darleen, sought to move the meetings of their Good News Club chapter from a local church to Milford's only school building, which houses all classes from kindergarten through 12th grade. School authorities in the 3,000-resident rural community refused, saying that the Good News Club was not simply a discussion group that talked about morals from a religious viewpoint, but a form of religious instruction. The Good News Club's sponsoring organization, the Child Evangelism Fellowship, based in Warrenton, Mo., says that its purpose is to ``evangelize boys and girls with the Gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ and to establish (disciple) them in the Word of God and in a local church for Christian living.'' Good News Club meetings revolve around prayer, songs, stories and games drawn from the Bible, and some of the children attending are ``challenged'' to declare Jesus Christ as their savior. The Fourniers sued in federal court. The New York-based appeals court sided with the school, but because its ruling clashed with a St. Louis-based appeals court's decision in favor of access for another Good News Club, the Supreme Court agreed last year to decide the dispute. In the court opinion yesterday, Thomas said that this case was essentially no different from previous ones in which the court had upheld the right of a Christian parents' group to show a film at a public high school in the evening and of Christian students at the University of Virginia to receive the same funding for their publication as other groups. When the state operates a ``limited public forum'' in which citizens may express their views, Thomas wrote, ``speech discussing otherwise permissible subjects cannot be excluded . . . on the ground that the subject is discussed from a religious viewpoint.'' Thomas was joined by the court's other conservative-leaning members--Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist and Justices Sandra Day O'Connor, Antonin Scalia and Anthony M. Kennedy. He also picked up the vote of Justice Stephen G. Breyer, a liberal, who wrote a separate opinion to emphasize that he supported the club's position only insofar as it was asking for nondiscrimination by the school. He said important issues remained to be examined, especially whether a reasonable child might indeed see the club's presence at the school as an endorsement of religion. Justices John Paul Stevens, David H. Souter and Ruth Bader Ginsburg dissented. ``It is beyond question that Good News intends to use the public school premises not for the mere discussion of a subject from a particular, Christian point of view, but for an evangelical service of worship calling children to commit themselves in an act of Christian conversion,'' Souter wrote. The case is Good News Club v. Milford Central School, No. 99-2036.

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from California for yielding me time. Mr. President, I believe that Scouting--whether it is the Boy Scouts or Girl Scouts--really can help kids develop their character and build important skills. And that is important. In fact, Scouting has been an important part of my life and my own children's lives. I was a Brownie. I was a Junior Girl Scout. I was a Girl Scout. I was a Brownie Leader. I was a Girl Scout Leader. And, in fact, I was even a Boy Scout Leader for my son's troop. So I know about Scouting. This amendment is not about scouting. This amendment is about imposing a Federal mandate on local schools that could essentially overwhelm their facilities and strain their ability to meet their first responsibility, which I believe we all understand is to educate our students. The Helms amendment essentially takes a problem that does not exist and uses it to dictate the decisions that local school boards make. There are several problems with this amendment, but first and foremost, it really is not needed, as the Senator from California said. Right now, under Federal law, Scouts receive the same protection and access as any other group--nothing more, nothing less--and that is the way it should be. And that is not just my opinion; it is our Federal law, known as the Equal Access Act. Let me read to you part of that statute. It says: It shall be unlawful for any public secondary school which receives Federal financial assistance and which has a limited open forum to deny access for a fair opportunity to, or [to] discriminate against, any students wishing to conduct a meeting within that limited open forum on the basis of the religious, political, philosophical or other content of the speech at such meetings. That is the law right now--on the books in black and white. So this amendment is unnecessary because current Federal law already requires equal access. Not only do groups such as the Boy Scouts already have access under Federal law, the courts are reaffirming that access. In fact, just this last Monday, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that a New York State school had to let a religious organization use its facilities since it was already allowing nonreligious organizations to do the same thing. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have a Washington Post article which explains this ruling printed in the Record after my remarks.