Patty Murray

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. And that the portability for title I could also be used for private schools.

Mrs. MURRAY. If the Senator will yield for one other point, because I have continually heard that with title I funds, for over 35 years kids have not increased their abilities, and test scores don't show that, it is my understanding that we test title I students, or analyze their performances, and as kids do better, they move out of the program. So each year, we have new kids coming into the program who need the extra services for reading, writing, and basic instruction. So we are not testing the same kids year after year. When we hear the comments that student achievement has not increased under title I, we essentially haven't been testing the same group of students, and we cannot show that because they have moved out and we are testing new kids. Am I correct?

Mrs. MURRAY. I thank the Senator from Massachusetts. I don't think any of us disagree with the goal of reducing by 10 percent over 5 years the term of performance agreements--the difference between the highest and lowest achieving students. But I think to rhetorically say that we can do it through a test is very difficult. I think we all want students to achieve better. Here on the Democratic side, we believe that by providing high-quality teachers and class sizes that are reduced, where a teacher has time to teach math and English, where we are in classrooms and where students can actually learn and they are not there in overcoats because there is no heating, or there are holes in the roof, and that we continue to put Federal resources into programs that have been shown to work those achievement gaps will decrease. I hope our colleagues understand this as we move forward. I thank the Senator from Massachusetts for yielding.

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I congratulate the Senator from Maine also for working on this issue. My amendment, I think, fixes one problem with which many of us were concerned. However, regarding the title I portability funds in the bill, I am reading the language of the bill on page 127. It says: Subparagraph (b): Provided by the schools directly or through the provision of supplemental education services with any governmental or nongovernmental agency, school, post- secondary educational institution, or other entity, including a private organization or business. The language in the bill allows title I portability funds to go to a public or private school. In committee, we asked if it could go to a private school. We didn't use the word ``vouchers.'' We said: Could this portability money go to a private school? The answer is yes. That is what the language does. The amendment before us fixes the Straight A's question, but it does not fix title I portability.

Mrs. MURRAY. Yes. But the school is in control of those funds.

Mrs. MURRAY. Under title I portability provisions that are in the bill before us, it will allow families to take the title I funds they receive to any institution, school, or private--I just read all of it. They can choose.

Mrs. MURRAY. I reclaim my time.

Mrs. MURRAY. The Senator from New Hampshire has made a statement and I am looking at the language of the bill. It says. (B) if directed by the parent of an eligible child, provided by the school or local educational agency through a school-based program . . . that a parent directs that the services be provided through a tutorial assistance provided. It is not directed by the school but directed by the parent. I think that is one of the underlying flaws and concerns we have. As a former school board member, I do not know how a school district is going to manage this when parents come to the school indicating they have the right to this money, and you figure, as a school, how you do your accounting, how you determine whether that child actually gets the money, how you hire teachers. And, frankly, the parent is in control. It is very clear in the language of this bill. The Senator from New Hampshire made a very specific case that he thought it was the school. If the language reflected that, I would believe it. But the language says very clearly that the parent can take their title I money and take it to another school. We interpret that, and everyone else will, as private or public because it is not defined as public. I yield the floor.

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I yield 10 minutes to the Senator from Massachusetts. As I do so, I thank him for his tremendous leadership on our side on the issue of education and making sure all children, no matter where they are in this country, have the opportunity to learn. It is represented in this amendment which he has had such an incredible part in drafting. I thank him for that. I yield him 10 minutes.

Mrs. MURRAY. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, have the yeas and nays been ordered?

Mrs. MURRAY. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I yield the remaining debate time to the Democratic leader, who has done an outstanding job in putting together an amendment that really reflects the values of the Democrats and ensures that all of our children, no matter who they are, get a quality education. I thank the Democratic leader and yield him our time.

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I yield 10 minutes to the Senator from Massachusetts.

Mrs. MURRAY. Will the Senator yield for a question?

Mrs. MURRAY. The Senator from Massachusetts and I both sit on the Labor Committee, which went through the entire progress of this issue. I came to the floor and was trying to understand what the amendment actually accomplishes. Does the Senator recall that during the committee hearing we asked the author of the amendment specifically if funds could be used for private schools, and his response to us was yes?

