Patty Murray

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. I am happy to yield.

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, it is very clear that as we have listened to this debate in the Senate, Senators on both sides of the aisle believe that the key to the success of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act is accountability, and a part of that is testing. The voucher system would mean that students could take public taxpayer dollars to a private school that has no testing requirements similar to the public schools, has no accountability, requires no accountability, and thus we are just sending taxpayer dollars to private schools that don't live by the same rules.

Mrs. MURRAY. The Senator raises a key point. We won't know how they are progressing. As the Senator from Massachusetts knows, I was a school board member before I was a Senator. I can tell you of numerous school board meetings where we had citizens from our community sitting in big audiences before us saying: You are spending my taxpayer dollars and I want you to--fill in the blank. If we send our Federal taxpayer dollars to private schools, our citizens in our communities will not have the opportunity to go before a board that governs a private school to demand that their taxpayer dollars are spent wisely.

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, as the Senator from Massachusetts knows well, we only fund one-third of the students who are eligible for title I today. It seems to me we should be investing the money in making sure title I students have access to additional help. If we reduce class size, if we provide teacher training, if we invest in public schools in a way we have promised for many years to do, vouchers would not be an argument on the floor. Our children everywhere would be getting the good education they should and we would not select just a few kids to go on to a few schools to succeed. We would go back to the principle we all espouse in the Senate, to leave no child behind. As a country that cares about all of our children, we are making sure we invest in all of our children.

Mrs. MURRAY. I thank my colleague from Massachusetts. I urge all colleagues to think about the principles of this bill and the underlying concept: We want to make sure every child in this country succeeds. That is not what this amendment will do. It is what we need to do in terms of investing in our communities, our schools, in the right way, so all children can succeed. There is no magic bullet. The vouchers amendment is certainly not one. I hope we are not tempted by the false promise of vouchers as that magic bullet. I urge all of my colleagues to vote no.

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I am here today because I strongly believe that Senator Gregg's voucher amendment moves this country and our public schools in the wrong direction. All of us stand for equal opportunity for all children. This amendment might open doors to a few children, but it would shut them for many others. In the Senate, we are fighting to improve our public schools with resources. This amendment uses public funds to send a few students to private schools rather than investing in schools that serve all of our children. We need to think about the consequences of this voucher amendment. In the bill before us, we are insisting on accountability for the use of Federal funds. This voucher program would funnel taxpayer dollars into schools that are not accountable to the public at all. Beyond lack of accountability, let's remember that private schools don't even have to meet the same academic standards required for all public schools. Not all private schools are created equal. There are a lot of good ones, but there are some with lower quality and lower standards, and our tax dollars would go to them as well with no accountability. Private schools are important. I am not here to speak against private schools. I am here to speak against an amendment that would damage public schools. Mr. President, I want to talk about the four simple reasons I oppose this amendment. Vouchers undermine our public schools; vouchers leave children behind; vouchers mean less accountability; and vouchers are a distraction from the hard but essential work of ensuring that all public schools are good schools. Our public schools are the cornerstone of our democracy, our communities, and our economy. They are entrusted with giving more than 90 percent of our children the education they need to be productive citizens. Vouchers would weaken public schools by diverting already scarce funds needed for smaller classes, afterschool programs, better facilities, and teacher training, to pay for private school tuition for a few select children--which really leads to the second reason I cannot support any voucher scheme. Private schools may reject students for almost any reason, including disability, limited English proficiency, behavioral challenges, or academic deficiencies. Despite the rhetoric of this amendment, vouchers do not offer true choice for students. While parents may remove children from public schools, no voucher system guarantees admission to the school of their choice. Private schools will still choose which students they will admit. While vouchers drain money from public schools to help a few students, other students are left at a public school with fewer resources. That will not help our kids succeed. In fact, it will probably lower the quality of education for the most challenged students, effectively leaving them behind. Proponents of the underlying bill, including the author of this amendment, have said that accountability provisions are the key to not leaving students behind. Well, Mr. President, my third objection is that this amendment would make these accountability provisions meaningless for thousands of students. This bill requires that the results of new reading and math testing in grades 3-8 be used to judge the quality of all public schools, and it sanctions schools that fail to make adequate yearly progress. But those accountability provisions and testing do not apply to private schools that benefit from vouchers. If this accountability is truly essential to ensuring a good education, should it not apply to all schools that receive Federal funds? Under this voucher plan, participating private schools do not have to give the same tests. They do not have to make adequate yearly progress. And they cannot be sanctioned. Public schools must comply with all Federal, State, and local civil rights, and health and safety requirements. This voucher proposal doesn't even require participating private schools to protect the civil rights of school employees, or to maintain the separation of church and state. Mr. President, I cannot support spending taxpayer dollars on schools with no public accountability. Finally, vouchers drain away the resources and attention that should be focused on turning around low-performing schools. Vouchers offer an excuse to those who are unwilling to make the necessary investment or to roll up their sleeves and get involved in the hard work of leading a struggling public school into success. Turning around low-performing schools is not magic. Hard-working people all across the country are doing it every single day.

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.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, Senator Wellstone brings us an amendment today that really gets to the very heart of this bill, helping our schools ensure that no child is left behind. Some seem to think the heart of this bill is testing, but I have to say as a parent and former educator I know testing alone will not ensure that one additional child learns to read. Testing alone will not help our Nation's students learn to add and subtract. The heart of this bill must be a true effort by the Federal Government to serve as a partner to our States and to our local communities, offering every child a high-quality education and true chance to succeed. In 1965, when the Federal Government first recognized its special responsibility to provide additional resources to help the most disadvantaged students, we determined a level of support that was necessary to ensure that every child would succeed. Since that time, we have failed over and over again to really give them that support. That is what this Wellstone amendment is about: ensuring we finally meet our commitment to those children. Over the course of this debate, many of my colleagues have said that title I has failed to help our children over the past 35 years. They cite stagnant test scores as proof that additional investments in title I are a waste. Frankly, that is ridiculous. The reality is, after adjusting for inflation, title I spending has been almost flat. Meanwhile, the job of our public schools has gotten much more demanding, serving not only more students overall, but more students with challenges in limited English proficiency and disabilities. But these glib statements about title I having failed our disadvantaged students are perhaps most disingenuous and frustrating when one considers the chronic underfunding of title I. Let me talk about that for a moment and illustrate the absurdity of this argument that title I has failed. Let's assume that Congress decides we must build a bridge from the House to the Senate side of the Capitol; after building a third of that bridge, we begin sending people over that bridge. Not surprisingly, no one makes it to the other side. Some Senators come to the floor and express shock and dismay that no one has crossed the incomplete bridge. After years of this kind of folly, we finally declare on the floor of the Senate that the bridge is clearly a failure and it has to be torn down. That is what we have done with title I. We have determined that a need exists. We have developed a solution. We have failed to implement that solution. And then we have declared that the solution is not a good one. The promise of title I has never truly been fulfilled, and because of that, the promise for millions of children has also not been fulfilled. But this is not a matter of getting people across the Capitol. This is about our children's lives. This is about giving them a true chance to succeed. Title I has not failed our most disadvantaged children; we have failed them by not fully funding title I. Title I provides some of the most targeted and flexible funding. This is the kind of funding we need to offer if children are going to have any chance of passing these tests. Last week, when I was home in my home State of Washington, I met with 31 superintendents in one meeting, and then I talked with countless other parents who stopped me in the grocery store or on the street or anywhere else they found me to express their enormous concern about this bill. They know we are sending them a huge unfunded testing mandate, but they are not sure whether we are sending them much else. Frankly, neither am I. I know this bill does not provide smaller classes. It doesn't provide support for school renovation or even all the money they will need to develop and implement the tests we are requiring. I also know this bill imposes serious consequences based on the results of these new tests, but this bill does not give our children or our teachers or our schools the tools they need to help the kids pass these tests. What is our goal in this bill? Is it to impose an enormous unfunded testing mandate on our schools? Is it to declare our schools are in need of improvement or to shut them down? Is it to set our children and their teachers up for failure or is it to ensure that no child is left behind by, yes, measuring their progress but also providing the resources that will help them make that progress? I have heard my colleagues claim over and over again that the testing in this bill is simply a measure and it will help us identify the needs. Will anyone really be surprised if these new tests show that many children in our most poor schools are not succeeding? When will they have sufficient evidence that the problem exists and be willing to then take the steps necessary to solve it? We keep hearing people say this bill is about accountability. I have news for them. Most of our Nation's teachers, principals, and educators have always felt accountable to the people they serve in their own communities. What about our accountability? When will we be held accountable for following through on our commitments? We have gotten away with not following through on this one for 35 years. Isn't it time we held ourselves accountable and stopped picking on the teachers and the parents and the students who are struggling every day with insufficient resources? About a month ago, 78 of our colleagues came down to this floor and voted to invest this amount of funds in our most disadvantaged children. Was our goal that day just another empty promise? I expect at least some of those same 79 votes will be registered in favor of Senator Wellstone's amendment since it simply affirms the commitment we have made to these children. This vote is a test. Are we willing to put our money where our mouths are? Any Senator who voted for the Dodd amendment but votes against this amendment will have some explaining to do--not to me, by the way, but to the children they are deceiving with false promises of help backed up with only another test, not a smaller class, a well-prepared teacher, or an afterschool program. I urge my colleagues to support the Wellstone amendment and show the Nation's most disadvantaged students that we are committed to offering more than just words of encouragement. We are committed to offering them the support they need to succeed.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I come to the floor today to submit a resolution in support of the Olympic Games, and in particular, in support of Olympic athletes. The United States has a proud Olympic Games history. Thousands of Americans have represented our country at the Summer and Winter Games. Numerous U.S. cities have hosted the Games. And cities all across our country hope to host the Olympic Games in the future just as Salt Lake City will host the Winter Games next year. Let me share with my colleagues the story of one Olympian from my home state. Her name is Megan Quann. Late last year, following the Sydney Summer Games, more than 1,000 people crowded the streets of Puyallup, Washington to see and to celebrate Megan Quann. At the time, Megan was a 16-year-old junior at Emerald Ridge High School. She had just returned from Australia where she shocked the world by winning two Olympic Gold Medals in the swimming competition. Megan's hometown was ecstatic. October 29 was officially declared ``Megan Quann'' day in Puyallup. She was honored through town in a parade that was led by local Cub Scouts, Brownies, and swimmers from a local club. On that day, Megan's community erupted in pride in the accomplishments of a young athlete, a neighbor and a classmate. It was a great day for Puyallup and for Washington state. Unfortunately, I was not there. But, like most of my constituents, I followed Megan at the Olympics, and I cheered as she set a new American record in one of her events. And like all Americans, I was so proud of her as she stood on the medal stand--awestruck in her achievement--as the national anthem of our country played in the background. Mr. President, I don't think any of us ever tire of seeing an American athlete being recognized as an Olympic champion. We can't help but be moved when we see one of our own standing there--often with tears in their eyes--and the American flag on display for the whole world to see. The Olympic Games can be an enormously patriotic experience for the athletes and all of us who watch the competitions. But the Olympics aren't just about patriotism. They are also about bringing different people together to share in competition. Many Americans know the story of the Lithuanian basketball team which was embraced by the world following the collapse of the Soviet Union. And, of course, the Jamaican bobsled team is famous for its efforts to compete in the Winter Games. Time and again, we have seen Olympic athletes support each other in competition. They give their support freely, without consideration for nationality, religion, politics, or sex. That devotion to sport is at the heart of the Olympic Movement worldwide and that celebration of sport is one reason why more than a thousand of my constituents came out to celebrate Megan Quann's achievements at the Sydney Olympic Games. I have come to the floor to introduce a resolution which will hopefully ensure that another athlete like Megan can dedicate her life to the Olympic dream without the fear of seeing that dream die at the hands of political interference from the U.S. or elsewhere. In working on this issue, I have reached out to Olympians. I am proud that in my own State, there are more than 180 Olympians, including 46 who competed at the Sydney Summer Games. Nationwide, there are some 8,000 living Olympians, I appreciate the willingness of Washington's Olympians to review this resolution and to share their input. And I appreciate the many other Olympians who have shared their views on the issues now before the United States Congress. It is abundantly clear to me that U.S. Olympians do not want the Congress to mix politics with sport. Most Olympians do not want the Congress to introduce or consider any legislation regarding the Olympic Games. I agree with them. I too wish the Congress would not inject itself into the Olympic Movement. Unfortunately, U.S. politicians have once again decided to mix politics with the Olympics. We only need to look back a short 20 years to see the painful and costly results of politicizing the Olympics. In 1980, a generation of young Olympians did not get to participate in the Moscow Games due to the U.S. boycott. More than 5,000 athletes--including more than 1,000 Americans--did not get to participate in the 1980 Moscow Summer Olympic Games. Approximately 25 athletes from Washington state were barred from the 1980 Moscow Summer Games. We have received strong support from this group of very special athletes, and I want to mention a few today. I particularly want to thank Caroline Holmes. Caroline was a 1968 Olympic Gymnast. She is now the Chapter President of the Washington State Olympic Alumni Association. She is a champion for Olympic athletes, and I very much appreciate her assistance. Jan Harville was a 1980 Olympian. She was on the rowing team. Today, she's the women's crew coach at the University of Washington. She's still very active with her fellow 1980 Olympians. Paul Enquist from Seattle was also a rower on the 1980 team. Paul was able to compete and win a gold medal in the 1984 Los Angeles Games. Matt Dryke was a skeet shooter on the 1980 team. Matt also went on to compete in later Olympic Games. In 1984, he won a Gold Medal. Wendy Boglioli and Camille Wright were two swimmers on the 1980 team. Wendy ended her Olympic career when the U.S. boycotted Moscow. Here's what Wendy had to say when asked about once again mixing politics with the Olympic Games: It would be wrong for the Congress to interfere in the Olympic site selection process. I was there in 1980. I was one of 50 athletes invited to meet at the White House with President Carter regarding the Moscow Olympics. I am still upset that athletes had no voice in the 1980 decision. Mixing politics with the Olympics will only hurt future athletes. The 1980 Olympic Boycott was difficult for this country. Athletes sued the United States Olympic Community. The Government threatened the U.S. Olympic Committee, and the President pressured other world leaders to join the U.S. led boycott. Lost in the political squabble were U.S. athletes and for some, a lifetime of commitment and preparation. The Soviets, as we know, boycotted the 1984 Los Angeles Games. And again, the athletes were the victims. Consider this fact: In the 1980 Moscow Games, the East German team won the women's 4 by 100 relay race with a time of 41.60 seconds. At the 1984 Los Angeles Games, the US team won the same relay race with a time of 41.65 seconds. The U.S. and East German teams were within five one-hundredths of a second. Knowing all of this, I wish these two great Olympic champion relay teams could have competed against one another in Olympic competition. It is a sad part of our history that politicians kept this great race from happening in the Olympics. With the benefit of history, we know that the Olympic boycotts were futile and ineffective attempts to settle cold war disputes. I believe we should do absolutely all that we can to ensure this never happens again. No one can foretell the future and what actions might be called for to protect our country's national interest, but we should never again lose sight of the interests of our athletes. Unfortunately, Members of Congress are politicizing the Olympic Games. My resolution has one primary objective--to separate politics from sport and particularly from the Olympic Games. Simply put, I believe politics has no place in the dreams of future Olympians. I want to thank Senator Ted Stevens for joining me in this effort. Senator Stevens has a long history of involvement with the Olympic Movement. I am not aware of another elected official in this country who has done more for U.S. athletes than Senator Stevens. And I thank the Senator for once again standing up for the interests of U.S. athletes. The Murray/Stevens resolution on the Olympics has a number of key provisions and clauses. However, I want to focus on three sections which represent the real intent of our bill. First, our resolution encourages members of the International Olympic Committee to abide by all rules of the IOC when considering and voting for host cities for future Olympic Games. Members of the IOC take an oath which requires individual members to keep free from political influence. Our resolution calls upon the four members of the International Olympic Committee from the United States to reject all political influences on their work as members of the IOC, including their votes on host cities for future Olympic Games. Second, our resolution recognizes that any government action designating a preference or displeasure with any Olympic Games host city is inconsistent with the IOC's Charter, Code of Ethics and rules. Essentially, this provision says the IOC should not acknowledge or consider any political interference in the host city selection process for future Olympic Games. And finally, our resolution says the Olympic Games are about the athletes, that we do endorse the concept that the Olympic Games are a competition between athletes in individual and team events and not between countries. We believe the Olympic Games are best left to the athletes. It is that simple. I encourage my colleagues to consider this issue carefully in the days ahead. And I invite all Senators to join me in seeking to reject political interference in the Olympic Movement. I yield the floor.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, on June 10th families in Bellingham, WA and throughout my home State will mark the 2-year anniversary of a pipeline explosion that killed three young people. That tragic explosion changed three families forever. It shattered a community's sense of security. It showed us the dangers posed by aging, uninspected oil and gas pipelines. That disaster in Bellingham led me to learn about pipeline safety, to testify before Congress, to introduce the first pipeline safety bill of the 106th Congress, and ultimately to pass legislation in the Senate in September 2000 and again in February of this year. The Senate has done its job. Twice the Senate has passed the strongest pipeline safety measures to ever pass either chamber of Congress. Now it's time for the House and President Bush to do their part. The bill we passed in the Senate is a major step forward. It isn't everything everyone could want, but it is a significant move in the right direction. Specifically, the bill: Improves the Qualification and Training of Pipeline Personnel, Improves Pipeline Inspection and Prevention Practices, Requires internal inspection at least once every five years, Expands the Public's Right to Know about Pipeline Hazards, Raises the Penalties for Safety Violators, Enables States to Expand their Safety Efforts, Invests in New Technology to Improve Safety, Protects Whistle blowers, and Increases Funding for Safety Efforts by $13 billion. Here we are, 2 years after that disaster in Bellingham and the legislation we've passed in the Senate still hasn't become law. That is inexcusable. The Bush Administration just issued an energy plan that calls for 38,000 new miles of pipeline. As I told the Vice President in a letter recently, before we build thousands of miles of pipelines through our backyards, our neighborhoods and our communities, we must make sure those pipelines are safe. Unfortunately, the President's energy plan offered some rhetoric about pipeline safety, but no clear progress. I believe he missed an opportunity to articulate the Administration's specific proposals to make pipelines safer. I hope President Bush will agree that we shouldn't replace our current energy crisis with a pipeline safety crisis. Let me offer three ways President Bush can show his commitment to public safety. The first one is simple. We shouldn't backtrack on safety. Comprehensive new legislation which has passed the Senate and is pending in the House should represent the new minimum of safety standards. President Bush should not send us a proposal that is less stringent than this bill. President Bush should not undo the progress we made last year. And I hope he'll show a sensitivity to safety and environmental concerns that have been absent from his discussions on this issue to date. Second, President Bush should signal his support of pipeline safety legislation, which I hope will ultimately take the form of him signing a bill into law. Finally, President Bush's Department of Transportation should continue to issue administrative rules to make pipelines safer. The Clinton administration took several important administrative steps. I hope the Bush administration will show the same level of commitment. We do need to address our energy needs, but not at the expense of our safety. Let's make pipelines safe first, before we lay down more pipelines. If we learned anything last year, it's that we must not wait for another tragedy to force us to act. We must pass a comprehensive pipeline safety bill this year. In the coming weeks and months, as a member of Senate Transportation Appropriations Subcommittee, I will continue to do everything I can to improve pipeline safety by making sure that pipeline regulators have the resources they need to do their jobs effectively. I know that we can't undo what happened in Bellingham, but we can take the lessons from the Bellingham tragedy and put them into law so that families will know the pipelines near their homes are safe. Two years after the Bellingham disaster they deserve nothing less.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, how much time do I have?

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, in my last 1 minute, I will address two quick points. Our colleagues keep referring to local control. How can one define a bill against an amendment that it should be local control when this underlying bill itself requires Federally mandated testing, requires funding streams for reading, for technology, for 20 other programs? That is fundamentally a flawed argument against this. Our argument is about local control. Local schools decide whether they want to reduce class size knowing they have a Federal partner if they want to make that happen. Second, I keep hearing the Hanushek study referred to. Let me remind my colleagues that the Hanushek study is based on study of pupil-teacher ratio which includes all of the certified people in the building which is today almost everybody. Hanushek is fundamentally flawed because he does not look at class size. All of the studies that we have shown from Wisconsin, Tennessee, the RAND study, and the California study dramatically show that reducing class size increases student performance. How tragic it will be if this Senate does not approve this amendment and keep the commitment to reducing class size that we began 3 years ago. Thank you, Mr. President.

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, how much time do I have remaining?

Mrs. MURRAY. I thank the Senator for his question. Let me make it very clear, this is not a mandate. This is funds that are available to school districts to use to decrease class size. School districts that need those funds dramatically can apply for them with a simple application. The funds go directly to them. They are able to use them. It is not a mandate.

Mrs. MURRAY. Yes.

Mrs. MURRAY. I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the Senator from Washington and then 2\1/2\ to the Senator from Illinois.

Mrs. MURRAY. I thank the Chair. I yield 7 minutes to the Senator from Rhode Island.

Mrs. MURRAY. How much time remains on both sides?

Mrs. MURRAY. I ask the Senator from New Hampshire when they intend to use their time? Certainly we have several Senators coming to the floor. We would like to use our 11\1/2\ minutes. If the other side doesn't want to use their time, we would love to have some of it.

Mrs. MURRAY. The other side?

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, how much time do we have on our side?

Mrs. MURRAY. I yield 5 minutes to my colleague from Minnesota.

Mrs. MURRAY. I ask the Senator from New Hampshire when he intends to use his time? Mr. President, we have 16 minutes on our side and 43 minutes on the other side. If I could just inquire when the other side intends to use their time?

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, in a minute we are going to be voting on a very important amendment which reduces class size in first, second, and third grades and continue the commitment this Congress has made in the last three years. Frankly, I cannot believe the Senate just spent 2 hours debating whether or not smaller class size makes a difference. We know it makes a difference. Any teacher, parent, or student will tell you that, and we have the research that proves it. This vote is our opportunity to support the progress being made in schools across the country and to show that we are willing to invest in the things that work. If our colleagues vote against this amendment, in September when parents find their kids back in overcrowded classrooms, they are going to be upset. They are going to want to know why you voted against smaller classes. You can tell them about flexibility, choice, and funding pools, but the truth is, none of those buzzwords will help their kids learn to read when they are fighting just to get a teacher's attention. The choice we make today will demonstrate whether ``no child left behind'' is just a catchy campaign slogan or a national commitment. I hope it is the latter. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment, and I yield back the remaining time on our side.