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation to help rural and underserved communities across the country get connected to the information economy. Today I am introducing the Community Telecommunication Planning Act of 2001. I am proud to have Senators Boxer, Landrieu, Kennedy, Cantwell, and Schumer as original cosponsors. This bill will give small and rural communities a new tool to attract high speed services and economic development. I am especially proud at how this legislation came about. Since last year, I've been working with a group of community leaders in Washington State to find ways to help communities get connected to advanced telecommunications services. I want to take a moment to thank the members of my Rural Telecommunication Working Group for their hard work on this bill. The members include: Brent Bahrenburg, Gregg Caudell, Dee Christensen, Dave Danner, Louis Fox, Tami Garrow, Larry Hall, Rod Fleck, Ray King, Dale King, Terry Lawhead, Dick Llarman, Jim Miller, Joe Poire, Skye Richendrfer, Jim Schmit, Fred Sexton, Ted Sprague, Barbara Tilly, Terry Vann, Ron Yenney. We met as a working group, and we held forums around the State that attracted hundreds of people. We've tapped the ideas of experts, service providers and people from across the State who are working to get their communities connected. The result in this legislation, which I am proud to say is part of Washington State's contribution to our national effort to wire all parts of our country. This bill addresses a real need in many communities. While urban and suburban areas have strong competition between telecommunications providers, many small and rural communities are far removed from the services they need. We must ensure that all communities have access to advanced telecommunications like high speed internet access. Just as yesterday's infrastructure was built of roads and bridges, today our infrastructure includes advanced telecom services. Advanced telecommunications can enrich our lives through activities like distance-learning, and they can even save lives through efforts like telemedicine. The key is access. Access to these services is already turning some small companies in rural communities into international marketers of goods and services. Unfortunately, many small and rural communities are having trouble getting the access they need. Before areas can take advantage of some of the help and incentives that are out there, they need to work together and go through a community planning process. Community plans identify the needs and level of demand, create a vision for the future, and show what all the players must do to meet the telecom needs of their community for today and tomorrow. These plans take resources to develop. This bill would provide those funds. Providers say they're more likely to invest in an area if it has a plan that makes a business case for the costly infrastructure investment. Communities want to provide them with that plan, but they need help developing it. Unfortunately, many communities get stuck on that first step. They don't have the resources to do the studies and planning required to attract service. So the members of my Working Group came up with a solution: have the federal government provide competitive grants that local communities can use to develop their plans. I took that idea and put it into this bill. When you think about it, it just makes sense. Right now the federal government already provides money to help communities plan other infrastructure improvements--everything from roads and bridges to wastewater facilities. The bill would provide rural and underserved communities with grant money for creating community plans, technical assessments and other analytical work that needs to be done. With these grants, communities will be able to turn their desire for access into real access that can improve their communities and strengthen their economies. This bill can open the door for thousands of small and rural areas across our state to tap the potential of the information economy. I urge the Senate to support this bill and I look forward to working with my colleagues to see it passed.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation to help rural and underserved communities across the country get connected to the information economy. Today I am introducing the Community Telecommunication Planning Act of 2001. I am proud to have Senators Boxer, Landrieu, Kennedy, Cantwell, and Schumer as original cosponsors. This bill will give small and rural communities a new tool to attract high speed services and economic development. I am especially proud at how this legislation came about. Since last year, I've been working with a group of community leaders in Washington State to find ways to help communities get connected to advanced telecommunications services. I want to take a moment to thank the members of my Rural Telecommunication Working Group for their hard work on this bill. The members include: Brent Bahrenburg, Gregg Caudell, Dee Christensen, Dave Danner, Louis Fox, Tami Garrow, Larry Hall, Rod Fleck, Ray King, Dale King, Terry Lawhead, Dick Llarman, Jim Miller, Joe Poire, Skye Richendrfer, Jim Schmit, Fred Sexton, Ted Sprague, Barbara Tilly, Terry Vann, Ron Yenney. We met as a working group, and we held forums around the State that attracted hundreds of people. We've tapped the ideas of experts, service providers and people from across the State who are working to get their communities connected. The result in this legislation, which I am proud to say is part of Washington State's contribution to our national effort to wire all parts of our country. This bill addresses a real need in many communities. While urban and suburban areas have strong competition between telecommunications providers, many small and rural communities are far removed from the services they need. We must ensure that all communities have access to advanced telecommunications like high speed internet access. Just as yesterday's infrastructure was built of roads and bridges, today our infrastructure includes advanced telecom services. Advanced telecommunications can enrich our lives through activities like distance-learning, and they can even save lives through efforts like telemedicine. The key is access. Access to these services is already turning some small companies in rural communities into international marketers of goods and services. Unfortunately, many small and rural communities are having trouble getting the access they need. Before areas can take advantage of some of the help and incentives