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, today we are beginning a vital education debate. It is a debate in which every student, educator, and parent has a stake. Schools across America are making progress, but we cannot be satisfied with the status quo. We need to build on that progress. As we begin this debate, I am optimistic. We have the opportunity to help students across our country. We have the opportunity to invest in things we know work and to make sure every student can reach high standards. I am optimistic, but I am also realistic about the way the majority has handled education this year. While I thank Chairman Jeffords for his genuine continued efforts to keep this a bipartisan process, I have to be realistic because, in the end, this has been a sharply partisan process, and the bill before us proves just that. In committee, I worked with my Democratic colleagues to improve this bill, to make sure we kept our commitment to reduce overcrowded classrooms and to make sure that vulnerable students were protected. Unfortunately, my amendments, along with most of the Democratic amendments, were defeated on party-line votes. As a result, this bill is a flawed bill, and it will hurt students, but one would never know it by listening to its authors. I urge my colleagues and everyone who cares about public education to listen carefully to what you hear the Republicans say in this debate and also to listen for what you do not hear them say. The rhetoric the proponents of this bill are using does not match the reality of the bill. First, they talk about local control, even though this bill reduces the control of local educators by giving all the choices to State bureaucracies. They will talk about local control, even though their bill adds an extra level of bureaucracy. Next, they will talk about flexibility and suggest that Federal dollars are not flexible, but education dollars, such as the title I program, today--right now--give local educators great flexibility. In fact, one could walk into a dozen title I schools and no two schools will be doing the same thing with that money because this program today is flexible. Decisions at the school and district level are being made today. We will hear them talk about accountability, even though their bill would experiment with students' futures for 3 years before there is any measure of accountability. That is 3 full years where kids will fall behind. Finally, they talk about helping poor students, even though their bill eliminates--eliminates--the guaranteed funding those students rely on today. My colleagues will hear them talk about things that are much different from what their bill actually does. Their rhetoric does not meet the reality of this bill. Just as important, there are many things my colleagues will not hear them say. They will not talk about funding cuts, but as history has shown, when specific programs are combined into a block grant, they end up with fewer resources. Block grants will mean fewer dollars for the classrooms next year. They will not talk about how their bill will cut the lifelines that target funding to students who are homeless or neglected or of migrant workers. They will not talk about how their bill will let public taxpayer dollars be diverted to private and religious schools. They will not talk about those things, but those are the consequences of this bill. Their bill goes in the wrong direction, and students are going to lose out. Instead of making sure that every student has a chance to reach high standards, the Republican proposal before us makes it easier for kids to be left behind. Instead of ensuring we reduce class size, the Republican proposal abandons our national commitment to give students less crowded classrooms. Instead of making a national commitment to improve teacher quality, the Republican proposal fails to provide funding for professional development. Instead of ensuring that we invest in the things we know work, the Republican proposal abandons accountability, writes a blank check to State legislatures, and hopes for the best. That is not a responsible education policy. That is throwing their hands up in the air and walking away from proven methods for helping our students achieve. The Republican proposal goes in the wrong direction, and it will leave students behind. I have been traveling around the State of Washington meeting with parents, students, and educators. I have visited high-poverty title I schools, and I have visited school districts large and small. As I have been able to discuss how these policies will actually affect what is happening in the classrooms, almost every single local educator has urged me to fight this approach because they know it will hurt their students. I have come to the Senate floor today to show the American people what is at stake because they have a clear choice on how to improve education. On the one hand, we have Democrats who know that, while some schools are making great strides, we cannot be satisfied with the status quo. We believe the way to improve public schools is to invest in the things we know work, the things that are proven to help kids learn the basics in a safe, disciplined environment. We believe we should make a commitment to reducing class size by hiring more teachers, improving teacher quality, making sure we have safe and modern school facilities, and making sure children have safe educational opportunities after school. Educators, parents, and students themselves have told us these are the programs that make a difference in their classrooms, and that is why we want to make sure there are specific dollars behind those programs. That is what the Democrats are offering. Republicans go in the exact opposite direction. They say we should have no priorities. They do not want to make any commitment to the programs we know work. They do not want to make sure every student in every part of this country can benefit from smaller class sizes and improved teacher quality. It is as if Republicans have forgotten the history of our national education policy, and by ignoring that history, they are making the same mistakes again and moving us back to a time when there was less equality in education. One of the reasons this legislation was passed in 1965 was to ensure that every single child had great educational opportunities. Unfortunately, before the Federal Government became a partner in education, too many young people did not get the educational resources they deserved. That is why, in 1965, the Congress and the President enacted this monumental legislation, the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, which we are debating today, to focus resources on the students who were left behind and to help us set and meet national priorities. We are making progress in improving America's schools. More students are staying in school and taking challenging courses today. SAT and ACT scores are up, dropout rates are lower today than they were 20 years ago, and college attendance is at an all-time high, and is increasing for all students, especially minorities. We are making progress but we can't be satisfied with the status quo. But today, some in Congress want to risk letting vulnerable students fall through the cracks. So as we reauthorize this legislation, we must stay true to its most basic principle--that no child is left behind. But as we worked in committee on this legislation, I watched as the majority moved away-- far away--from that very basic principle. I would like to mention that--according the Republicans--the Straight A's part of their bill is based on the policies of one State. And guess which Sate it is. It is Texas. Now I happen to like the State of Texas, and I know Texas educators are as good as any in America. But there is only so much they can do with the bad policies they have been given. After all, Texas ranks 45th in SAT scores. That is at the bottom of the pack. In Texas, minorities are twice as likely to drop out of school as white students. Texas schools have some of the Nation's highest dropout rates--which, by the way, makes the test scores of the remaining students look higher. Texas, after all, is a State that doesn't even require kindergarten. A recent Washington Post article noted that many education experts have concluded the ``Texas Miracle'' is more of a mirage. We should base our national education policy on the things that we know work around the country--drawing success stories from educational innovators in every corner of the Nation. And we can do better than the one state the Republicans chose to highlight with this bill. I would like to spend a few minutes talking about what these Republican block grants will mean for students because block grants could hurt America's most vulnerable students. Today, many Federal education dollars are targeted to the students who need them the most. This ensures that money intended for poor students actually goes to poor students. It is a responsible, accountable way to meet the specific needs of students who would otherwise likely be left behind. But the block grant proposal before us would allow those dollars to be used for any educational purpose--completely abandoning the targeting that ensures poor students get the help they need. Recently, here on the Senate floor, one of my colleagues described the requirements that Federal dollars can only be used for specific purposes--as ``strings.'' Let me read you his entire quote, He said: On the other side of the aisle, they want to have a string running from every desk out to every classroom in America; 30,000 strings running off the desks, and pull a string here and there so every classroom in America has to fall into exactly what we outline in Congress. My colleague calls the targeting of these dollars ``strings.'' I served on a local school board. I think it is a good thing that hard- earned taxpayers dollars intended for a specific purpose actually go to that specific purpose. It is responsible, and it is accountable. Now I do agree that some Federal programs require too much paperwork and that we can't accept the status quo in education--but the overall idea that money intended for kids in need actually goes to kids in need is vital. Let me give you an example. Recently, my office received a letter from Brenda Pessin. She directs a program that helps students who are migrant workers. These students rely on Federal education dollars targeted to meet their needs. Ms. Pessin--as director of the ESTRELLA program of the Illinois Migrant Council, wrote to me: After many years of working on the program, I can say without question that it is truly a lifeline for migrant children and their families. There is simply no way that the essential services provided by the program to this special population--with such unique needs--will be continued under a block grant. My colleague calls them ``strings.'' But according to Brenda Pessin-- who sees every day how these programs help vulnerable students--they are ``lifelines.'' I am inclined to listen to Ms. Pessin. I want everyone to understand what these proposed block grants would do. They would cut the lifelines to vulnerable students. Let me say that again. Block grants would cut the lifelines to vulnerable students. If you look at this chart, shown here is a targeted Federal education dollar. It is surrounded by some of the services it guarantees for vulnerable students. Shown here is an uncrowded classroom. Shown here is transportation so homeless students can get to school. Shown here is money targeted for technology training. Shown here is extra time and attention from a qualified teacher. And over on this side of the chart is shown two real students who depend on these programs and who represent hundreds of thousands of other students. Shown up on top of the chart is Nikki. Nikki is an 8th grade student in Pennsylvania who is homeless. She is normally an A and B student but she was falling behind in two classes and at risk of failing 8th grade. Furtunately, today we have a lifeline--shown right here on the chart--going to homeless students. It is called the Education for Homeless Children and Youth program. It is money the Federal Government sends to States with the requirement that it be used to help homeless students. This program provided the funding Nikki needed to get extra help in the classroom and to buy the school supplies her family couldn't afford. You know what. Today she is doing much better in school. Nikki is not alone. There are between 600,000 and 1 million homeless students nationwide. Most States and localities provide no money for homeless education. In fact, currently the Federal Government only provides enough money to serve 37 percent of homeless students. So right now we are not doing enough to help these vulnerable students, but at least today we know that the dollars targeted to homeless students are homeless students. If that targeting was taken away--and that money could be used for anything else--who knows how students like Nikki would get help? Block grants would eliminate the guarantee we make to Nikki right now. Now I am not suggesting that States would misuse the money--but wouldn't you rather keep our commitment to Nikki? Wouldn't you rather know that--no matter what happens--the Nikki's of America won't be left behind? We know that before we had a Federal commitment, homeless children were left behind. That is why I am fighting to keep our commitment that money for homeless students should go to homeless students. Block grants would cut this lifeline to Nikki and the more than half a million homeless students like her. Down here on the chart is shown Ancelmo. Ancelmo is just finishing high school in the Yakima Valley in Washington State. When Ancelmo was growing up, his parents were migrant workers. They moved around several times a year in search of work, and Ancelmo had to change schools every time his family moved. Just as Ancelmo started to make a connection with a teacher, and began to feel comfortable with his classmates, he was moved away to another school, in another town--through no fault of his own. Unfortunately, sitting in a classroom is not always an option for migrant students like Ancelmo. As they grow older, their families begin to rely on the work they can do. Many migrant students join their parents in the field--working long hours to help make ends meet. Students like Ancelmo are trapped. His family needed him in the field, but he needed to be in the classroom so he could get a good education and improve his life and his family's life. Fortunately, today, we have a lifeline going to migrant students like Ancelmo. Thanks to the federally funded Migrant Education programs, Ancelmo could travel from town to town or State to State and his academic and immunization records followed him. Thanks to Federal funding, many States have established a system of interstate collaboration to help migrant students meet the high academic standards. Without this collaboration, migrant children are in danger of falling further behind. Thanks to federally funded Migrant Education programs, Ancelmo has been able to follow his dream of working with computers. He had to overcome a lot of barriers--like learning to speak English, and staying at school long hours to have access to a computer. But today--you know what?--Ancelmo has achieved his goal, and he serves as the computer technician for his entire school. Ancelmo hopes to go on to become a telecommunications specialist. Thanks to federally funded Migrant education programs, teachers were able to work directly with Ancelmo and address his specific needs as a migrant student. He was not lost in the shuffle. Because of this attention to his specific needs, he learned quickly and gained confidence in his abilities. Ancelmo is now a great asset to his community. He is a leader in church programs. He has served as captain of his football, baseball, basketball and soccer teams. He volunteers in the Big Brothers, Big Sisters program. He takes time to talk to children about staying away from drugs, and he spends his summers as a peer leader for other teens. One of the reasons we need a national commitment to migrant students is because they move from town to town and State to State. I would hate to think of what would have happened to Ancelmo if his family had moved him to a State where there was no guaranteed funding for migrant education. That would have hurt not only Ancelmo, but the other students in his class who would be forced to do more with less. Ancelmo's entire community would have lost out on his talent and leadership as well because there would not have been any guarantee that his schools would address his specific needs as a migrant student. He would have fallen through the cracks. Ancelmo is not alone. there are 718,000 students nationwide who depend on the Migrant Education Program. A block grant would eliminate the guarantee we make to students such as Ancelmo. Now, I am not suggesting that States would misuse the money, but wouldn't you rather keep a commitment to students like Ancelmo? Wouldn't you rather know that no matter what happens, these students won't be left behind? That's why I'm fighting to keep our commitment to vulnerable students. Block grants would cut this lifeline to 718,000 students like Ancelmo. Look at these kids. They are cut off from the lifelines that meet their specific needs. That's what happens to them when block grants are imposed on them. Their lifelines to vital services are cut, and they are more likely to fall through the cracks. So at the heart of this education debate is a simple question: do you want to make sure that Federal dollars are guaranteed to go to the students who need them the most? Or do you want to take a chance? Do you want to cut students' lifelines to success? Unfortunately, some of my colleagues say those dollars should not be tied to specific programs, including these programs that make sure money gets to students who are homeless and migrant. Some Members of the Senate would even let public school dollars be drained away into private schools. Let me be clear: A block grant can't educate a single child. A block grant can't teach a child to read. A block grant can't help a single child learn the basics. But a committed investment in the things we know work, such as improving teacher quality and reducing class size, those specific things can teach children to read. We should be investing in the things we know work, not experimenting with block grants. We have a positive plan to invest in the things we know work. The first step is to make sure that disadvantaged students don't lose out. The simple question is, is it worth keeping the guarantees to these students? I think the answer is clear. I think Nikki and Ancelmo would tell you: Don't cut the lifeline we depend on. Unfortunately, students like Nikki and Ancelmo--and their parents-- don't always show up at school board meetings. They don't show up in their State capital or here in Congress to say, Don't cut this program. So we've got to be their voice and speak out against the block grants that will cut their lifelines. Mr. President, that is only one of the problems with the Republican proposal. Another major problem with block grants is they mean less money for the classroom. Right now, Republicans want you to believe that they will keep the same amount of money available for education. But when those dollars are combined into a block grant, we know they will be cut. Block grants mean less money for the classroom. You see, block grants are not a new idea. They are an old and failed policy. One of the reasons block grants don't work is because they don't serve a specific purpose. And when there is not a clear purpose, it is hard to make progress toward a goal. That is why education policy today is targeted. We have programs that are focused on poor students, on gifted students and on reducing class size. But Republican block grants have no specific purpose. In effect, they're just a blank check. And the trickiest part about block grants is they have a history of shrinking. Here in Congress, we have many examples of programs that were turned into block grants. And once they were turned into block grants, they were squeezed and cut every year. Let me give you an example. Title VI is an education program that funds innovative education programs including programs to increase local flexibility, reduce administrative burdens, and provide services for private school students. In 1982, Congress provided about $708 million. But that year, Title VI was turned into a block grant and over time its budget was cut again and again. By 1999, funding for this program had been cut by 50 percent, chopped in half. That's fewer dollars for the classroom after it was turned into a block grant. In contrast, other education programs that weren't turned into block grants were increased, such as education technology and Title I. But this one, which was turned into a block grant, was squeezed. That's what we can expect out of block grants. And the consequences of these block grants will be felt in classrooms across the country. Kids will get fewer resources. That means that classrooms across the country would be overcrowded. New schools won't be built, and teachers won't get the training they need. Anyone who votes for a block grant is saying: I know that under block grants, students will end up with less money, and that's OK with me. I'm here to say that is not OK. We can't let block grants be used to cut education funding. Mr. President, in addition to cutting the lifelines to vulnerable students and cutting education funding, block grants would reduce accountability. Parents, teachers and all taxpayers want to know where their hard- earned tax dollars are going. Today, we know where Federal education dollars are going. And today, we know they are targeted to the students who need them most. The block grant proposal contained in the ESEA bill would eliminate that accountability, and I'm on the floor to say we must keep our education budget accountable. Unfortunately, block grants provide no accountability for where education dollars are going. Block grants provide no accountability to ensure those dollars are targeted to our most vulnerable students. And block grants provide little or no accountability for student achievement. In fact, the Republican proposal would engage a risky, three-year experiment--an experiment that is not based on any proven strategies-- all with the hope that 3 years down the road, students will not have fallen behind. Let me be clear about one thing: While many schools are making dramatic gains, we cannot be satisfied with the status quo. We need to make sure all students are achieving at high standards. So the question is: What's the best way to improve public education? After my own experience as an educator, a parent and a school board member, I've seen that making an investment in the things we know work--reducing classroom overcrowding and improving teacher quality--is the way to improve public education. Today, the Federal Government provides only 7 percent of all education funding. The Federal Government's role is small. But we Democrats want to make sure that every one of those Federal dollars are going where they will help students the most. That means making sure they remain targeted to vulnerable students and investing in reducing class size, improving teacher quality, helping school districts build new schools and modernize old ones, and closing the digital divide. Even though the Federal Government only provides 7 cents of every education dollar, we know where that money goes. We can tell parents how many children are being helped by specific programs. This chart shows how many students are served by specific programs and who will lose under the block grant provisions of S. 2. For example, who will lose? Mr. President, 12.7 million children in a title 1 program; 71,300 parents and students, or 32,000 families, will lose in the Even Start Program; 197,000 students in the Neglected and Delinquent Youth Program; Class Size Reduction Program, 29,000 teachers and 1.7 million children. The list goes on. Under all of these programs, we see millions of real students who are going to lose out under block grants. Republican block grants would take all of these vital programs, pool the money together, and then write a blank check to the States, with no accountability. Today, we know where our tax dollars are going. But under block grants, we could not even tell taxpayers where their money was going. That is not responsible accounting budget, but that is the approach the Republicans are taking. The other side thinks Federal dollars should not be targeted to meet specific needs. But many educators have told me that if these dollars were not targeted, the kids who need them the most would not get them. Block grants provide no focus on proven, effective strategies to improve schools. States could even start private school vouchers that would drain funds away from public schools, where 90 percent of the students are enrolled. They would take the money from these programs and they could use it for that under this bill. When it comes to accountability, Federal education dollars are seven times more targeted to poor students than State and local dollars. That targeting ensures that poor kids have the resources they need. Unfortunately, the first thing block grants will do is eliminate that targeting. It's not hard to predict the results--poor students will end up with fewer resources. Today, we know money is targeted to poor children. We have accountability. Under block grants, we don't know. There's no accountability to meet the needs of poor students. Next I'd like to turn to student achievement because, unfortunately, the Republican block grant proposal requires little or no accountability for better student achievement. The bill does not define what, if any, consequences schools would face if they fail, nor does it specify when failing schools would face consequences. A state would be free to ignore failing schools and the disadvantaged students who attend them. Only after 3 years are states held accountable for educational results. And even then, the accountability is weak--it just says that states must follow the underlying law. By that time, students have lost three critical years of learning. Mr. President, this Republican Congress would take students across the country on a three-year experiment that is not based in proven, effective strategies, that will cut the lifelines to vulnerable students, and that will mean less money for the classroom, and less accountability to taxpayers. That's not a sound education policy-- that's a disaster waiting to happen. Under the Republican experiment, there will be no guarantee that money for poor students will go to poor students. Under their experiment, there will be no guarantee that money will go to the proven strategies that help students. They would have us experiment like that for three years, and then we'll see what happens to the students. Anyone looking at that proposal can see poor kids are going to fall behind when resources are no longer targeted to them. Democrats want accountability in education programs. We think we need to be able to tell taxpayers where their hard-earned tax dollars are going. We think we need to be able to tell taxpayers their money is being targeted to the most critical needs. And we think we need to be able to show taxpayers that students are improving. And we don't think we can take three years of a child's education and experiment with that critical time, when students need to master the building blocks of learning. Today, we know where tax dollars are going. Under block grants, we don't know. Today, we know money is targeted to critical needs. Under block grants, we don't know. Today, we know public tax dollars will stay in public schools. Under block grants, we don't know. Under the Republican bill, we would experiment for three years and hope students don't fall through the cracks. That's why we're against this proposal. Democrats want to keep our education dollars accountable. I urge my colleagues to reject block grants and stand up for accountability. So, Mr. President, that's the Republican agenda: block grants and vouchers, cutting lifelines to vulnerable students, less money for the classroom, and less accountability to taxpayers. Parents, teachers and students have told us that agenda won't help all students reach their potential. They want us to invest in the things they know make a difference in the classroom--proven, effective strategies like reducing overcrowding. Two years ago, we agreed on a bipartisan basis that we would help school districts hire 100,000 new, fully-qualified teachers to reduce classroom overcrowding. This year, 1.7 million students across the country are learning in classrooms that are less crowded than they were the year before. These students are learning in classrooms where teachers can spend more time teaching, and less time dealing with discipline problems. These students are getting the individual attention they need to learn the basics. During the upcoming debate, I plan to offer an amendment to this bill to authorize the class size reduction program. This program has been so successful and we should authorize it so that it can help every student in this country reach high academic standards. Throughout my state I've heard from superintendents, principals, teachers, and parents that reducing class size is really making a difference. We can't abandon this commitment to our schools! Don Worley, of Kettle Falls Elementary School in Washington State recently told me: The class size reduction program is one of the best things for kids from the federal government in a long time--reading scores are up and this is really making a difference. I ask my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, why would you want to abandon an effort like this when it's really making a difference? The first grade teachers at Eisenhower Elementary School in the Vancouver School District recently sent me a list of how smaller class size is making a difference in their school. They said the following things-- ``Each student receives significantly more one-on-one help for academics and behavior.'' ``More curriculum is covered in all areas.'' ``Students are leaving the classroom with the ability to read.'' ``Students have less ``wait time'' for all kinds of teachers responses.'' ``More time is available to really get to know the student.'' And ``less paperwork leaves more time for students.'' Those are the words of teachers, who are telling us this is making a difference. That's why I plan to offer an amendment that would provide $1.75 billion to our schools to reduce class size in grades 1 through 3. This amendment will target the money where it is needed within states, and 99 percent of the funds will be disbursed directly to local school districts on a formula which is 80 percent need-based, and 20 percent enrollment-based. The class size reduction program will ensure local decision-making and flexibility. School districts can use all funds to reduce class size, or use up to 25 percent for other needs. Any school district that has already reduced class size in the early grades to 18 or fewer children can use funds: to further reduce class sizes in the early grades, to reduce class size in kindergarten or other grades, or to carry out activities to improve teacher quality, including professional development. In small districts where the funding level is not enough to hire a new teacher, districts can choose to spend the funds on other activities, such as professional development, recruitment, testing new teachers, or providing professional development to new and current teachers of regular and special needs children. Mr. President, if you look just in my state at how different school districts are using their class size money, you can see how flexible the program is. In Washington, the North Thurston School District is using all of their money to hire teachers to reduce class size. At the same time, the Pomeroy School District, which is a rural district in Eastern Washington, used 100 percent of their funding for professional development for their teachers. The Seattle School District even used a portion of its funding to recruit teachers. The class size reduction program is simple and efficient. School districts fill out a one-page form, which is available on-line. And let me just add that teachers have told me that they have never seen money move so quickly from Congress to the classroom. Linda McGeachy in the Vancouver School District recently said: ``the language is very clear, applying was very easy, and these funds really work to support classroom teachers.'' Mr. President, I've worked as an educator, and I know it makes a big difference if you have 18 kids in a classroom or if you have 25 or 30 kids in a classroom. Smaller classes provide a better environment for kids to learn the basics with fewer discipline problems. And smaller classes are an example of how Democrats are making a commitment to improving public education. Republicans won't make that commitment, and the American people are going to get to decide which approach will help students more. We believe that we should put our money behind the things that local educators tell us produce results. We believe that we should keep our commitment to vulnerable students. We believed that we should keep education dollars accountable. And we believe that we shouldn't let block grants shortchange students. If you agree that we can't turn our backs on vulnerable students and critical needs, if you agree that we can't break our commitment to the things that are improving America's schools, and if you agree that we can't let block grants cut education funding and hurt students, I invite you to join our effort--along with thousands of parents and educators across America--to reject block grants and finally make a real, national commitment to the strategies that are revolutionizing America's schools. Join us in this effort--let your Senators know they should reject block grants and instead support smaller class sizes, safe and modern schools, and high-quality teachers. Students across America are depending on it.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I rise today to express my strong support of the rights of crime victims and of all Americans. In the last few years, Congress has passed laws to increase the rights of crime victims and their families. Congress has provided crime victims the right to attend and to speak at court proceedings, the right to be notified of a criminal's parole or escape, and the right to receive restitution. Congress has been able to expand victims' rights by doing what we do often--pass laws. Today, we are asked to do something we do very rarely--to amend the United States Constitution. I support crime victims. I want to expand their protections, but I don't believe that amending the Constitution is the best way to do it. As the examples I mentioned have shown, we can expand and clarify victims' rights significantly--without tampering with the Constitution. A constitutional amendment is not necessary to help crime victims. Any time we think about changing the Constitution, we must consider the words of James Madison, its principal author. Madison explained that amending the Constitution should only be reserved for ``certain great and extraordinary occasions,'' when no other alternatives are available. Despite all the changes in our country over the last 213 years, we've only amended the Constitution on 27 occasions, 10 of which were the Bill of Rights. Most of these constitutional amendments were passed to reflect fundamental changes in the attitudes of Americans such as ensuring the rights of minorities and the right of women to vote. This is not a ``great and extraordinary occasion.'' In the last 20 years, we in Congress and the states have done a good job of ensuring better and more comprehensive rights and services for crime victims. There are more than 30,000 laws nationwide that define and protect victims' rights. There are tens of thousands of organizations that provide assistance to people who have been victims of crime. Thirty-two States have passed constitutional amendments in their own state constitutions to protect the rights of crime victims. My own home State of Washington has both laws on the books and provisions in our state constitution that provide crime victims and their families the right to attend trial, the right to be informed of court proceedings, the right to make a statement at sentencing or any proceeding where the defendant's release is considered, and the right to enter an order of restitution. There is no evidence that the laws in my state and others like it are failing to protect victims. Not only is this not a ``great and extraordinary occasion,'' but this amendment could actually erode the rights of Americans rather than expand on them. Defendants in criminal proceedings in this country are presumed to be innocent. This amendment would give victims and their families the right to be heard at all critical stages of the trial. This amendment could allow victims to sway the trial against a defendant before they have been convicted, thus seriously compromising the presumption of innocence. The amendment could also compromise a defendant's right to a fair trial. Judges have enormous discretion in determining which witnesses should be able to attend the proceedings in their courtroom. Many times, a witness' testimony could be compromised if that witness hears the testimony of others. For example, if the victim is allowed to hear the testimony of the defendant, the victim could change his or her testimony based on what the defendant said. Even worse, if a victim attends the testimony of the accused, the trauma or intimidation they experience could damage their subsequent testimony. The judge should have discretion over who can be excluded from the courtroom at particular stages of the trial to ensure that the defendant has a fair trial. This amendment would give victims the right to attend the entire criminal trial regardless of whether the judge believes their presence could taint the fairness of the proceeding. Judges help ensure that defendants have a fair trial. This amendment would jeopardize that protection. The amendment could also affect defendants and the prosecutors' ability to present their case. The amendment would give victims a right to intervene and assert a constitutional right for a faster disposition of the matter. In many cases, the defendants and prosecutors need time to develop their arguments. This amendment could force a premature conclusion to cases that may require additional deliberation. In some cases, the victims are actually defendants. This happens many times in domestic violence cases when the abused victims finally defend themselves from their attacker. In these cases, the abuser could actually be granted special rights that could place a domestic violence victim at greater risk. Why should the abuser get special rights? This is one reason why many domestic violence victims' advocates oppose this amendment. Finally, the proposed victims' rights amendment could hurt effective prosecutions and would place enormous burdens on the criminal justice system. The amendment gives victims the right to be notified and to comment on negotiated pleas or sentences. More than 90 percent of all criminal cases do not go to trial but are resolved through negotiation. Giving victims a right to obstruct plea agreements could backfire by requiring prosecutors to disclose weaknesses in their case. It could also compromise the ability of a prosecutor to gain the cooperation of one defendant to improve the chance of convincing others. In the end, guilty defendants could better present their case if they are privy to strategy and details of the prosecutions' case. The rights of notification could also result in large burdens on the criminal justice system, compromising resources to effectively prosecute criminals. An amendment to the Constitution is not the right approach. We should continue to do the things that have worked in the past without taking this drastic step. Current State and Federal laws give victims extensive rights at trial. For these reasons, I have cosponsored a proposal by Senators Leahy and Kennedy. This statutory change would give crime victims the right to be heard and be notified of proceedings and the right to a speedy trial. It would also enhance participatory rights at trial and do other things to give victims and their families a greater ability to get involved in the prosecution of the criminals that harmed them. All of these rights would be subject to the judge's discretion. We in Congress should not be in the business of telling judges how to balance the rights of the accused and those of the victims. I urge my colleagues to support the Leahy/Kennedy compromise and reject the constitutional amendment that may do more to compromise the rights of Americans rather than expand them. Before, I close, I want to make one final point. If we really want to do something for crime victims, we should reauthorize the Violence Against Women Act, VAWA, which expires this year. If we do not act, we jeopardize funding and we miss a vital opportunity to strengthen this historic act. Even using conservative estimates, one million women every year are victims of violent crimes by an intimate partner. We know that one in three women can expect to be the victim of a violent crime at some point in her life. The chance of being victimized by an intimate partner is ten times greater for a woman than for a man. Domestic violence is statistically consistent across racial and ethnic lines--it does not discriminate based on race or economic status. Eighty-eight percent of victims of domestic violence fatalities had a documented history of physical abuse and 44 percent of victims of intimate homicide had prior threats by the killer to kill the victim or self. These are frightening statistics and show us that violence against women is a real threat. How will a Constitutional amendment prevent these crimes or even provide safety and support to the victims? VAWA changed the entire culture of violence against women and empowered communities to respond to this devastating plague. Since 1995 we have provided close to $1.8 billion to address violence against women. VAWA funding supports well over 1,000 battered women shelters in this country. The National Domestic Violence Hotline enacted as part of VAWA, fielded 73,540 calls in 1996 alone, and in 1998 the hotline fielded 109,339 calls. We have many success stories and we know what works. There is no reason to delay reauthorization. We still have so much more to do. We know the demand for services and assistance for victims is only increasing. As a result of more outreach and education, women no longer feel trapped in violent homes or relationships. Domestic violence is no longer simply a family problem but a public health threat to the community. While we have seen an explosion in funding for battered women's shelters, we also know that hundreds of women and children are still turned away from overcrowded shelters. We have heard reports that individual states had to turn away anywhere from 5,000 to 15,000 women and children in just one year. I know that limited safe shelter space is a growing problem in Washington state. What can we do for these victims? What rights do they have? The reauthorized legislation, S. 51, provides much greater hope to these victims than even federal and state laws to protect the rights of victims in the court process. The bill currently has 47 cosponsors. If we are concerned about victims and the rights of victims we should be acting to reauthorize and strengthen VAWA.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Apple Orchard Diversification Act of 2000. Mr. President, I am proud that Washington state produces more apples than any other state in the nation. The apple industry is an independent group. It has made Washington state and U.S. apples and apple products popular in many corners of the world. In the mid-1990s, growers were doing well, markets were opening and expanding, and the future looked bright. But in 1998 and 1999, the bottom fell out from under them. Low prices and weather-related disasters devastated apple producers, and growers of hundreds of other commodities nationwide. In northeastern and mid- Atlantic states, fruit and vegetable growers were hit hard by freezing temperatures and drought. In the Pacific Northwest, some growers were hurt by bad weather. But the biggest problem is low prices. These low prices are caused by the Asian financial crisis; by market access problems; by below-cost apple juice concentrate dumping by China; by record world-wide production and oversupply; and other factors. The results are devastating, especially in my home state of Washington. Nationwide, the industry lost an estimated $300 million on the 1998 crop. In Okanogan County in Washington state, some organizations have estimated that 90 percent of apple growers will not recover their 1999 expenses. Okanogan County already experiences high unemployment. It cannot afford a long-term, depressed farm economy. The county declared an economic disaster and urged the state to do the same. Meanwhile, other counties, especially in north central Washington, are trying to respond to this disaster. Many growers will go out of business. Others will not be able to get commercial lending this year. The Administration and members of this Congress are working to resolve some of the issues facing the industry and rural communities. Last year, Congress passed a large disaster relief package for agriculture. I supported this package because it kept many producers above water for another year. However, like many of my colleagues, I was frustrated this package did not do more for specialty crop producers. Congress provided $1.2 billion in crop loss assistance. Specialty crop producers, including apple growers, were eligible to receive assistance to address weather-related disasters, and some growers did. But, in states like Washington, the aid package did too little. Fortunately, action is occurring on the most important issue facing the apple industry. Earlier this month, the U.S. Department of Commerce levied anti-dumping duties of 51.74 percent on the majority of imports of below-cost apple juice concentrate from China. The Administration's preliminary anti-dumping duty ruling in November 1999 helped our producers by raising the price of both juice apples and concentrate. By May 22, the U.S. International Trade Commission will make its final injury ruling. If an injury determination is made, the Administration will implement anti-dumping duties at the levels prescribed by the Commerce Department. Our second victory was to address pest control in abandoned orchards. During my trip to central Washington last August, I heard from community leaders that this was a real problem. Low prices have caused many producers to abandon their orchards, and some of these orchards became infested. Infested orchards impact the operations of other producers and create potential trade problems. In response, counties tore out trees and sprayed orchards. But last year, funds in many counties were running low. USDA holds defaulted loans on some of these abandoned orchards. Last year, I urged the agency to take responsibility for pest control on those properties. The Farm Service Agency in Washington state created a strategy for reimbursing counties for pest control In October 1999, I wrote to Secretary Glickman to urge him to approve FSA's reimbursement strategy. Shortly thereafter, USDA implemented this initiative so counties could continue to control pests. The third victory for apple and specialty crop producers may come soon, when President Clinton signs risk management reform legislation into law. The bill passed by the Senate would make major changes to federal crop insurance policy to ensure that all producers, including specialty crop growers, will have access to more viable risk management products. But more needs to be done. My highest priorities for agriculture remain investing in research, expanding trade, and providing a safety net when economic and natural disasters strike. Last November, I introduced S. 1983, the Agricultural Market Access and Development Act. My bill would authorize the Secretary of Agriculture to spend up to $200 million--but not less than the current $90 million--for the Market Access Program. And it would set a floor of $35 million for spending on the Foreign Market Development ``Cooperator'' Program. Senators Craig, Boxer, Feinstein, Gordon Smith, Gorton, Wyden, Cleland, and Coverdell have all cosponsored this legislation, and I appreciate their support. The USDA Foreign Agricultural Service has reported that in 1999 we experienced our first agricultural trade deficit with the European Union. We imported $7.7 billion of EU agricultural products and exported $6.8 billion. Our competitors have increased market promotion spending by 35 percent, or $1 billion, over the past three years. Our spending, however, has decreased one percent. Agricultural exports are key to maintaining a reasonable trade balance. Other nations have invested in market development, and it's worked. We need to enhance our trade programs to give our producers a more level playing field and a fighting chance. Besides expanding trade, we must strengthen the safety net for producers. We should not go back to our old Federal farm policies. Our program commodity growers do not want that, and our specialty crop producers do not want a new, permanent relationship with the federal government. But I believe this farm crisis has taught us that we need flexible tools available for all producers when economic or natural disasters strike. For some commodities this may mean counter-cyclical payments. Or it may mean a variety of flexible loans that meet the needs of all producers or specific commodities. As we debate the next farm bill, we should give USDA flexibility, within fiscally-responsible guidelines, to respond to crises in agriculture. Today, I am introducing legislation to create a one-time Apple Orchard Diversification Program. I have heard from growers that they could very much use a loan program to diversify their orchards into more commercially-viable varieties. Many of our producers invested heavily in Red and Golden Delicious apples, which are the varieties hardest hit by the economic crisis. We need a mechanism to allow these growers to diversify their orchards. My bill would do just that. It would authorize USDA to provide up to $75 million in long-term, low-interest loans to apple producers. The loans could be used by producers to purchase trees for converting existing apply orchards into more profitable apple varieties. My bill waives much of the regulatory process. USDA has been overwhelmed with managing disaster programs, and that has delayed relief. Instead, my bill bill requires USDA to conduct a stakeholder process, which would include three hearings around the country. The industry would help develop the program, and address issues such as income and acreage qualifications for growers who receive loans, and parameters on payments, acreage and varietal stock quality. The concept of orchard diversification was born when Under Secretary Gus Schumacher visited Quincy, Washington, in July 1999. The Under Secretary has spent a great deal of time in apply producing regions around the country. Mr. Schumacher has been criticized by some elected officials and individuals for holding the listening session in Washington state. But I appreciate, and I know many of our family farmers appreciate, his interest in these issues. In conclusion, my grandfather moved to the Tri-Cities in the early 1990s to work for Welch's. As a young child, I remember many trips to central Washington at harvest time to visit my grandmother, who remained in the area after my grandfather's death. To this day, the smell of fresh picked peaches and apples remind me of my childhood. To my Dad, it meant much more; it meant how his family put food on the table and paid the mortgage. We grew up understanding how important family-run orchards were to our state's economy. As I raised my own family, I always made sure we had a fruit tree in our yard. I wanted to remind myself of my years growing up and also to show my kids what a resource we have in our state. I could not imagine discussing Washington's economy without a box of apples being part of the picture. I want to make sure it stays that way for many generations to come. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to cosponsor and help pass this important legislation.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Apple Orchard Diversification Act of 2000. Mr. President, I am proud that Washington state produces more apples than any other state in the nation. The apple industry is an independent group. It has made Washington state and U.S. apples and apple products popular in many corners of the world. In the mid-1990s, growers were doing well, markets were opening and expanding, and the future looked bright. But in 1998 and 1999, the bottom fell out from under them. Low prices and weather-related disasters devastated apple producers, and growers of hundreds of other commodities nationwide. In northeastern and mid- Atlantic states, fruit and vegetable growers were hit hard by freezing temperatures and drought. In the Pacific Northwest, some growers were hurt by bad weather. But the biggest problem is low prices. These low prices are caused by the Asian financial crisis; by market access problems; by below-cost apple juice concentrate dumping by China; by record world-wide production and oversupply; and other factors. The results are devastating, especially in my home state of Washington. Nationwide, the industry lost an estimated $300 million on the 1998 crop. In Okanogan County in Washington state, some organizations have estimated that 90 percent of apple growers will not recover their 1999 expenses. Okanogan County already experiences high unemployment. It cannot afford a long-term, depressed farm economy. The county declared an economic disaster and urged the state to do the same. Meanwhile, other counties, especially in north central Washington, are trying to respond to this disaster. Many growers will go out of business. Others will not be able to get commercial lending this year. The Administration and members of this Congress are working to resolve some of the issues facing the industry and rural communities. Last year, Congress passed a large disaster relief package for agriculture. I supported this package because it kept many producers above water for another year. However, like many of my colleagues, I was frustrated this package did not do more for specialty crop producers. Congress provided $1.2 billion in crop loss assistance. Specialty crop producers, including apple growers, were eligible to receive assistance to address weather-related disasters, and some growers did. But, in states like Washington, the aid package did too little. Fortunately, action is occurring on the most important issue facing the apple industry. Earlier this month, the U.S. Department of Commerce levied anti-dumping duties of 51.74 percent on the majority of imports of below-cost apple juice concentrate from China. The Administration's preliminary anti-dumping duty ruling in November 1999 helped our producers by raising the price of both juice apples and concentrate. By May 22, the U.S. International Trade Commission will make its final injury ruling. If an injury determination is made, the Administration will implement anti-dumping duties at the levels prescribed by the Commerce Department. Our second victory was to address pest control in abandoned orchards. During my trip to central Washington last August, I heard from community leaders that this was a real problem. Low prices have caused many producers to abandon their orchards, and some of these orchards became infested. Infested orchards impact the operations of other producers and create potential trade problems. In response, counties tore out trees and sprayed orchards. But last year, funds in many counties were running low. USDA holds defaulted loans on some of these abandoned orchards. Last year, I urged the agency to take responsibility for pest control on those properties. The Farm Service Agency in Washington state created a strategy for reimbursing counties for pest control In October 1999, I wrote to Secretary Glickman to urge him to approve FSA's reimbursement strategy. Shortly thereafter, USDA implemented this initiative so counties could continue to control pests. The third victory for apple and specialty crop producers may come soon, when President Clinton signs risk management reform legislation into law. The bill passed by the Senate would make major changes to federal crop insurance policy to ensure that all producers, including specialty crop growers, will have access to more viable risk management products. But more needs to be done. My highest priorities for agriculture remain investing in research, expanding trade, and providing a safety net when economic and natural disasters strike. Last November, I introduced S. 1983, the Agricultural Market Access and Development Act. My bill would authorize the Secretary of Agriculture to spend up to $200 million--but not less than the current $90 million--for the Market Access Program. And it would set a floor of $35 million for spending on the Foreign Market Development ``Cooperator'' Program. Senators Craig, Boxer, Feinstein, Gordon Smith, Gorton, Wyden, Cleland, and Coverdell have all cosponsored this legislation, and I appreciate their support. The USDA Foreign Agricultural Service has reported that in 1999 we experienced our first agricultural trade deficit with the European Union. We imported $7.7 billion of EU agricultural products and exported $6.8 billion. Our competitors have increased market promotion spending by 35 percent, or $1 billion, over the past three years. Our spending, however, has decreased one percent. Agricultural exports are key to maintaining a reasonable trade balance. Other nations have invested in market development, and it's worked. We need to enhance our trade programs to give our producers a more level playing field and a fighting chance. Besides expanding trade, we must strengthen the safety net for producers. We should not go back to our old Federal farm policies. Our program commodity growers do not want that, and our specialty crop producers do not want a new, permanent relationship with the federal government. But I believe this farm crisis has taught us that we need flexible tools available for all producers when economic or natural disasters strike. For some commodities this may mean counter-cyclical payments. Or it may mean a variety of flexible loans that meet the needs of all producers or specific commodities. As we debate the next farm bill, we should give USDA flexibility, within fiscally-responsible guidelines, to respond to crises in agriculture. Today, I am introducing legislation to create a one-time Apple Orchard Diversification Program. I have heard from growers that they could very much use a loan program to diversify their orchards into more commercially-viable varieties. Many of our producers invested heavily in Red and Golden Delicious apples, which are the varieties hardest hit by the economic crisis. We need a mechanism to allow these growers to diversify their orchards. My bill would do just that. It would authorize USDA to provide up to $75 million in long-term, low-interest loans to apple producers. The loans could be used by producers to purchase trees for converting existing apply orchards into more profitable apple varieties. My bill waives much of the regulatory process. USDA has been overwhelmed with managing disaster programs, and that has delayed relief. Instead, my bill bill requires USDA to conduct a stakeholder process, which would include three hearings around the country. The industry would help develop the program, and address issues such as income and acreage qualifications for growers who receive loans, and parameters on payments, acreage and varietal stock quality. The concept of orchard diversification was born when Under Secretary Gus Schumacher visited Quincy, Washington, in July 1999. The Under Secretary has spent a great deal of time in apply producing regions around the country. Mr. Schumacher has been criticized by some elected officials and individuals for holding the listening session in Washington state. But I appreciate, and I know many of our family farmers appreciate, his interest in these issues. In conclusion, my grandfather moved to the Tri-Cities in the early 1990s to work for Welch's. As a young child, I remember many trips to central Washington at harvest time to visit my grandmother, who remained in the area after my grandfather's death. To this day, the smell of fresh picked peaches and apples remind me of my childhood. To my Dad, it meant much more; it meant how his family put food on the table and paid the mortgage. We grew up understanding how important family-run orchards were to our state's economy. As I raised my own family, I always made sure we had a fruit tree in our yard. I wanted to remind myself of my years growing up and also to show my kids what a resource we have in our state. I could not imagine discussing Washington's economy without a box of apples being part of the picture. I want to make sure it stays that way for many generations to come. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to cosponsor and help pass this important legislation.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I would like to share with my colleagues some recent developments on the pipeline safety legislation I introduced two months ago. I'm pleased to report that in the past week, we've made a lot of progress. About 10 months have passed since a gasoline pipeline in Bellingham, Washington ruptured--spilling more than 275,000 gallons of gasoline. That pipeline disaster killed three young people, and left thousands of people in my state wondering about the safety of the pipelines near their homes. We can't undo what happened in Bellingham--it will never be the same. But we can make sure that what happened in Bellingham doesn't happen anywhere else. There are 2.2 million miles of pipelines running across the country-- bringing us the energy we need to fuel our cars and heat our homes. They run near our schools, houses and communities. We have a responsibility to make sure these pipelines are safe. And it is clear that the current laws are not sufficient. That's why I introduced my pipeline safety bill back in January. Since that time, I have been meeting with the Administration, with Senators, safety officials, citizen groups, and industry representatives. This week, I spoke at a national conference on pipeline safety here in Washington, D.C. It was hosted by the National Pipeline Reform Coalition, SAFE Bellingham, and the Cascade Columbia Alliance. I can tell you that people all across the country are following this issue closely, they understand the problem, and they are calling for action. I want to be clear. We cannot wait any longer--and we can certainly not let this year pass without improving our nation's inadequate pipeline safety laws. The danger posed by aging, corroded pipelines is not going away. In fact, it's getting worse. Since 1986, there have been more than 5,700 pipeline accidents, 325 deaths, 1,500 injuries. More than $850 million in environmental damage. On average there is 1 pipeline accident every day, and 6 million hazardous gallons are spilled every year. In the two months since I introduced my pipeline safety bill, at least 20 states--almost half of the country--have experienced pipeline accidents. Let me repeat that. In just two months, 20 more states have had pipeline accidents. Just last week there was a major pipeline spill in Maryland. The clock is ticking, and the list of affected communities is growing. Back home in Washington state, there is a great deal of impatience that Congress has not acted on pipeline safety measures. This editorial by the Bellingham Herald--from April 5th--gives you a good sense of how many of my constituents feel. It's titled, Wake Up, Pipeline Bill Is On The Way. It's addressed to Congress, and it says, in part: Don't know if you had a chance to look at our pipeline bill, but we're sending you a message. We want you to hear us loud and clear. And later it says: * * * even though what happened in Bellingham could happen in any one of your home states, we feel you aren't giving this issue much attention. As this editorial says--these accidents can happen in any of our states. I don't want another community to go through what the people of Bellingham, Washington have gone through. We can make pipelines safer today. My bill addresses five key areas of pipeline safety: My bill will expand state authority over pipeline safety. My bill will improve inspection and prevention practices. My bill will invest in new safety technology. My bill will expand the public's right to know about problems with pipelines. Finally, my bill will increase funding to improve pipeline safety by providing funds for new state and federal pipeline safety programs. I'm proud to say that we are making progress. And I want to share with you some recent developments. Yesterday, Senator McCain announced that he has scheduled a hearing on pipeline safety for May 11, and he has committed to marking up a pipeline safety bill by the end of May. He also introduced his own pipeline safety bill. As you may recall, in February, I sent a letter to Senator McCain asking for a hearing. Last week, I spoke with him in person about it, and he pledged to work with me on this issue. As he told me, ``this is the right thing to do.'' I would like to commend Senator McCain for moving the process forward. I would also like to share with the Senate the important work done by the parents of the young people who were killed in the Bellingham explosion, especially Mr. Frank King. On Tuesday, Mr. King met with Senator McCain's staff, and in bringing his own personal story to the Senate--he has helped move this legislation forward. I'm pleased today to become the Democratic sponsor of Senator McCain's bill. This bill contains many of the elements of the legislation I introduced back in January. The bill also includes some of the good elements of the Administration's proposal, which was introduced this week. Senator McCain, as chairman of the Commerce Committee, has done a service to our nation and the state of Washington by providing his leadership on this important topic. During the committee process, I hope we can all work together in a bipartisan manner to make the McCain-Murray bill even more effective at improving pipeline safety. There is still a long way to go, and I look forward to working with Senator McCain on this important issue. Another step forward took place this week, when the Clinton/Gore Administration sent its pipeline safety proposal to Congress. Working with us, the Administration has crafted a proposal which includes many of my priorities: It places a clear value on the importance of safety. It strengthens community ``right to know'' provisions. It improves inspection standards. It invests in research and development for inspection devices. And it increases penalties for safety violations. This proposal is a good first step, and now we will work to improve it. Clearly, there are some differences on the partnership with states provisions and other areas, and I will be working to strengthen them within the legislative process. I should add that the Administration's bill has been introduced in the Senate by Senators Hollings and Sarbanes, and in the House by Representatives Shuster, Oberstar, Franks, and Wise. I want to commend the Vice President, who learned about this issue when he was in Washington state. He recognized the importance of pipeline safety, and he has been working to prompt the Administration to act quickly. I also appreciate the work Transportation Secretary Rodney Slater has done. Shortly after the explosion, he stationed a pipeline inspector in Washington state. So clearly we are making some progress, but there is still much more to do. Unfortunately, the Senate leadership has not expressed a lot of interest in pipeline safety. I recently received a note from the majority leader's office--listing almost 50 bills that he has deemed ``Legislative Calendar Items'' which he hopes to consider prior to the August recess. Pipeline safety was not on his list. Now, I know priority lists are flexible, and I hope we can get a pipeline safety bill through the committee and onto the Senate floor for consideration before August. We need to pass a pipeline safety bill, and we need to do it now. I again ask my colleagues to stand with the thousands of people who have been adversely affected by pipeline disasters and pass a bill that will make sure no other community has to suffer from another pipeline disaster. We have a strong pipeline safety bill. We have Administration support. And we have a commitment from the Commerce Committee leadership to pass legislation this year. This is our chance for safer pipelines, for safer communities, and for peace of mind. We have a bill. It's up to this Congress, this year to make sure this opportunity doesn't pass us by.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. First, I thank the Senator from New Jersey, Mr. Lautenberg, for his tremendous leadership on the Democratic side of the Budget Committee. I have truly enjoyed working with him and will miss him a great deal in the coming years. His leadership has been so important to all of us. I come to the floor today to address the Republican budget proposal and to tell my colleagues that I will be a ``no'' vote because I believe it fails to reflect the priorities of families across this country. In fact, if this budget were submitted to any math class, it would get an F because, frankly, the numbers do not add up. The reality in this budget does not meet the rhetoric. Despite all the claims, when we do the math, the things Americans care about-- improving their education, reducing the debt, saving Social Security, strengthening and modernizing Medicare--have all been left behind. The things that matter to families have been sacrificed in the name of an irresponsible tax cut. I am disappointed that this budget abandons the progress we have made since 1993. Since I first joined the Budget Committee, our Nation's financial strength has grown dramatically. Through the hard work of the President, the Vice President, and Congress, we have turned deficits into surpluses. We learned many important lessons. We learned that budgets must be realistic. They have to take into account what our Nation needs and what we are capable of providing. This budget is neither realistic nor responsible. It does not provide the necessary investments in education and health care. It does not ensure that prescription drug coverage for Medicare beneficiaries will be considered before we enact tax cuts. Instead, this Republican budget sacrifices our priorities for a $200 billion tax cut. I am extremely concerned that this tax cut could eat up all of the on-budget surplus. Given this Congress' track record on tax cuts, it is fair to assume that, as usual, the top 10 percent of the people will get more than 60 percent of the benefits. The President and the American people rejected that tax plan last year, and I expect they will reject it again. We can have responsible and fair tax cuts that are fiscally prudent, but you won't find them in this budget. I am also disappointed that this conference report dropped two important priorities during the conference committee. First, an important amendment I introduced to ensure programs that help victims of domestic violence was dropped. Another amendment concerning pipeline safety was also left behind. In the Senate Budget Committee, I introduced an amendment to ensure that pipeline safety efforts are funded at levels that were called for in my bill. My amendment was unanimously passed by the Senate Budget Committee. Unfortunately, this budget makes it almost impossible to fully fund the Office of Pipeline Safety. Our budget should help us make our pipeline safer. I fear this budget moves away from our responsibility. I will be talking later this evening about the issue of pipeline safety as well. While those two key amendments were dropped, I am pleased that my amendment concerning women and Social Security was affirmed. After 2 years, the Republican budget conferees have finally committed that Social Security reform should not penalize women. I am pleased it is in this budget. Overall, to make room for their tax cut, Republicans shortchanged the investments that really matter to the American people. In fact, in key areas, this budget doesn't even keep up with inflation. I will give a few examples of how this budget leaves America's priorities behind. The decisions in this budget will be felt in classrooms across America. The budget before us would decimate the progress we have made over the last 2 years in reducing overcrowded classrooms. In the last 2 years, we have hired 29,000 new, fully qualified teachers to reduce class sizes in first, second, and third grades. Today, because of that action, 1.7 million students are learning in classrooms where the basics are taught in a disciplined environment. We should be building on our progress. This Republican budget before us today abandons our progress. This budget tells students: Sorry, you are going to have to sit in an overcrowded classroom next year because, under the Republican tax plan, you are not a priority. It should be a priority that we pay down our national debt instead of passing that burden along to our children. This budget tells every young American: Sorry, you better start saving money now to pay off the national debt because, under the Republican tax plan, you are not a priority. It is a priority that we strengthen and modernize Medicare. It is a priority that seniors get help buying the medicine they need because no one should have to choose between buying medicine and paying for food. This budget tells seniors: Sorry, you can't get the prescription drug coverage you need because, under the Republican tax plan, you are not a priority. The American people want real budgets, not gimmicks. They want to know that our Nation's vital priorities are being treated as priorities. They don't want the things that matter in their lives to be squeezed out by unbalanced tax cuts that only benefit a few people. We should be using the surplus we have today to honor our commitments to our children and to our seniors. Now is the time to address the long-term solvency of Social Security and Medicare and to provide resources to local communities to make our classrooms ready for the 21st century. Those are the things a responsible budget would do. We should pass a budget that reflects the priorities of the American people and one that is realistic. I believe the budget before us fails the American people on both counts. Therefore, I must oppose it. I thank the Chair and yield the remainder of my time to the Democratic side.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, this Republican budget fails to reflect the priorities of families across America. If this budget were submitted in any math class--it would get an F-- because the numbers just don't add up. The reality doesn't match the rhetoric. And while Republicans are talking about how great their budget is, when you do the math the things Americans care about--improving education, reducing the debt, saving Social Security, strengthening and modernizing Medicare--have all been left behind. The things that matter to families have been sacrificed in the name of an irresponsible tax cut. Mr. President, I am disappointed that this budget abandons the progress we have made since 1993. Since I first joined the Budget Committee, our nation's financial strength has grown dramatically. Through the hard work of the President, the Vice President, and others, we have turned deficits into surpluses. And we learned two important lessons. First, budgets must be realistic--they have to take into account what our nation needs and what we are capable of providing. Second, budgets must be responsible. A responsible budget meets our obligations. It makes sure that Social Security, Medicare and other existing commitments aren't left hanging. But, Mr. President, this budget fails both tests--it is neither realistic nor responsible. This budget fails to provide the necessary investments in education, health care and prescription drug coverage. Instead, this Republican budget sacrifices our priorities for $200 billion in tax cuts. This tax cut could eat up all of the on-budget surplus. Given this Congress' track record on tax cuts, it is fair to assume when we see the specifics they will be similar to Governor Bush's plan and to the tax bill Republicans tried to pass last year. In both of those Republican plans, the top 10% of the people, get more than 60% of the benefits. The President and the American people rejected that tax plan last year, and I expect they will reject it again. Mr. President, so far the majority has expressed interest in two specific tax provisions. Unfortunately, their efforts have been misguided. First, the Majority has moved to repeal the marriage penalty. I support making sure that families in America are not penalized by our tax code. In fact, I am a cosponsor of S. 8, which would eliminate the marriage penalty. Our bill addresses a real problem--too many lower and middle income families are penalized by the current system. But the majority's proposal--by giving further tax relief to those who already enjoy a marriage bonus--simply creates new inequities while still burdening lower and middle income families with a marriage penalty. Mr. President, the Republicans have a second proposal--related to small businesses. Democrats fought to pass a minimum wage increase, which some of America's hardest workers desperately need. But the majority would only go along if their tax proposal was included. What did we end up with? A minimum wage increase over 3 years instead of 2--so workers would have to wait an extra year to get the full benefit--and a tax plan that kept growing. While I support targeted tax cuts that will really help small businesses, I do not support the majority's approach, which abandons fiscal responsibility by the sheer size of their combined proposals. Mr. President, I do want to take just a moment to mention three important positive statements we were able to include in the budget resolution. I am pleased that my amendment placing a high priority on the unique needs of women in the Social Security debate was adopted in committee. This amendment recognizes the economic safety net of social security for women and puts the Senate on record in support of using the reform process to improve the economic condition of women. This resolution also includes my amendment regarding the urgency of reauthorizing the Violence Against Women Act and the need to support full funding for these programs. We are facing a deadline on reauthorization--I want to make it clear that we will not abandon battered women and children during this short, legislative year. Regardless of the actions of Congress or the courts, we will work to continue funding for VAWA programs. The third positive statement included in this budget resolution is my amendment on pipeline safety--which was adopted unanimously by the Budget Committee. My amendment says that pipeline safety efforts should be funded at the levels called for in my bill, S. 2004--the Pipeline Safety Act of 2000. While I am proud that we were able to win concessions for these three important areas, overall this budget still puts tax cuts above vital investments. Mr. President, while Republicans are saying that their budget funds key priorities, their rhetoric doesn't match the reality of their budget. The reality is that to make room for their tax cut, Republicans shortchange the investments that matter to the American people. In fact, in key areas, this budget doesn't even keep up with inflation. Let me give you a few examples of how this misguided budget leaves America's priorities behind. The bad decisions in this budget will be felt in classrooms across America. This budget would decimate the progress we have made reducing overcrowded classrooms. Over the past two years, we've hired 29,000 new, fully qualified teachers to reduce class size. And today 1.7 million students are learning the basics in a disciplined environment. We should be building on our progress, but this Republican budget abandons our progress. This budget tells students--``sorry, you'll have to sit in an overcrowded classroom next year because under the Republican tax plan-- you are not a priority.'' Mr. President, it's a priority that we save Social Security while our economy is so strong. We shouldn't wait until later to fix what we know needs to be changed. But this budget tells every American who will rely on Social Security in the years to come--``sorry, this budget won't save Social Security for you because under the Republican tax plan--you are not a priority.'' Mr. President, it's a priority that we pay down our national debt-- instead of passing that burden along to our children. But this budget tells every young American--``sorry, you better start saving money now to pay off the national debt--because under the Republican plan--you are not a priority.'' Mr. President, it's a priority that we strengthen and modernize Medicare. It's a priority that seniors get help buying the medicine they need--because no one should have to choose between buying medicine and buying food. But this budget tells seniors--``sorry, you can't get the prescription drug coverage you need because under the Republican tax plan--you are not a priority.'' Mr. President, the American people want real budgets--not gimmicks. They want to know that our nation's vital priorities are being treated like priorities. They don't want the things that matter in their lives to be squeezed out by unbalanced tax cuts that would benefit only a few people. Unfortunately, the driving force of this resolution has been tax cuts--tax cuts that explode in the outer years and jeopardize our fiscal strength. We should be using the surplus to honor our commitments to our children and our seniors. Now is the time to address the long-term solvency of Social Security and Medicare and to provide resources to local communities to make our classrooms ready for the 21st century. Those are the things a responsible budget does. But as I look at this budget, the only priority I see is this exploding tax cut. Who gets left behind in this budget? Students--who could lose the smaller classes they need; every American who will depend on Social Security; young people--who will still be burdened with our national debt; and seniors--who rely on Medicare and need prescription drug coverage. They all get left behind, and that is wrong. I'm on the floor to say that they are priorities, and we will fight for them. Mr. President, we should pass a budget that reflects the priorities of the American people and one that is realistic. This budget fails the American people on both counts, and therefore I must oppose it. Let's give the people we represent a responsible budget that meets their needs. emergency agriculture assistance for seed producers

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I take a moment to commend my colleagues--Senator Robb, Senator Harkin, Senator Lautenberg, and Senator Dorgan, for bringing this important amendment to the floor. I commend the work they have done and their commitment to school modernization which means so much to our communities and the children who attend the public schools in this country. I have heard the other side say throughout this debate they have made a commitment to education. But I am concerned, as I look at their budget, that a real commitment is missing. I believe that part of making a real commitment to education requires providing resources to our schools. Today, my colleagues are offering an amendment as a way to offer this choice. Today, a record 53.2 million children are enrolled in elementary and secondary schools. By 2009, this number will reach 54.2 million. As a result, local communities need to build or modernize 6,000 public schools, and repair an additional 8,300 public schools. In addition, the average public school building in this country is 42 years old. These schools need improvements. What kind of message do we send to our children when they can go to shopping malls, movies theaters, and baseball stadiums that are significantly nicer than their schools? What kind of message does that send about our priorities? This amendment would once again provide us with a clear choice on the issue of education. Do we want a tax cut, or do we want to provide to modernize our schools. This amendment would allow the federal government to take a roll as a partner in helping our districts meet the pressing need of modernizing our school buildings. The amendment would provide $1.3 billion in grants and loans to help schools address urgent facilities issues, and provide tax credit bonds to help communities finance the cost of new construction and major repairs for schools. This Congress has made a commitment over the past two years to reducing class size. This program is truly making a difference in our schools. I believe we have the opportunity this year to continue the efforts to reducing class size, and providing funds for school to make sure they have the facilities to provide for these smaller classes. A decent sized class in an adequate facility is not too much for our children. I hope you are all able to make this choice and support this amendment.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I have come to the floor today to offer my support and thanks to Senators Bingaman and Kennedy for offering this extremely important amendment. Senator Kerry is exactly correct. The budget proposal before us is a sleight of hand. We should not be duped by that. It is very clear, in looking at the budget, that it shortchanges America's students. The Republican budget proposal says tax cuts for a few are more important than a first-rate education for all of our children. Their budget tells students across America a tax cut is more important than their future. We think that is wrong. We think that is incredibly wrong. We do not think America's students should only get the spare change left over after the Republican tax cut. America's students should not be the last in line in this budget. That is why we are offering this amendment today, to make sure all students get the resources they need to reach their full potential. The Republican budget that is before us is very crafty because at first glance it looks as if education funding has been increased. But when you look closely at the numbers, it is really an empty promise. Senator Kerry of Massachusetts pointed that out. The rhetoric of this budget does not meet its reality. I do want to acknowledge one thing. This underlying budget does one thing right. It does fund special education programs that the Senator from New Hampshire talked so eloquently about a few moments ago. That is important. We agree with that. Unfortunately, that is the only thing this budget does well. But every other education investment--whether it is reducing class size or improving teacher quality or modernizing our schools--is not treated as a priority in this budget. There are no guarantees in this budget that those other vital education programs will get the investments they need to continue to help America's students. This budget funds one program and leaves the other programs hanging. It does not have to be this way. That is why I am supporting the Bingaman amendment. This amendment says we can support special education. In fact, we support the same level as the Senator from New Hampshire. We are not disagreeing with that. But it says we can fund that and other key education investments at the same time. We should not have to choose which students get served. We should be serving every student. This amendment shows us how we can do that. This budget's misplaced priorities will be felt in classrooms across the country. I am very concerned that this budget does not provide the resources to help our public schools move forward. I am concerned that this budget abandons the programs we know are working for students across this country. Parents are asking us--pleading with us--to become partners with their local districts to help them with overcrowded classrooms. This Republican budget fails to make a commitment to reduce class size. Teachers are asking us for more help in mastering the best ways to teach our children the basics. The Republican budget fails to make a commitment to teacher quality. Students are asking us for schools where they can feel safe and secure when they get off that schoolbus or walk to school every day. This Republican budget fails to make a commitment to school safety. Parents are asking--and pleading--for afterschool programs so their children will not get into trouble or become victims of violence after school. This Republican budget fails to make a commitment to afterschool programs. Teachers and students are asking for school buildings that are modern. This Republican budget fails to make a commitment to modernizing our aging schools. The American people are asking for a stronger commitment to the programs that make a difference in their child's education. But the Republicans are too focused on their exploding tax cut to meet these needs of America's students. This budget freezes our progress. That is why our amendment would put the resources where parents and teachers and students need them the most. The amendment before us will ensure adequate funding for a number of key educational priorities. To reduce overcrowded classrooms, this amendment will provide $1.75 billion to continue our Class Size Reduction Program. Any Senator here can go home to their State, to their local schools that have taken advantage of the class size money we have passed over the last 2 years, and talk to teachers, and hear them say the same things I hear; which is, it has made an incredible difference. I have teachers tell me every time I visit one of these classrooms that, where 5 years ago, 3 years ago, they had 24, 25, 30 kids in a classroom, that today, where they have 16, 17, 18 kids in a classroom, the difference is remarkable. Teachers tell me in the small classes we have provided dollars for, in the first, second, and third grades, that those students--every one of them--will be able to read at the end of this year because of that reduced class size. This is making a difference. We have to keep that obligation going. We need to keep that partnership going. Schools tell me every day they could not have done it without the commitment and the partnership of the Federal Government. The underlying budget fails to meet that. With this amendment, we on our Democratic side meet that obligation. Our amendment modernizes school buildings by providing $1.3 billion. I was in a school a week ago where kids were in portables with no running water. In order to go to the bathroom they had to go outside in the rain, which is not uncommon in my State, go to another building and come back soaked. I saw kids in coats in classrooms because there was not enough heat in the school buildings. We recognize we have an obligation, a partnership that we need to provide at the Federal level to meet these basic needs. Our amendment does that. This amendment looks at improving teacher quality. It provides $2 billion for professional development to recruit new educators and reward excellent teachers. We all understand that we need to make sure we have young people today committed to becoming teachers for our students tomorrow. We need to provide the dollars to partner with our local schools to make sure that they can recruit those best and brightest among our young students to be the teachers for our classrooms tomorrow. This amendment ensures that students have safe educational activities at the end of the school day. It ensures adequate funding for afterschool programs. I commend Senator Boxer for her tremendous work on this initiative. We address that in this amendment. To make sure that disadvantaged students have the extra classroom attention they need, this amendment will increase funding for title I programs by $1 billion. I have heard a lot of rhetoric in the HELP Committee and on the floor about local control and sending money to the States and that this is somehow miraculously going to happen. Talk to your local schools, as I have; talk to your title I schools. They will tell you this program has changed dramatically since its inception. They will tell you they have much more flexibility and local control. They fear us sending a block grant to the State will mean they lose the access and the ability to ensure that the money will be there for disadvantaged students in the future. This amendment recognizes how important title I funding is to ensure that the kids at the bottom get the opportunity to learn as well. We increase title I funding by $1 billion to address the incredible needs out there. Finally, this amendment will increase funding for Pell grants, grants that help disadvantaged students go to college, by $400 per year for each student. I would guess that my colleagues hear the same thing I hear when I talk to young people about the incredible amount of debt they accrue when they go to college, debt they have to pay off. We have to make sure we allow the kids at the bottom to have access to higher education. We recognize this in the amendment by increasing the Pell grants for students so we can assure that more young people can go on to college and our best and brightest will be encouraged to go on to college no matter what their income is. These are the types of investments we should be making in America's young people. Unfortunately, the Republicans have the wrong priorities in their budget. They are putting their tax cut ahead of the needs of America's students. We know they are wrong, and we have introduced this amendment to make sure our students don't lose out. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. For those members of the majority who are inclined to oppose it, I want them to know this amendment would take only 15 percent of the tax cut and put it towards education. I can't think of a better priority for this Senate to support. I don't think it is too much to ask for America's students. By voting for this amendment, we will be saying that the young people of our country are a priority. They deserve a budget that treats them as a priority. I thank the Chair and yield my time back to the Senator from Nevada.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, 2 weeks ago, I sat through several days of discussion on education policy as we marked up the Elementary and Secondary Education Act in the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee. Just last week, I went home and visited schools across Washington State and met with administrators, teachers, parents, and students. The discussions we had here in Congress and the discussions I had in those classrooms could not have been more different. No wonder so many educators and parents are frustrated with Congress. Too often, what they hear from Congress has nothing to do with the real challenges they are facing. While some of my colleagues were pushing their agenda of block grants and vouchers here in Washington, DC, the teachers I met with in Washington State were concerned about their ability to teach the basics and maintain discipline in their classrooms. While these same colleagues of mine sought to diminish accountability, the parents I met with want us to insist that we have the highest possible academic standards in safe and modern classrooms. While these same colleagues of mine were figuring out ways to shift resources away from meeting specific needs, the students I met with were wondering when there would be enough fully qualified teachers in their classrooms to help them get the individual attention they need to succeed. Those parents, teachers, and students were shocked when I told them that my amendment to guarantee money for smaller class sizes was rejected by members of the Education Committee. It just does not make sense to them. I wish that when we discussed ESEA, we had a few of those teachers sitting in the room with us. And whenever the discussion drifted to things that are far from the realities in today's classrooms, I wish those teachers were here to stand up and bring the discussion back to the real challenges our students face, day-in and day-out. Today, too many teachers see overcrowded classrooms, children who arrive with basic needs unmet, jammed hallways, and tougher curriculum requirements. Today, too many parents see teachers who are overworked--teachers who spend so much time on discipline it is hard for them to give every child the time and attention they need. Today, too many students feel their needs are lost and their education is not a priority. All of us want to make sure that schools are safe centers of learning. To reach their potential, our kids need real help now. They need the common sense solutions that we know can help them succeed. It is simple. We know what works in education. We know what it takes to help children reach their potential. It is not a great mystery. These are the things that years of research have shown us are effective. They are the things that parents, teachers, and community leaders know make a difference. To show how simple this is, I have listed those ingredients we know work. I am proud that Democrats are focusing on results with a commonsense agenda. We know that if we want children to succeed in school, they need a highly-motivated, fully-qualified teacher. We know they need a safe and modern classroom. We know they need a small, uncrowded class in which to learn. We know they need a focus on the basics. We know they need high standards and discipline. We know they need support from family and adults. We know they need resources for the classroom. These are the commonsense policies that serve America's children--the policies that improve education and get results. But unfortunately, this Congress is ignoring these proven approaches. They are ignoring what works. They do not want money to be targeted to these essential ingredients. They do not want us to focus on making sure that every school has guaranteed resources in each of these areas. Many of us want to use these key ingredients to make the best schools possible. We want to guarantee that every school has the resources it needs. We want to change our schools--for the better--so we can get the results parents, students, and teachers are demanding. Some have proposed block grants as the cure-all for education. Today, our nation's education policy guarantees that specific resources will be targeted to meeting specific needs. That is how responsible budgeting is done. That is how we ensure accountability. But this Congress is working toward eliminating those guarantees. They do not want money to be guaranteed for reducing class sizes or for technology training for teachers or for modernizing schools. They want to eliminate all of those guarantees, create a pot of money, and give it to the States. One teacher asked me: ``Are there any studies that show that giving all the money to States in block grants actually improves education?'' Of course not. In fact, 35 years ago the American people made the national Government a partner in education because they realized that State and local governments cannot do it all on their own. Public schools are one of the foundations upon which our democracy is built, and we need to do a better job of helping them perform at the highest levels. Most disconcerting about these proposals for block grants is they are simply a blank check policy that will diminish the guarantee that education resources go to the students who need them most. Money that currently goes to hiring and training teachers and helping students with special needs--under these proposals could be used ``for any education purposes''--anything from building a new lockerroom to redecorating office space. In response to many who want a better education, some have proposed vouchers. What will that do? Without a doubt, it will drain scarce dollars away from public schools where 90 percent of America's children are trying to learn. