Patty Murray

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 378.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I do not have any objection to waiting for the Senator from New Jersey as long as I still have adequate time to offer my amendment.

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I rise to thank Senator Harkin for his work on this amendment. I've supported this proposal in a free-standing bill, and today I'm proud to be an original cosponsor of this bipartisan amendment. And as an appropriator, I have special concerns I want to share. We agree as a country that we need to work together, in partnership at the Federal, State, and local levels, to make sure that students with special needs get the support to succeed. Under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, IDEA, the Federal Government is supposed to provide 40 percent of the average per student costs. But we all know that the Federal Government has not paid its share. This amendment will make sure the Federal Government meets its obligation to support special education. This amendment will bring us to full funding in 6 years. This amendment also has another important advantage. By moving IDEA funding from the discretionary side to the mandatory side, we will free up about $7.1 billion for education. That money can be used to pay for the costs the underlying bill imposes on States. As I have mentioned before, the underlying bill creates a number of expensive, and unfunded, mandates on States in areas like testing and accountability. We can not just demand that students pass tests. We have got to give them the tools to pass those tests. But funding all the requirements in this bill will be difficult because of the limits imposed by the President's tax cut. As a member of the Appropriations Committee, I'm trying to prevent a train wreck. I want to make sure the $7.1 billion freed up by this amendment will go to fund the mandates in this bill. If that does not happen, we will have to fund this bill's requirements at the expense of other priorities such as child care, higher education, and social services. So we need to pass this amendment because it is the right thing to do for students who have special needs, and we also need to use the money this amendment frees up to bolster our investment in education. That extra money should stay in the classroom. I have received many letters and e-mail messages about the importance of fully funding IDEA. I should like to share with my colleagues a letter I received in March from the Yakima School District in Washington State. It is from Superintendent Benjamin Soria and Barbara Greenberg, who is president of district's board of directors. They write that the Yakima School District serves about 1,800 students with disabilities, about 13 percent of the district's total school population. Unfortunately, the State of Washington only provides 12.7 percent of funding for special education. And, as we know, the Federal Government is not paying its promised share. As a result, they write: The Yakima School District must supplement state and federal funds for special education with local district dollars, this year amounting to $850,000. If the district were to receive full funding as promised by Congress, it would amount to more than $3 million to be used to meet the provisions of IDEA as intended 26 years ago. It is time for Congress to make good on a long overdue promise. I received another letter from John Cady from Seattle. John is the parent of a child with a disability. He writes: I believe that by investing in the education of our nation's children, we are enabling individual growth an productivity that will ultimately lead to financial independence and an adult life of dignity and self- fulfillment. The dollars spent on our children in Washington now are well worth the rewards both they and America will receive in the long run. Schools throughout the country are working to help students with special needs reach their full potential. This amendment will help them and will provide additional funding that we should use to support classrooms. Let's show the educators in Yakima and across the country, and parents like John Cady, that we will fully fund our share of special education.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I rise today to reintroduce the ``Community Forestry and Agriculture Conservation Act of 2001.'' Communities across the United States are losing private forest and farmland to development. Many citizens are demanding that we protect green space, control sprawl, and protect natural resources, fish and wildlife. Unfortunately, there are few options available to local communities to protect these working green spaces. Federal, state or local governments can purchase the land outright. But this is expensive, and simply unworkable for larger tracts of forest and agricultural land. Outright purchase also raises concerns about harming local economies, reducing the tax base, and hurting private property rights. Meanwhile, landowners are often land-rich and cash-poor. My bill would allow landowners to capitalize some or all of their assets. We have a responsibility to find solutions that protect private forests and farm land, enhance economic prosperity, and bring communities together in the process. The Community Forestry and Agriculture Conservation Act would accomplish these goals. The bill modifies the tax code to make it easier for communities to issue tax-exempt revenue bonds on behalf of a private non-profit corporation to purchase tracts of land. This protects the land from development, while allowing jobs that depend on harvesting the land to continue. The bonds would be serviced by harvesting the resources on the land in a responsible, sustainable way. I want to give an example of the concept behind this bill, and then mention some of the benefits. A group of community leaders would form a non-profit organization with a diverse board of directors. The non-profit organization would work with a landowner to reach a voluntary sale agreement at fair market value. The non-profit organization would then develop a binding management plan, which would allow for continued harvesting, but in a manner that exceeds federal and state conservation standards. A local government could then issue tax-exempt revenue bonds on behalf of the non-profit organization to fund the acquisition of the land. The bonds would be serviced by the non-profit organization with revenue raised by the continued harvest of trees or crops in accordance with the management plan. The non-profit would hold title to the land, but an independent third party would monitor the permanent conservation easement. There are three benefits to this bill. First, it gives communities a new tool to protect green spaces from development. Second, communities are able to keep resource-based jobs and their tax base. Third, this legislation will bring communities together. It will move us away from the conflicts of the past and will encourage environmentalists, timber companies, farmers, and local governments to work together to maintain these green spaces. This legislation is supported by a number of conservation organizations, private companies, local governments, and private associations, including: World Wildlife Fund; The Nature Conservancy; Trust for Public Land; Land Trust Alliance; Pacific Forest Trust; American Sportfishing Association; Plum Creek Timber Company; Collins Pine Companies; Mendocino Redwood Company; The Harwood Group; Port Blakely Tree Farms; Weyerhaeuser; The Campbell Group; King County, Washington; Mendocino County, California; Society of American Foresters; and the Political Economy Research Center. In addition, the Senate agreed to a modified version of this legislation as an amendment to the Senate version of H.R. 2488 in 1999. The amendment was removed during conference. As I did two years ago, I want to emphasize that this is an approach that every Senator can support. It is bipartisan. It is inexpensive. It is voluntary. It respects private property rights. It limits government involvement but establishes proper enforcement to prevent abuse. It protects the environment. It provides local control. I would like to thank Senators G. Smith, Craig, Leahy, and Daschle for cosponsoring this legislation, and I urge my other colleagues to support it as well. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I rise today to reintroduce the ``Community Forestry and Agriculture Conservation Act of 2001.'' Communities across the United States are losing private forest and farmland to development. Many citizens are demanding that we protect green space, control sprawl, and protect natural resources, fish and wildlife. Unfortunately, there are few options available to local communities to protect these working green spaces. Federal, state or local governments can purchase the land outright. But this is expensive, and simply unworkable for larger tracts of forest and agricultural land. Outright purchase also raises concerns about harming local economies, reducing the tax base, and hurting private property rights. Meanwhile, landowners are often land-rich and cash-poor. My bill would allow landowners to capitalize some or all of their assets. We have a responsibility to find solutions that protect private forests and farm land, enhance economic prosperity, and bring communities together in the process. The Community Forestry and Agriculture Conservation Act would accomplish these goals. The bill modifies the tax code to make it easier for communities to issue tax-exempt revenue bonds on behalf of a private non-profit corporation to purchase tracts of land. This protects the land from development, while allowing jobs that depend on harvesting the land to continue. The bonds would be serviced by harvesting the resources on the land in a responsible, sustainable way. I want to give an example of the concept behind this bill, and then mention some of the benefits. A group of community leaders would form a non-profit organization with a diverse board of directors. The non-profit organization would work with a landowner to reach a voluntary sale agreement at fair market value. The non-profit organization would then develop a binding management plan, which would allow for continued harvesting, but in a manner that exceeds federal and state conservation standards. A local government could then issue tax-exempt revenue bonds on behalf of the non-profit organization to fund the acquisition of the land. The bonds would be serviced by the non-profit organization with revenue raised by the continued harvest of trees or crops in accordance with the management plan. The non-profit would hold title to the land, but an independent third party would monitor the permanent conservation easement. There are three benefits to this bill. First, it gives communities a new tool to protect green spaces from development. Second, communities are able to keep resource-based jobs and their tax base. Third, this legislation will bring communities together. It will move us away from the conflicts of the past and will encourage environmentalists, timber companies, farmers, and local governments to work together to maintain these green spaces. This legislation is supported by a number of conservation organizations, private companies, local governments, and private associations, including: World Wildlife Fund; The Nature Conservancy; Trust for Public Land; Land Trust Alliance; Pacific Forest Trust; American Sportfishing Association; Plum Creek Timber Company; Collins Pine Companies; Mendocino Redwood Company; The Harwood Group; Port Blakely Tree Farms; Weyerhaeuser; The Campbell Group; King County, Washington; Mendocino County, California; Society of American Foresters; and the Political Economy Research Center. In addition, the Senate agreed to a modified version of this legislation as an amendment to the Senate version of H.R. 2488 in 1999. The amendment was removed during conference. As I did two years ago, I want to emphasize that this is an approach that every Senator can support. It is bipartisan. It is inexpensive. It is voluntary. It respects private property rights. It limits government involvement but establishes proper enforcement to prevent abuse. It protects the environment. It provides local control. I would like to thank Senators G. Smith, Craig, Leahy, and Daschle for cosponsoring this legislation, and I urge my other colleagues to support it as well. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, today I introduce a resolution honoring the Whidbey 24, the brave crewmembers of an EP-3 aircraft stationed at Whidbey Island Naval Air Station in my home State of Washington. On April 1, 2001, a United States EP-3 surveillance aircraft on routine patrol in international airspace over the South China Sea collided with a Chinese fighter jet. The plane carried a crew of 22 Navy personnel, one Air Force officer, and one Marine. Following the accident, the U.S. aircraft and crew plunged as much as 8,000 feet before the crew regained control of the severely damaged aircraft. Navy Lieutenant Shane Osborne, the pilot, and his entire crew displayed extraordinary skill and courage as the aircraft made an emergency landing at the Chinese military airfield on Hainan Island. The 24 crew members were detained on Hainan Island in the People's Republic of China for 11 days as the United States and China negotiated a diplomatic resolution to the aircraft collision and the emergency landing. When I first heard that an American plane was forced to make an emergency landing in China, like all Americans, I was very concerned. Then I learned that the crew was based on Whidbey Island, and I realized that these men and women were my neighbors--the people I see at the grocery store. The city of Oak Harbor, which is home to the Whidbey Island Naval Air Station, was immensely supportive of the airmen and their families during this incident. The community commenced a ``Bring Back VQ-1'' campaign to show their support and deep appreciation for the crewmembers and their families. Residents of the city wrapped trees and light poles with yellow ribbons. My Washington D.C. office distributed yellow ribbons to visitors and other Senate offices in an effort to demonstrate our support in the halls of Congress. On April 14, 2001, the crew returned safely to Washington State to an emotional ``Welcome Home VQ-1'' celebration at the Ault Field Hangar at Naval Air Station Whidbey Island. These brave men and women displayed uncommon courage, professionalism, and selfless dedication to duty in the service of our country, from the time of the collision and throughout their 11-day detention. While my resolution seeks to recognize the Whidbey 24, it is equally important to note that thousands of Americans serve just as honorably in service to our country each and every day. I am so proud of the Whidbey Island community for it handled this incident with great compassion for the families and NAS Whidbey personnel. But we also know that all across America, military families and the American people were standing behind our military personnel. The Whidbey Island community stood tall, proud and patriotic on behalf of the families and the country. I ask the Senate to join me in recognizing the bravery and determination of the Whidbey 24 throughout a delicate and dangerous ordeal. On behalf of all Americans, I proudly honor them and once again welcome them home.

Mrs. MURRAY

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

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, as the Senate gets ready to update our Nation's Federal education policy, I want to talk this morning about the importance of the education debate, some of the issues that we all agree on, the principles that guide my decision, and a few concerns I have as we look at this bill coming before us. Since 1965, the Elementary and Secondary Education Act has defined how the Federal Government helps students across the country. In America, we believe that no matter where you are born, no matter who you are or where you come from, and no matter whether your parents are rich or poor, every child deserves an equal chance to succeed. This law, the ESEA, puts that principle into practice. Forty years ago, many students did not get the help that they needed. Many lived in poor or rural areas that didn't have the tax base to support them. Many were discriminated against and many were left behind because they had special needs. In 1965, Congress passed the historic Elementary and Secondary Education Act to fix those problems, providing a safety net for disadvantaged students, a stepping stone to help all students succeed, and a way to help us meet our education goals. During the Cold War, ESEA helped us focus on building skills in math and science. Today, with our high-tech economy, ESEA is helping students learn to use technology. As we update this law, we are not just changing letters on a page; we are changing the law that helps make our schools more equal, more fair, and more successful for students across the country. I take this responsibility very seriously. The Senate may only debate education for a few weeks, but what we decide will be felt in classrooms across the country for a decade or more. So let's make sure we do this right. As we begin this debate, there are some things about which all of us agree. We all agree that we want every child to reach his or her full potential. We all agree that taxpayer dollars should be used for efforts that we know work. We all agree that we can make a difference at the Federal level with what we do. Otherwise, this debate would not be so heated. We know that Federal support is an important part of every child's education. Finally, we all want to be proud of America's schools. Today, there is a lot to be proud of. Every day, we hear stories about the progress kids are making. Every day, we talk to leaders who were inspired by teachers in our public schools--teachers who helped them succeed. I know I would not be here today without great public school teachers. The truth is, we have made a lot of progress as a country in improving education. This is an opportunity to build on that progress. I have been in classrooms where teachers are excited and where the kids' eyes are bright and their minds are eager to learn. In Washington State, our teachers, parents, educators, and businesses have put together annual assessments that are changing the way we think about education and expanding our possibilities. We are working on this bill because we know that States and local school districts want a Federal partner, and we are excited because we know that being a responsible partner can help make sure great things happen in every school. Because we will be talking about a lot of different issues, I want to outline some of the principles I have developed to make sure we are doing what is right for our students. First of all, we have to invest in the methods we know work. I have been saying this for years. It is critical as we update our Nation's education policy. Second, we have to protect disadvantaged students and make sure they get the extra help and support they need. Third, we have to make sure that public taxpayer dollars stay in public schools. Fourth, we have to help meet the national education goals we are committed to, whether it is making sure that every child can read, making sure every child gets the skills they need for tomorrow's workforce, or making sure every child attends a school where they are safe. Finally, we have to set high standards and provide the resources so all students can meet them. Those are my five principles as we begin this debate on education policy. Next, I want to outline some of the concerns I have at the start of this debate. First of all, so far, I do not see a commitment from this administration to provide the resources so all students can reach high standards. We can't just tell students they have to meet certain goals without giving them the support they need to get there. Just telling students they have to pass a test or their school will be reconstituted won't help a single student to learn to read or write. So far, this administration has been very vocal about saying it will punish schools that don't improve. But it has been way too quiet on how they will provide the resources so students can improve. Imposing tests and punishments without resources will not help students to learn. It will just punish them. I have a second concern, and this is about the President's testing plan. As we all know there is a lot of discussion about testing and whether or not it works. That is a debate we ought to have and I expect we will. But one thing is clear: We cannot require States to conduct these expensive tests on a yearly basis without also giving the States the resources to do what we are requiring. As a former school board member and a State senator, I can tell you what will happen. President Bush will send an unfunded mandate to the States requiring them to test students every year. The States and the districts and the schools will have to take money--some estimate the cost at $7 billion--away from things such as hiring teachers and developing curriculums to pay for the tests. That is going to end up hurting students. If President Bush doesn't pay for the tests he is imposing, students will get hurt. I know a lot of my friends on the Republican side are very concerned about unfunded mandates from the Federal government to the States, so I hope they will follow through by ensuring that we fund the tests that we are demanding. There is another important question related to these new Federal tests. How are we going to use the results of these tests? If we use test results to punish, we are not helping students. We should use those test results for what they are--a tool--to show us what areas need improvement. And we cannot stop there. We need to invest in the areas that need improvement. That is the right way to use tests: to make schools better and to allow students to learn. Finally, as I look at this proposed bill, I see gaping holes. The bill leaves out dedicated funding for class size reduction, for school construction, for teacher recruitment, and for school libraries. We know these efforts have made a very positive difference for students across this country. Amendments are going to be offered, as we work our way through this bill, to make sure it funds those important efforts. I plan to introduce one myself on class size. I look forward to supporting a number of the others. So as the Senate gets ready to begin this very important debate, I hope we will all remember that what we do here will have a real impact on students for years to come. We have an opportunity to bring success to every student across the country, to support the efforts that are working, and to continue our role as an important partner in educational excellence. Students, parents, and teachers are looking for support and for leadership, and I am going to do everything I can to make sure we provide it. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. I commend my colleague from North Dakota for his eloquent statement on education. I come to the floor today to join a number of Democratic Senators who have been here this afternoon to speak about the issue of education which is going to come before the Senate this coming week. I share their passion and their concern as we look at reauthorizing the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. It is critical we understand we all share the same goals. President Bush stated very rightly that no child should be left behind. Everyone in this body wants to make sure that no child is left behind. The Elementary and Secondary Education Act is our opportunity to do that because, as we all know, education is the key to a child's future. If they know how to read, they will make it in this world. If they can do math, they will be able to move on. If they can converse, they will be able to get a job and be successful. That is our goal for every single child. The Elementary and Secondary Education Act that is being worked on now has a number of compromises in it. It is not everything everybody wants, but the one concern that I want to express adamantly to this body before we bring this bill to the floor is the lack of available resources. It is so easy to say we set standards, we set goals that we demand our children and their schools reach. But if we don't provide the dollars for them to be able to reach those goals, we are simply putting out a mandate, an unfunded mandate, to districts which means the kids will fail. There is no doubt that if you want a child to learn to read, you have to provide the resources for a teacher who is capable. You need to make sure the class size is small enough, that the child has enough personal time with the teacher, an expert, to be able to learn to read. It is not magic. It takes a qualified teacher. We want to make sure all of our kids pass the annual tests. Just giving tests as required in the bill does not assure the students will do better. I fear it means without the backing of the resources behind it, so the children can learn what is required of them to pass the test, the children will fail and drop out of school. And, yes, 5 years from now we may have a higher percentage of kids doing better on tests but nobody will be testing the kids who didn't make it, who dropped out, who failed, who are not in the school system anymore. Those are the kids we cannot leave behind. Without the resources that are so important for success, and a commitment from this White House to have the resources available, we will have failed America's children if we move this bill forward. We know what works in public education. Any one of us who has been to a school recently knows what makes a difference. A teacher makes all the difference. A good teacher and a good principal makes an incredible difference. A parent who is involved makes an incredible difference. Unfortunately, that doesn't happen in every school. A lot of classrooms don't have qualified teachers. That is a concern. It doesn't happen just because we mandate it. It happens because we provide the resources to recruit good teachers, to help school districts hire them, and to make sure that every child is in a classroom with a qualified teacher. We know the facility that a child learns in makes a difference. I have been in classrooms, as I believe several of my colleagues have, where children are wearing coats, where there are buckets catching raindrops, where there is no electrical outlet for the children to even plug in a computer much less have a computer, where there isn't even a restroom facility in the building; they have to go outside across the way to get to one. How do you expect a child to learn in that kind of environment? It does not happen. Unless we put investments into bringing our buildings up to code and providing a partnership at the Federal level for those districts and schools that need it the most, we cannot expect children to learn. We cannot require that children only pass or move on if they have the best teacher and the best classroom and the best facility. If we do, we will have failed numbers of children in this country, and that is really the wrong policy. I will have much to say about many of these issues as we move through the Elementary and Secondary Education Act in the coming days or weeks. But I just want our colleagues to know that the worst thing we can do is pass an Elementary and Secondary Education Act without adequate funding for the requirements we are making, because several years from now we will have every school district, every school administrator, every school board member, every parent, and every teacher at our door saying you passed an unfunded mandate down to us. Instead of recruiting good teachers and building our classrooms and working hard to teach our kids, we are failing them because the only thing we are doing is providing testing. I yield the floor.

Mrs. MURRAY. I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business for 10 minutes.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I rise today to express my deep condolences to the family and friends of the 15 men who were aboard the Arctic Rose, which was lost at sea on April 2, 2001. On March 31, 2001, the trawl vessel left St. Paul Island, AK to fish for flathead sole in the Bering Sea. The boat was supposed to be at sea for about two weeks. Sometime during the early morning of April 2, however, something happened that caused the Arctic Rose to go down. We still don't know why the fishing vessel sank, but we know that 15 men lost their lives in pursuit of their livelihoods. Nine of these men were from Washington state, and all of them leave behind families, friends and coworkers. My thoughts are with the crewmen's loved ones, who are only beginning to cope with this tragedy. I also extend my condolences to the owner of the vessel, Mr. David Olney, to the employees of Arctic Sole Seafood, Inc., and to everyone who is part of this important industry. Most people are aware that fishing in the seas off Alaska is a dangerous occupation, but it still is a major shock when lives are lost at sea. We must continue our efforts to improve the safety of crews fishing in the Bering Sea and the Gulf of Alaska. One of the ways to improve safety is to allow the creation of individual fishing quotas, which guarantee catch to fishermen. This allows fishermen to wait for better weather before going out to sea. I have consistently supported using quotas as one tool to manage fisheries. Many of the Alaskan fishing seasons take place during the fall, winter and spring, when the weather is often severe. This business is inherently dangerous. The Arctic Rose had survival suits on board, but it seems the ship went down too quickly for most crewmen to even put them on. Nor were they able to get to the life raft. We should continue our efforts to improve the safety of commercial fishing in Alaska, and throughout the country, but I doubt we will ever be able to completely eliminate the hazards. The loss of the Arctic Rose reminds us of the risks commercial fishermen take every day to provide seafood enjoyed by so many people throughout the Northwest and world. Let's not take their work for granted. While we mourn the loss of the Arctic Rose, we should also thank the men and women who face these dangers every day to bring food to families across our country.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, over the last 8 years, we learned what a difference a responsible budget can make. We learned it starts with the basics, like using real numbers and not ``betting the farm'' on rosy projections. We learned that if we invest in the American people and their needs, our country and our economy will benefit. We learned that we need to be fiscally responsible. That means making tough choices and holding the line on deficit spending. And we learned that we have to work together to get things done. The last eight years have shown us that if we follow those lessons: using real numbers, investing in our people, meeting our needs, being fiscally responsible, and working together, we CAN turn deficits into surpluses, and we can transform the American economy into a job- creating machine. Today, there is a new President in office. There is a new Congress. And there are new economic challenges as our economy slows and an energy crisis grows. The times are different, but the lessons are the same. This isn't the time to throw away the handbook we've used for the past eight years. It's time to follow the lessons it offers. Unfortunately, the Administration and the Republican leadership are running in the opposite direction. And I fear that they will repeat the same mistakes of the past, mistakes that we are just now getting over. The Republican budget ignores the lessons of the past eight years. Instead of focusing on real numbers and realistic estimates, the Republican budget puts all its faith in projected surpluses that may never materialize. What's more, the Republican budget hides some of the most important numbers, the cuts that many Americans will feel, in order to pay for a huge tax cut. Instead of investing in our people, the Republican budget shortchanges America's needs. In a few minutes, I'll detail some of the budget's shortcomings in areas like education, health care and environment. Instead of being fiscally responsible, the Republican budget asks us to commit to a $1.7 trillion tax cut, which is paid for out of the Medicare trust fund. There's nothing fiscally responsible about taking money that pays for seniors' medical care and giving it away to a handful of Americans. Finally, instead of working together, the Republican budget offers an example of partisanship at its worse. The Republican leadership has skipped the committee process entirely, something that is almost unheard of: to avoid having to work out these differences in a responsible, bipartisan way. As a member of the Senate Budget Committee, I find it completely unacceptable that we would rush to the floor a $1.9 trillion FY 2002 budget with no Committee consideration. Worst of all, because this partisan maneuvering is coming at the beginning of the budget process, it could set the tone for a bitter session ahead. Our country learned a lot about responsible budgeting in the past eight years. Unfortunately today, the Republican leadership is ignoring those lessons so they can ram through an irresponsible tax cut. I don't want the American people to pay the price for such irresponsible budgeting. That's why, together with my Democratic colleagues, we are offering this alternative budget. The Democratic alternative budget takes the lessons of the past few years and applies them to the benefit of the American people. Now I would like to turn to some of the specific issues addressed in the budget, starting with a tax relief. I want to be clear that I strongly support tax relief. In fact, we should be debating immediate, real tax relief for all Americans that can stimulate the economy and help my constituents pay their growing utility bills. We should be acting on a $60 billion tax rebate that would be available this year, not in three years or five years. This type of immediate tax relief will give American families the added boost and confidence they need to held off a real recession. Instead, this Senate is acting on a budget that calls for $1.7 trillion in tax cuts based on a surplus that has yet to materialize. And we are acting before we even know the true impact of the budget. We won't know that until the President releases his detailed budget on April 9. The leadership would rather have us vote now and learn the consequences later. Now I would like to turn to a few issues that the Republican budget underfunds, which the Democratic Alternative funds at the right level. Let's begin with prescription drugs. The lack of affordable drug coverage is not just a problem for those with very low incomes. All seniors and the disabled face the escalating cost of prescription drugs and the lack of affordable coverage. One or two chronic conditions can wipe out a couple's life savings in a few short months. Originally a prescription drug benefit was estimated to cost $153 billion. But new, recent estimates show that it will take about twice that amount to provide a real benefit. We know that seniors need an affordable drug benefit that's part of Medicare. The Republican budget does not set aside enough money to provide this benefit. This Democratic amendment does. The Republican budget not only short changes the prescription drug benefit: it also robs the Medicare Part A Trust Fund surplus to pay for a scaled-back benefit. It takes money from hospitals, skilled nursing facilities and home health agencies to provide a limited prescription drug benefit. The surplus in the Part A Trust Fund should be used to strengthen Medicare and stabilize providers. I believe we can invest more of the surplus into a prescription drug benefit that all Medicare beneficiaries can access--instead of the limited benefit the Republicans offer. There is another health care issue that the Republican budget shortchanges. Today, 44 million Americans don't have health insurance. When they need care, they go to the emergency room. ER's in this country are overwhelmed and on the verge of collapsing. It is getting harder for them to treat real emergencies. I know we can do better. We can expand programs that help working families secure affordable coverage. The Democratic alternative also reserves as much as $80 billion to address the growing uninsured population. We need to expand coverage for working families to provide a true health care safety net. Congress cannot ignore the uninsured any longer. In fact, as the economy slows down the number of uninsured will only increase. We need a real safety net for working families. The Democratic alternative provides the resources to meet this challenge. The Republican budget does not. We also need to provide health care to families with severely disabled children. These families are often forced to impoverish themselves to provide care for their children. Some families must make the impossible choice between the welfare of their disabled child and the economic stability of their family. That's a choice that no family should be forced to make. The Democratic alternative invests in health care for those who lack coverage. Next I'd like to turn to an environmental issue. In the Pacific Northwest, several species of salmon are threatened with extinction. This isn't just a symbolic issue. The people of Washington state have a legal, and a moral, responsibility to save these threatened species. The Pacific Northwest needs approximately $400 million through various federal agencies to meet the biological opinion on salmon recovery. As my colleagues may know, the National Marine Fisheries Service recently finalized a biological opinion. That opinion outlines the steps we need to take to save salmon and keep removal of the Snake River's four dams off the table and out of the courts. The Republican budget does not provide the resources we need. The Democratic alternative does. In Washington state, we also face the challenge of cleaning up the Hanford Nuclear Reservation. Hanford Cleanup has always been a non- partisan issue, and I want to keep it that way. There were some press reports in February that the Bush budget would cut clean up funds. I talked to the White House budget director, Mitch Daniels, and he assured me that there would actually be an increase in funding for Hanford clean-up. However, the President's proposed cut of the nuclear cleanup program makes it difficult to meet the federal government's legal obligations in this area. Any retreat from our clean-up commitment would certainly result in legal action by the state of Washington. To avoid that and meet our legal obligations to clean up the Hanford Nuclear Reservation, we need an increase of approximately $330 million. The price of America's victory in World War II and the Cold War is buried in underground storage tanks and in facilities. And we've got to clean them up. Next I'd like to turn to the energy crisis. In Washington state, higher energy prices have already cost us thousands of jobs. One report suggests that Washington state could lose 43,000 jobs if we fail to take any action to stem higher energy costs. The short term solution to the energy crisis in the Pacific Northwest will not be found in the budget resolution. However, the framework for a national energy policy should be. The President is proposing dramatic budget cuts in renewable energy research and development. This is taking us in the wrong direction. As the Democratic alternative promotes, we should be reducing our reliance on fossil fuels by promoting renewable energy, conservation, and efficiency programs. Finally, the Republican budget shortchanges America's students. Education is a national priority, but this budget doesn't treat it like one. This budget would abandon the commitment made by Congress to education over the past three years to hire additional teachers throughout the country to lower class size. Across the country, there are almost 2 million students learning in classrooms that are less crowded than they were a few short years ago. This budget would also abandon the commitment we made last year to help crumbling schools with emergency repairs and renovations. The GAO estimated that our country needs to invest more than $112 billion to get our schools in decent shape, and we were just beginning to help communities do that. This budget would abandon the commitment we had made to students and communities to provide extra support for disabled students and disadvantaged students. Broken promises to these students means we are offering false hope rather than real support. For years, there was debate about what would improve education. Today, we know the answer: smaller classes, individual attention, good teachers and high standards. For years, there was no funding for these efforts. Today there is. Under the Republican budget, we would abandon those investments. In the Democratic alternative, we meet the need in America's classrooms. Mr. President, as I have pointed out the Republican budget takes us in the wrong direction. The Demoractic alternative we are offering today will provide tax relief for the American people, and keep our commitment to national priorities. I urge my colleagues to support this Democratic alternative.

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, the amendment Senator Akaka and I have introduced today would restore funding for FEMA's Project Impact and maintain the existing 75 percent Federal cost-share for hazard mitigation grants. The Murray-Akaka amendment would not increase any funding. It would simply keep the same commitment the Federal Government has provided in previous years. I would like to thank Senator Akaka for his work on this important amendment, I would also like to thank Senators Lieberman, Edwards, Lincoln, Cantwell, Boxer, Reid, and Mikulski for cosponsoring the Murray-Akaka amendment. On February 28 an earthquake measuring 6.8 on the Richter scale caused significant damage throughout western Washington State killing one person, injuring more than 400 people, and causing hundreds of millions of dollars in damage. It was a big scare. Everyone in western Washington has an earthquake story. Some of the biggest stories involve a small program called Project Impact. My home State was very lucky the damage wasn't worse. But communities in my State created some of their own luck by being prepared. I am proud to say the Federal Government was a good partner in those efforts. Project Impact is a pre-disaster mitigation program run by the Federal Emergency Management Agency. The premise is simple: in the 1990s, the Federal Government spent more than $20 billion responding to natural disasters. This sum doesn't count the loss of loved ones. It doesn't count the hardship Americans ensure when Mother Nature strikes. Congress and the Clinton administration decided that simply responding to disasters wasn't enough. We made the decision to invest in communities that wanted to invest in limiting the damage caused by natural disasters. That philosophy has translated into real life results through Project Impact. But just hours before the earthquake in Washington State, the budget blueprint produced by the Bush administration eliminated Project Impact. The blueprint dismissed Project Impact as ineffective. As I toured the earthquake damage in the days after the earthquake, I was left wondering who the new administration had spoken with to reach that conclusion. The administration certainly didn't speak with the City of Seattle. Seattle was one of the seven original Project Impact communities. Today, there are nearly 248 Project Impact communities in all 50 states, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands. Two days after the earthquake, I toured Stevens Elementary School in Seattle. The current school building is one of the oldest run by the Seattle public Schools. The teachers and students practice constantly for earthquakes. Stevens Elementary is one of the 46 Seattle schools that have had overhead hazards removed. In this case, I saw how Project Impact dollars were used to drain an overhead water tank and to secure the tank so it wouldn't fall through a classroom ceiling and onto students during an earthquake. In other Seattle schools, Project Impact dollars are used to disaster-proof classrooms. This involves tying down computers and strapping televisions to ensure they don't fall during an earthquake. As parents and grandparents, we want to know that our children are safe when they are at school. Project Impact has allowed many communities to make sure that more of their students will be safe when natural disasters strike. Washington State has five Project Impact communities. These communities partner with local businesses and organizations to educate homeowners and professionals about home retrofitting, to do hazard mapping, to set-up better communications systems for disaster situations, to disaster-proof schools, and to help businesses prepare for disasters. These actions are effective. These actions save lives and property and businesses. The amendment I offer today restores Project Impact funding for fiscal year 2002 and fiscal year 2003. Funding Project Impact for the next 2 years will allow us to better evaluate its success. Last year, Congress passed legislation to authorize a pre-disaster mitigation program. If Project Impact is not meeting the nation's needs for such a program, we will have the next 2 years to develop a program that will meet our goals. The Bush administration recommended other budget cuts for FEMA as well. I am especially concerned the administration's budget would reduce the Federal cost-share for hazard mitigation grants from 75 percent to 50 percent. Communities covered by a Federal disaster declaration can access hazard mitigation grants to repair or replace damaged public facilities and infrastructure. These grants help to ensure that future disasters will not cripple critical facilities infrastructure and services. The grants allow communities to make the investments when they are most likely to be effective. If the federal cost-share falls from 75 percent to 50 percent cash-strapped States and localities will not be able to afford to use all available grants. This means more lives will be lost, more jobs and businesses will be lost after a disaster, and more Federal spending will be needed to pick up the pieces when the next disaster strikes. The amendment I am offering will fix this cost-share problem and will restore Project Impact, so that communities across America can take steps today to prevent damage tomorrow. I urge my colleagues to support this important amendment.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. I am. How much time may I have?

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I come to the floor today to talk about the Harkin-Kennedy-Murray amendment which I understand will be offered shortly. That amendment is going to provide the kind of investment that we need to make if we truly want to leave no child behind. It is a noble goal, and it is one that all of us should endorse. I am glad President Bush has focused on it. Unfortunately, President Bush's budget that is before us today squanders this opportunity to ensure no child is left behind in favor of an irresponsible tax cut. Putting America's future first means putting our children first. But the sad truth is, this budget shortchanges America's students. This budget focuses on tax cuts for the few, at the expense of our children's education. We cannot ask America's students to wait in line behind a few wealthy Americans for the support they need to succeed. I have come to the floor to support the amendment that will be offered today to ensure that all students get the educational resources they deserve. The Republicans are claiming that they provide a significant increase for education funding. I have to tell you, in looking at this budget, I am unable to find that ``significant'' increase. Instead, it is clear to me that this budget jeopardizes our ability to maintain critical priorities like education. Under this budget, the actual amount of funds available for schools, colleges, and students will only increase by about $2.5 billion, which is 5.9 percent. That is less than half of the average yearly increase Congress has provided in each of the last 5 years. At a time when we are--and should be--demanding more than ever from our schools, we must now slow down the Federal investment in our schools, we must not go back on our commitment to help reduce class sizes, we must not do away with support for emergency repairs and renovations, and we must not continue to shirk our responsibility to disadvantaged students and to students with disabilities. Setting a high bar is important, but setting a high bar and failing to give kids the resources to succeed is just setting them up for failure. I want to take a moment to highlight some of the ways I believe this budget fails our country. Across our country, parents are asking us to reduce overcrowding in classrooms. They know this is a critical step in ensuring every child learns the basics in a disciplined environment. This Republican budget freezes our class size progress. Teachers are asking for more help mastering the best ways to teach our children. They know they cannot rely on skills they learned 10, 20, or 30 years ago. This Republican budget freezes our progress in improving teacher quality. Students are asking for schools where they can feel safe and secure. Certainly we have an obligation to provide that. But this Republican budget freezes our school safety progress. Parents are asking for afterschool programs so their children won't get into trouble or become victims of violence after the school bell rings. This Republican budget freezes afterschool programs. Teachers and students are asking for school buildings that are modern, are up to code, and provide a safe and healthy learning environment. This Republican budget freezes our ability to help communities modernize their aging schools. The American people are asking for a stronger commitment to the things that make a difference in children's education, and the Republicans are so busy trying to fund an irresponsible tax cut that they aren't listening. This budget freezes our progress. That is why we will offer this amendment later. It will provide the resources parents, teachers, and students are asking for. It will ensure more children start school ready to learn, that we continue our bipartisan initiative to improve student achievement and teaching by hiring 100,000 fully qualified teachers to reduce the average size of classes in the early grades. It will provide critical assistance for emergency school repairs and renovation, and will help our local districts ensure there is a high quality teacher in every classroom. It will meet our obligations to children with disabilities and disadvantaged students, and will allow communities to offer more afterschool programs to keep our children safe and learning. It will also help more Americans afford college. To justify an irresponsible tax cut, the President keeps talking about an enormous surplus. But when people from my home State come to see me, they ask an important question: How can there be a surplus when we still haven't paid our bills on full funding for IDEA, title I, impact aid, or 100,000 new teachers? I agree with them. I am glad that the amendment we will offer will help to ensure that we pay those bills. With the projected surplus, our country has the opportunity to make important choices as we begin this new century. Are we going to make the investment in education that all our children deserve? Or are we going to give deep tax cuts to just a few? Are we going to let our children continue to go to school in overcrowded classrooms, in crumbling school buildings, with underpaid, inadequately prepared teachers? Or will we rise to the occasion and make the choice to invest in our children's future? We know what the needs are out there. We know what works to help our children succeed. We just need the will of the Members of this Congress to stand up and put the money where their mouths are. Parents, teachers, students, and community leaders are saying: Don't just talk about the importance of funding education. Make the tough choices to show the American public that education is truly a priority of their elected officials. That means giving our local school districts the resources they need to provide a first rate education to every student in this country by supporting the Harkin-Kennedy-Murray amendment. I urge my colleagues, when this amendment is proposed, to vote yes for our children and our grandchildren and for their future. Mr. President, I thank my colleague for yielding me time. Mr. CONRAD addressed the Chair.

Mrs. MURRAY. Between 3 and 10 minutes, whatever you can give me.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, today I am pleased to vote to overhaul our nation's campaign finance system. The McCain-Feingold legislation represents a step forward that is long overdue. In recent years, it has become clear that our campaign finance system is broken. There's too much money in elections. It's too hard for average citizens to be heard. Their voices are being drowned out by big-money special interests and wealthy contributors. It's getting harder for citizens of average means to run for office. The system is too secretive. There are undisclosed groups giving money and trying to influence elections with no sunshine and no public disclosure. And especially after this last election, many people are wondering if their vote will count. As a result, Americans are cynical about elections and aren't participating. We need to turn that around. Ever since I came to the Senate, I've fought for campaign finance reform. I've consistently voted to get the Senate to debate campaign finance reform. In 1997, I served on the Leadership Task Force on Campaign Reform. In 1998, I offered an amendment for full disclosure. And in my own reelection campaign in 1998, I went above and beyond the legal requirements, and I disclosed everyone who supported me, whether they contributed $5 or $500. Given the problems in the system, I developed a set of principles for reform that have guided my decisions throughout this debate. My principles for reform are: First, there should be less money in politics. Second, I want to make sure that average voters aren't drowned-out by special interests or the wealthy. Third, we must demand far more disclosure from those who work to influence elections. When voters see an ad on TV or get a flyer in the mail, they should know who paid for it. There must be disclosure for telephone calls and voter guides. Citizens have a right to know who's trying to influence them. We've seen a disturbing increase in the number of issue ads, which are often negative attack ads. Too often, voters have no idea who's bankrolling these ads. Voters deserve to know and that is why I have called for far greater disclosure. Fourth, we need to keep elections open to all Americans. We need to ensure that average citizens not just millionaires can run for office. When I ran for the Senate in 1992, the most I'd ever earned was $23,000 a year. I wasn't a millionaire. I wasn't a celebrity, but I was able to run for office and win a seat in the Senate because the system was open to anyone. That's getting more difficult today. Finally, we need to make it easier, not harder, for people to vote. We need to make sure that when citizens vote their votes are counted. The bill now before the Senate makes some progress toward the principles I've outlined. I am disappointed this legislation does not go further. Some amendments have strengthened the bill. Other amendments, including raising the limits on hard money, have weakened the bill. The hard money limit in particular will inject more money into politics at a time when I, and most Americans, want to reduce the amount of money in politics. This bill also has the potential to give a disproportionately larger role in elections to third party organizations. I'd rather see citizens and candidates have a stronger voice than third party organizations. I know my colleagues recognize that this is a carefully balanced bill. If, at some point in the future, the courts invalidate some portion of this bill, Congress should return to the legislation to restore the balance of fairness in our nation's elections laws. Campaign finance reform should not be a gift to either party, but should instead return our democracy to its rightful owners, the American people. Before I close I would like to remind my colleagues that our work on election reform is far from completed. Unfortunately, this legislation does nothing to ensure that every citizen's vote counts in an election, something that is sorely needed in the wake of the Presidential election. If Congress is to truly restore the people's faith in our election system, we must ensure that every vote counts. On that matter, this legislation stands silent. On the whole, however, this bill is a significant step forward. It should help restore citizens' faith in our electoral process. It also illustrates the Senate's ability to address issues of concern to the American people. I cast my vote in favor of this much-needed reform.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, in recent days there has been much speculation regarding my position on retaining the severability of the campaign finance reform bill being considered by the Senate. First let me start by reiterating my strong and unwavering commitment to meaningful campaign finance reform. Since I arrived in the Senate, I, along with many of my colleagues, have championed an overhaul of our campaign finance system. Our system demands more disclosure and accountability, we should reduce the amount of money in the system, we should ensure that the voice of every American can be heard, and we must require fairness. I admire Senator McCain and others for their courage and persistence in pursuing this goal. Senator McCain has shown himself to be a real leader, and I enjoy working with him in the Senate. I believe the McCain/Feingold bill is a carefully crafted, balanced bill. There have been a number of amendments to this bill, some of which I have supported; some I've opposed. Campaign finance reform, in addition to reforming the excesses of the current system, must be fair and not favor any one party or group over another. If the court, at some later date, finds that some part or parts of our reform effort do not pass constitutional muster, that ruling should not be allowed to tip the scales to the benefit or detriment of one class of actors with regard to their ability to engage in political debate. As strongly as I believe in reforming our campaign finance laws, I also believe we should do a better job of supporting our public schools, providing more and better access to quality healthcare, protecting our environment, and creating family wage jobs. If my, or the people who share my positions, ability to communicate those positions is altered to a greater or lesser extent than those with other opinions, then what we have left will be fundamentally unfair. The balance of this bill could change depending on the court's interpretation. The severability issue goes directly to this point. Which leads me to why I believe this year's effort is different from previous efforts in one very significant and fundamental way. Today, we know more about the Supreme Court than we did just a few months ago. We know that the court is not beyond interpretations that would appear to favor one party over another. And that has given me pause, and, I would think, it may give my colleagues pause, when we consider the application of this law, how it will be tested in court, and what we may end up with as a result. If the Supreme Court decided to uphold limits on the amount of soft money flowing to our parties, while allowing special interest groups to spend unlimited sums to attack or defend candidates, then we will turn the electoral process over to those same special interests who we seek to limit. In this debate, too often, people who have differed with the sponsors have been characterized as wanting to ``kill'' the bill. Contrary to those assertions, this bill, with or without non-severability, is about to pass the Senate. After careful consideration, I have decided to vote against the non- severability amendment. I have made this judgement with strong reservations about how the Court could interpret the law we pass. I am not willing to participate in enacting a precedent for severability that could impact a wide range of bills to come before the Senate. Rather than adding a non-severability clause to this bill the Congress should act quickly to meet the challenges that may be presented by any future court action, and fashion a set of campaign finance laws that will serve to strike a balance and ensure fairness.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I rise to indicate that if I were present last Friday, March 23, I would have voted ``yes'' on the motion to table amendment No. 141, to the campaign finance reform bill, offered by Senator Jesse Helms of North Carolina. I was unable to participate in Friday's session because I flew home to Seattle to attend the funeral services for Grace Cole. Grace served on the Shoreline School Board for 13 years and represented North Seattle in the Washington House of Representatives for 15 years. Grace was my mentor and led the way for advocates like me to follow her from the local school board to the Washington State legislature. Grace made a difference for thousands of families throughout our State by standing up for education, the environment and social justice.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I'm sad to inform my colleagues that on Saturday, March 17th, Washington State lost a great advocate for families, and I lost both a good friend and mentor, with the passing of Grace Cole. At this difficult time, my heart goes out to her family including her two brothers, four sons, four daughters in law, and six grandchildren. I want them to know what the rest of us have known for years: Grace Cole made a difference. We are proud of her and grateful for all she did. And even though she's no longer with us, her activism and her passion live on in the men and women she led into public service. Well-known and well-loved in Shoreline, in Olympia, and among families and educators throughout our State, Grace Cole set a new standard for public service with strong words and a soft heart. She led the way for advocates like me to follow her from the local school board to the Washington State legislature. And most important, she made a difference for thousands of families throughout our state by standing up for education, the environment and social justice. Mr. President, today moms and dads who serve their communities in Washington State know they can go on to serve at the State and Federal level. Years ago, however, that path wasn't so clear. Grace Cole blazed that trail and then helped others like me follow her into public service. When I look at the Washington state legislature, I see the impact Grace Cole has made. I first met Grace in the early 1980s when I started attending Shoreline School Board meetings. During her many years of service on the school board, Grace was a strong and honest voice who always came down on the side of our children. When I decided to run for the Shoreline School Board, Grace encouraged me and counseled me. During the time I served with Grace on the school board, she always made sure we were acting in the best interests of those we served. Grace knew just what to say, and on many occasions, her wise words helped ease tense moments. In 1983, Grace was appointed to the House of Representatives. She was reelected seven times and retired in 1998. As long as Grace served in the House, I knew Washington's children had a strong advocate. In 1987, I decided to run for the Washington State Senate. Once again, Grace was there for me as a counselor, a supporter, and a friend. Even though she was running for reelection at the same time, Grace took the time to make sure that I and others could follow in her footsteps. That is the way Grace was. She set a path and helped us follow it. Grace Cole also set a new standard for what it means to be an outstanding school board member. In fact, new members of the Shoreline School Board are often measured by the ``Grace Cole Standard.'' I've heard people say of new members, ``She'll be great--just like Grace Cole.'' In 1998, the Shoreline School Board honored Grace with its first Distinguished Service Award. What made Grace Cole such an icon? First, she knew how to lead. She listened to all sides, helped bring people together, and knew how to put people at ease. She was also a community builder. She worked side- by-side with other parents to pass school levies. She put labels on letters and walked through neighborhoods knocking on doors to ensure voters would go to the polls. Most of all, Grace was compassionate and caring. Her passion for children drove everything she did. I remember her bill in the state legislature to outlaw spanking in schools. It seemed like such an uphill battle, but Grace would always say, ``Kids need to learn by example.'' She said that over and over again for years until her bill finally passed. The bill's opponents eventually went along because they realized that Grace Cole would never give up on something she believed in. In the State legislature, Grace won the respect of all lawmakers on both sides of the aisle. I knew that her time in the House was a personal sacrifice for her. She had to leave her family in Shoreline to work long hours in Olympia, then return home to attend community meetings and to help others. During all her public service though, Grace made sure to always put her kids first. For me, Grace was a perfect example of selfless community service. Today's leaders are too often judged on how much press they get or how ``visible'' they are. Grace was the person who worked behind the scenes to make people's lives better. I will miss Grace. She always knew the right thing to say, and she was never afraid of tough votes. She didn't have to be. She knew to do the right thing. Grace showed me and countless others the path to public service. Over the years, so many have followed her--starting in PTA, serving on the school board, and then going to Olympia to fight for their communities. I know that at this difficult time her four sons and their families feel tremendous sorrow. We all do, but through her work Grace left us so much to be proud of: a strong community of good schools, good neighborhoods, and good friends. Grace had such a strong and positive spirit that I have a feeling wherever she is, she's organizing a coffee get-together to make sure everyone is doing the right thing. If there are envelopes to lick, phone calls to make, or laws to write, I am sure Grace is making sure it gets done. I feel fortunate to have known Grace. I am proud to call her a mentor and guide, and I will miss her greatly.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I rise to express my support for the bankruptcy reform legislation. This legislation offers an imperfect but fairly balanced approach to reforming the bankruptcy system. Through the amendment process we have improved the bill, but it could be more fair to all sectors of our society. I am disappointed some good amendments that would have improved the legislation were rejected. The bankruptcy reform legislation that passed the House a couple of weeks ago is less friendly to individuals in adverse circumstances not of their own doing. If this bankruptcy reform bill is weakened in conference, I will have a hard time supporting it. I will likely oppose a conference agreement that looks at all like the House bill. In recent years, consumer bankruptcy filings have dramatically increased. We debated bankruptcy reform in the last two Congresses. Those discussions showed our desire to elevate personal responsibility in consumer financial transactions; to prevent bankruptcy filings from being used by consumers as a financial planning tool; and, to recapture the stigma associated with a bankruptcy filing. It is clear the system is broke, and bankruptcy reform is needed. I voted for bankruptcy reform in both the 105th and 106th Congresses, and I plan to vote for this bill. Despite these votes, I have reservations about how the unintended consequences of this bill will affect the less fortunate. The bill will have an enormous impact on women and child support. The largest growing group of filers are women, usually single mothers. The bill's overall philosophy of pushing debtors from chapter 7 to chapter 13 will have an unintended effect on women. They usually have fewer means and are more susceptible to crafty creditors seeking to intimidate and reaffirm their debts. They need the protection of chapter 7, but could be pushed into chapter 13. Women will also be disadvantaged by provisions in this bill that fail to prioritize domestic obligations. Under the provisions of this bill, women will find themselves competing with powerful commercial creditors for necessary resources, such as past-due child support, from spouses who are in bankruptcy. It is unfair to place the critical needs of families and single mothers trying to survive behind those of well-off commercial creditors. Another problem with this bill is the new filing requirements are very complex, which could result in unintended discrimination against lower-income individuals and families. Many low-income families don't have the means to combat most creditors. Because debtors must prove they are filing for legitimate reasons, those without the means to combat powerful commercial interests will be placed at an unfair disadvantage. I was also disappointed that the U.S. Senate failed to adopt some very good amendments that would have significantly improved the bill. Senator Kohl offered an amendment that would have limited the practice of wealthy debtors shielding themselves from creditors in bankruptcy behind State homestead exemption laws that allow them to shelter large amounts of money in a new home. His amendment would have placed a national cap on this exemption, and limited the abusive practice of sheltering large amounts of money in large homes. I supported this needed amendment, but it was rejected on the floor of the Senate. Several amendments were also offered that would have restricted the marketing to and use of credit cards by young people. Credit card companies are aggressively marketing to young people, and many young people are getting into massive debt. Companies should only be allowed to offer credit cards to those who can pay for them. Finally, I am disappointed that amendments were rejected that would have limited predatory lending practices. Some of these predatory loans can have interest rates over 100%. I was pleased to see that the bill included language to end the practice of using the bankruptcy code to escape civil punishment for violence, intimidation or threats against individuals using family planning services. This provision was added in the Judiciary Committee and greatly improves the bill. It ensures that those who violate the law cannot escape justice through the bankruptcy laws. This critical provision of this bill that must not be stripped or drastically changed in conference. Overall, this is a decent bill that will improve on the current abuses of the bankruptcy system. While I have concerns over many of this bill's provisions, I hope they can be dealt with in conference or in future legislation. This bill should be strengthened in conference, not weakened as has happened to other versions of bankruptcy legislation. I will closely examine a conference agreement with this in mind before voting to send this legislation to the President.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, today I am pleased to be joined by Senators Collins, Mikulski, Cantwell, Cochran, and Chafee in introducing the Access to Innovation for Medicare Patients Act of 2001. This legislation will give Medicare patients access to innovative medical treatments that are convenient and affordable and will remove a bureaucratic burden to promising new drugs. For many years, patients with diseases like rheumatoid arthritis, multiple sclerosis, hepatitis C and deep vein thrombosis could only get effective treatments in a doctor's office. This method of drug delivery puts a great burden on patients with limited mobility. Fortunately, in recent years, new medical technologies have created promising drug treatments that patients can use in their own homes. These drugs don't have to be administered by a doctor. Patients can inject the drugs themselves. So instead of traveling to a doctor's office several times a week, patients can now get the same treatments in their own homes. These new treatments, known as self-injectible biologics, mean patients can save time and have a better quality of life. Biologics are genetically-engineered proteins that must be infused or injected into a patient to be effective. If swallowed orally, biologics simply pass through the body during the digestion process and are not absorbed into the system. These drugs represent a major breakthrough in disease treatment and management. Today, many patients with private insurance and those on Medicaid have coverage for many self-injectible biologics. Unfortunately, patients on Medicare do not. Today, Medicare discriminates against these effective medical treatments and patients are feeling the impact. The time has come to remove this unfair burden and give Medicare patients access to self-injectible biologics. As sponsors of this bill, we believe that Medicare should not discriminate against patients who are treated with the same drugs either in a doctor's office or at home. The bill we are introducing today will correct this mistake and ensure that Medicare patients have access to safe, promising drugs. Our legislation has been endorsed by the Arthritis Foundation, the American Public Health Association, National Association of Retired Federal Employees, National Council on the Aging, National Farmers Union, National Hispanic Council on Aging, Association of Jewish Aging Services and the Visiting Nurses Associations of America. I want my colleagues to understand that this bill does not address the broader need for prescription drug coverage overall. Congress still must address that hole in the Medicare system. But this bill does correct a clear mistake in Medicare's payment rules for self- injectible biologics. This unfair policy has several consequences. First, it prevents patients from getting the treatments they need. The FDA has recently approved several new self injected biologics to treat rheumatoid arthritis, multiple sclerosis, hepatitis C and deep vein thrombosis. Medicare beneficiaries should have immediate access to these new treatments without delay. Many of these diseases hinder a patient's mobility and quality of life. It is difficult to explain to these patients that in order to have treatments covered they must travel to their physicians office once, twice or even three times a week. Many of these patients are disabled and depend on family or friends for transportation. Patients in rural areas are particularly hurt by this policy, where their doctor may be many miles away. These patients might have to drive 50 or 60 miles a week. For individuals living on fixed income, this policy is especially difficult. This outdated policy hits women the hardest. As many of my colleagues know, more women are covered by Medicare, and women are twice as likely as men to live with a disabling, chronic condition. Women are also twice as likely as men to live in poverty after age 65. Older women or disabled women simply do not have the same economic resources as men. In addition, many of the illnesses that could be treated with self injected biologics strike women in larger numbers. Rheumatoid arthritis and multiple sclerosis most often affect women. Any policy that limits access to new innovative treatments for rheumatoid arthritis and multiple sclerosis places women at a severe disadvantage. In addition to the impact this policy has on patients, it also affect drug development. This practice discourages drug companies from offering patients new drugs that are self-injectible. That can hinder innovations and developments in biotechnology research. In the future, companies may choose not to develop self injected biologics. Our policies should promote new drug development, not discourage it. As you know, the U.S. Senate has voted overwhelmingly to doubling NIH funding to encourage more research. it's one of my top priorities, and we are on track. However, I am troubled that patients on Medicare might not benefit from our efforts. It is counterproductive to invest in medical research, but then deny Medicare beneficiaries the fruits of that investment. I would like to briefly mention one particular new self-injected biologic treatment that has literally changed the lives of hundreds of RA patients. This particular treatment, Enbrel, took well over 10 years to develop and bring to patients. Since its introduction, however, it has dramatically improved the lives of RA suffers. I have heard from many patients about how Enbrel has allowed them to remain productive and how it has dramatically reduced their daily pain and suffering. Since RA can and does lead to disability, preventing or delaying the disabled effects of this disease means huge economic savings for all of us. Medicare should not discriminate against this new, patient-friendly therapy simply because it is self-injected. I urge my colleagues to carefully review this legislation and to talk to patients and health providers about how an outdated policy hinders access and discourages innovation and how the measure we are introducing today can give Medicare patients access to innovative drugs.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, today I am pleased to be joined by Senators Collins, Mikulski, Cantwell, Cochran, and Chafee in introducing the Access to Innovation for Medicare Patients Act of 2001. This legislation will give Medicare patients access to innovative medical treatments that are convenient and affordable and will remove a bureaucratic burden to promising new drugs. For many years, patients with diseases like rheumatoid arthritis, multiple sclerosis, hepatitis C and deep vein thrombosis could only get effective treatments in a doctor's office. This method of drug delivery puts a great burden on patients with limited mobility. Fortunately, in recent years, new medical technologies have created promising drug treatments that patients can use in their own homes. These drugs don't have to be administered by a doctor. Patients can inject the drugs themselves. So instead of traveling to a doctor's office several times a week, patients can now get the same treatments in their own homes. These new treatments, known as self-injectible biologics, mean patients can save time and have a better quality of life. Biologics are genetically-engineered proteins that must be infused or injected into a patient to be effective. If swallowed orally, biologics simply pass through the body during the digestion process and are not absorbed into the system. These drugs represent a major breakthrough in disease treatment and management. Today, many patients with private insurance and those on Medicaid have coverage for many self-injectible biologics. Unfortunately, patients on Medicare do not. Today, Medicare discriminates against these effective medical treatments and patients are feeling the impact. The time has come to remove this unfair burden and give Medicare patients access to self-injectible biologics. As sponsors of this bill, we believe that Medicare should not discriminate against patients who are treated with the same drugs either in a doctor's office or at home. The bill we are introducing today will correct this mistake and ensure that Medicare patients have access to safe, promising drugs. Our legislation has been endorsed by the Arthritis Foundation, the American Public Health Association, National Association of Retired Federal Employees, National Council on the Aging, National Farmers Union, National Hispanic Council on Aging, Association of Jewish Aging Services and the Visiting Nurses Associations of America. I want my colleagues to understand that this bill does not address the broader need for prescription drug coverage overall. Congress still must address that hole in the Medicare system. But this bill does correct a clear mistake in Medicare's payment rules for self- injectible biologics. This unfair policy has several consequences. First, it prevents patients from getting the treatments they need. The FDA has recently approved several new self injected biologics to treat rheumatoid arthritis, multiple sclerosis, hepatitis C and deep vein thrombosis. Medicare beneficiaries should have immediate access to these new treatments without delay. Many of these diseases hinder a patient's mobility and quality of life. It is difficult to explain to these patients that in order to have treatments covered they must travel to their physicians office once, twice or even three times a week. Many of these patients are disabled and depend on family or friends for transportation. Patients in rural areas are particularly hurt by this policy, where their doctor may be many miles away. These patients might have to drive 50 or 60 miles a week. For individuals living on fixed income, this policy is especially difficult. This outdated policy hits women the hardest. As many of my colleagues know, more women are covered by Medicare, and women are twice as likely as men to live with a disabling, chronic condition. Women are also twice as likely as men to live in poverty after age 65. Older women or disabled women simply do not have the same economic resources as men. In addition, many of the illnesses that could be treated with self injected biologics strike women in larger numbers. Rheumatoid arthritis and multiple sclerosis most often affect women. Any policy that limits access to new innovative treatments for rheumatoid arthritis and multiple sclerosis places women at a severe disadvantage. In addition to the impact this policy has on patients, it also affect drug development. This practice discourages drug companies from offering patients new drugs that are self-injectible. That can hinder innovations and developments in biotechnology research. In the future, companies may choose not to develop self injected biologics. Our policies should promote new drug development, not discourage it. As you know, the U.S. Senate has voted overwhelmingly to doubling NIH funding to encourage more research. it's one of my top priorities, and we are on track. However, I am troubled that patients on Medicare might not benefit from our efforts. It is counterproductive to invest in medical research, but then deny Medicare beneficiaries the fruits of that investment. I would like to briefly mention one particular new self-injected biologic treatment that has literally changed the lives of hundreds of RA patients. This particular treatment, Enbrel, took well over 10 years to develop and bring to patients. Since its introduction, however, it has dramatically improved the lives of RA suffers. I have heard from many patients about how Enbrel has allowed them to remain productive and how it has dramatically reduced their daily pain and suffering. Since RA can and does lead to disability, preventing or delaying the disabled effects of this disease means huge economic savings for all of us. Medicare should not discriminate against this new, patient-friendly therapy simply because it is self-injected. I urge my colleagues to carefully review this legislation and to talk to patients and health providers about how an outdated policy hinders access and discourages innovation and how the measure we are introducing today can give Medicare patients access to innovative drugs.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I come to the floor today to pay tribute to the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, ACOG, in celebration of their 50th Anniversary. I would also like to include the letter signed by several of my colleagues who have joined with me in offering congratulations to ACOG and to pay tribute to their efforts on behalf of women's health. With a membership of over 41,000 physicians specializing in obstetric-gynecologic are, ACOG is the nation's leading group of professionals dedicated to improving women's health care. ACOG is a private, voluntary, nonprofit organization. Throughout its history, the purpose of ACOG has been to maintain the best standards of health care for women. Today, about 95 percent of American obstetricians and gynecologists are affiliated with ACOG. Over 35 percent of ACOG Fellows are women, and over 63 percent of Junior Fellows are women. ACOG works in four primary areas: Serving as a strong advocate for quality health care for women. Increasing awareness among its members and the public of the changing issues facing women's health care. Maintaining the highest standards of clinical practice and continuing education for its members. Promoting patient education and stimulating patient understanding of, and involvement in, medical care. ACOG's reliable and informative communication with us on Capitol Hill has been a valuable asset in guiding our policy debates. Congratulations to ACOG, and thank you for providing a welcome voice to Capitol Hill on women's health policy. I ask that a letter dated February 21, 2001, be printed in the Record. The letter follows: U.S. Senate, Washington, DC, February 21, 2001. Hon. Trent Lott, Senate Majority Leader, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC. Hon. Dennis Hastert, The Speaker, U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Senator Lott/Mr. Speaker: We would like to take this opportunity to recognize the work of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG). We would also like to congratulate ACOG on their 50th Anniversary. With a membership of over 41,000 physicians specializing in obstetric-gynecologic care, ACOG is the nation's leading group of professionals dedicated to improving women's health care. ACOG is a private, voluntary, nonprofit organization. Throughout its history, the purpose of ACOG has been to maintain the best standards of health care for women. Today, about 95% of American obstetricians and gynecologists are affiliated with ACOG. Over 35% of ACOG Fellows are women, and over 63% of Junior Fellows are women. ACOG works in four primary areas: Serving as a strong advocate for quality health care for women. Increasing awareness among its members and the public of the changing issues facing women's health care. Maintaining the highest standards of clinical practice and continuing education for its members. Promoting patient education and stimulating patient understanding of, and involvement in, medical care. ACOG's reliable and informative communication with us on Capitol Hill has been a valuable asset in guiding our policy debates. Congratulations to ACOG--and thank you for providing a welcome voice to Capitol Hill on women's health policy. Sincerely, Patty Murray, Tom Harkin, Mary L. Landrieu, Louise M. Slaughter, Jim Jeffords, Jan Schakowsky, Arlen Specter, Jeff Bingaman, Kay Granger, Nita Lowey, Nancy L. Johnson, Sherrod Brown, Pete Stark, Patrick J. Kennedy, Ron Wyden, Barbara A. Mikulski, Henry A. Waxman, and James Greenwood.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, about 10 years ago--during the first Bush Administration--Labor Secretary Elizabeth Dole heard the stories and saw the statistics about the serious ergonomic injuries that American workers suffer. For 10 years, the Department of Labor--in consultation with business, labor, and Congress--has worked to enact a fair, enforceable rule to protect America's workers from the real harm caused by ergonomic injuries. Now, with just a few hours of debate, some in this body are trying to undo a decade's worth of work. In fact, their actions would preclude the Department of Labor from enacting a similar rule. That sends a horrible message to America's working men and women. It says--we know you're breaking your back--literally--day-in and day-out to put food on your table, but this Congress won't do anything to protect you from a serious injury. Today, many people wear down their tendons and their joints on the job. They go home after a long day of work and just want to pick their kids up and hold them. But they can't because of ergonomic injuries. To them, this resolution that is before us says, ``Too bad. This Congress won't help you.'' Yes. This rule will have an economic impact on business in America. But we must also consider the economic impact of injured workers. If a family's primary breadwinner can't work because of an on-the-job ergonomic injury--there is a serious economic impact to that family, that community, and our country. The human body has its limits, and this rule recognizes those limits and helps us become a safer, more productive workforce. Last week, I received a letter from a constituent, Frank Lehn, from Washougal, Washington. Washougal is a great town--the kind of town that any parent would want to raise their kids in. The gentleman who wrote me was a mill worker for 27 years-- ``performing extremely physical, manual-type labor''--as he describes it. In his email to me, he says: The constant stress of my job on my body resulted in a degenerative spinal disease, creating painful bone spurs where the nerves exit my spine. When I was finally unable to do my job, I was given a disability retirement, and now live on an $800 monthly pension. The ergonomics standard now in place came too late to help me, but I am greatly concerned about the future of the young workers who are performing the same tasks I did day after day for many years. It is crucial that we do not allow this vital standard to be weakened in any way. During my years on the job, many of my co-workers suffered painful injuries to their joints and muscles through no fault of their own. They were all simply doing their jobs. The many whose sweat and toil form the backbone of this nation need strong laws to protect their safety and welfare. Please oppose any effort to weaken or take away this nation's ergonomics standard. We should heed Frank's words, and the millions of other workers who have stories just like his. In fact, ergonomic injuries are the single- largest occupational health crisis faced by America's working men and women today. This resolution, if enacted, turns our backs on the people who build America, assist us at the grocery store, sew our clothes--the people who keep our country running. Let's be clear: Today's debate is just the latest step in a larger attempt to by some to deny progress on this issue. Many Americans will ask: Who could be against such a common sense measure? The answer: The current administration and many here in Congress. They are trying to use the Congressional Review Act to undo a rule that was called for by a Republican, and finalized by a Democrat, based on 10 years of work. Today, they are trying to undo this vital safety rule because they've been losing this debate on its merits for the last 10 years. I hope that gives my colleagues pause as they consider how they will vote on this measure: a ten year, bipartisan effort versus a highly- charged, highly-partisan debate for 10 hours. The action we are contemplating today would strip the ergonomic standard off the books forever, and require a further act of Congress to implement another one. Let's look at one claim made by those who oppose this standard: The opponents claim we don't have enough facts. Just two months ago, the National Academy of Sciences finished its second comprehensive study on ergonomics. Their conclusion: Workplace practices do cause ergonomic injuries, and ergonomics programs can effectively address those practices that cause injury. This was the second Academy study on ergonomics that upheld this conclusion. In addition to the two studies by the Academy of Sciences, the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health studied ergonomics. It found there is ``clear and compelling evidence'' that musculoskeletal disorders--or MSD's--are caused by certain types of work. And it found that those injuries can be reduced and prevented through workplace interventions. The American College of Occupational and Environmental Medicine--the world's largest occupational medical society--agreed with those findings and saw no reason to delay implementation. The studies and the science are conclusive. Other opponents claims that this isn't a significant problem. The facts prove otherwise. Each year, more than 600,000 private sector workers in America are forced to miss time from work because of painful MSDs. These injuries hurt America's companies. Employers pay more than $20 billion annually in workers' compensation benefits due to MSDs, and employers pay up to $60 billion in lost productivity, disability benefits and other associated costs. The impact of MSDs on women in the workplace is especially serious. Women make up 46 percent of the total workforce. They account for just a third of the total injured workers, but women account for 63 percent of all lost work time due to ergonomic injuries, and 69 percent of lost work time because of carpal tunnel syndrome. Women in the health care, retail and textile industries are particularly hard hit by MSDs and carpal tunnel syndrome. Women suffer more than 90 percent of the MSDs among nurses, nurse aides, health care aides and sewing machine operators. Women also account for 91 percent of the carpal tunnel cases that occur among cashiers. Despite the overwhelming evidence of the impact of MSDs due to a lack of workplace standards, we are still debating the need for this rule. The states are getting this right. Last year, my home state of Washington became the second state along with California to adopt an ergonomics rule. The rule in Washington state is helping employers reduce workplace hazards that cripple and injure more than 50,000 workers a year at a cost of more than $411 million a year. It is estimated that it costs employers about $80 million a year to comply with the standards. But when they comply, employers save about $340 million per year. Clearly, this is a cost-effective program. Nationwide, the ergonomic rule is estimated to save businesses $4.5 billion annually. That's because workers' compensation claims will fall and production will increase. I urge my colleagues to oppose this resolution. We should allow OSHA to get on with its job of protecting American workers from ergonomics injuries. If individuals have problems with the rule, I suggest they seek to modify it through the administrative process or craft legislation. Trying to use the Congressional Review Act, however, is a drastic action by desperate people. We should not allow 10 hours of debate to permanently invalidate a rule that took 10 years to implement and is clearly supported by credible science. Let's give America's workers the protections they need instead of misusing this process to eliminate the safety standards that workers and their families rely on. I yield the balance of my time.