that are out there, they need to work together and go through a community planning process. Community plans identify the needs and level of demand, create a vision for the future, and show what all the players must do to meet the telecom needs of their community for today and tomorrow. These plans take resources to develop. This bill would provide those funds. Providers say they're more likely to invest in an area if it has a plan that makes a business case for the costly infrastructure investment. Communities want to provide them with that plan, but they need help developing it. Unfortunately, many communities get stuck on that first step. They don't have the resources to do the studies and planning required to attract service. So the members of my Working Group came up with a solution: have the federal government provide competitive grants that local communities can use to develop their plans. I took that idea and put it into this bill. When you think about it, it just makes sense. Right now the federal government already provides money to help communities plan other infrastructure improvements--everything from roads and bridges to wastewater facilities. The bill would provide rural and underserved communities with grant money for creating community plans, technical assessments and other analytical work that needs to be done. With these grants, communities will be able to turn their desire for access into real access that can improve their communities and strengthen their economies. This bill can open the door for thousands of small and rural areas across our state to tap the potential of the information economy. I urge the Senate to support this bill and I look forward to working with my colleagues to see it passed.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I commend the Senator from Connecticut for his initiative in this area. He makes a number of good points about the need for high-quality teachers being involved in early childhood education programs. The amendment is acceptable to the managers on this side. If there is no other debate, I will urge its adoption.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. The Senator from Massachusetts raises a very good point. I know many parents today with young children who are 2 and 3 years old are now trying to get their kids into private school. They are starting the application process already. It is very difficult to get into some of our best private schools. Imagine parents out there who are listening to rhetoric about a voucher program as some kind of magic bullet that their child will use to get into a private school, and that is not correct. In fact, private schools can say they will not take children with disabilities or with limited English proficiency or with the difficulties that they have experienced in the past. So it is an empty promise to many parents who are thinking it is some kind of panacea--a voucher system that all of a sudden they will receive as taxpayers. The good private schools are hard to get into. We all know not all private schools are created equal. There are good ones and there are some not so good. This money would apply to all of them. I think we would lose for a lot of taxpayers in this country and our public school systems will lose even more.

Mrs. MURRAY. The Senator from Massachusetts knows that it would not. If our taxpayer dollars went to a private school in the form of a voucher, there would be no parental involvement, no community involvement, no taxpayer involvement on how their dollars were being spent.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I rise today to express my strong support for legislation to provide $250 million in emergency payments to apple growers. I would like to thank Senators Levin and Snowe for their leadership on this issue. Rural communities and agricultural producers have not enjoyed America's recent economic prosperity. Around the Nation, nearly all commodity producers are enduring low prices and trade challenges. In Washington State, these problems are compounded by a severe drought, an energy crisis, and fish listings under the Endangered Species Act. The combined impact is devastating. Apple growers in my State, from Okanogan County to Walla Walla County, are going bankrupt. Many family farmers have given up hope. On land that has produced high quality fruit for generations, farmers are tearing out orchards. Farmer cooperatives and other businesses that have been a part of rural communities for decades have closed up shop. Local governments have seen tax revenue decline. And non-farm businesses have struggled as consumers no longer have the cash to buy their goods and services. In the 106th Congress, we responded. Last year, I worked with my colleagues to pass a $100 million emergency package for apple growers. In 1999, I worked with the Clinton Administration to end the dumping by Chinese companies of non-frozen apple juice concentrate. And on a host of smaller issues, from fighting pests in abandoned orchards, to securing research funding, to breaking down trade barriers, I worked with the industry and other stakeholders to build a stronger foundation for the future. We can be proud of what we accomplished. But we still have more to do in the 107th Congress. If signed into law, this new legislation will provide $250 million in emergency payments to apple growers nation-wide. This emergency legislation will not save every producer. It will give the industry the financial support it needs to get through another year of disastrous prices. It will also give us the time we need to develop long-term solutions as part of the next farm bill for apple and other specialty crop growers. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation. And I urge the Senate Agriculture Committee and the Senate Appropriations Committee to work with the sponsors of this bill to provide meaningful assistance to all apple growers.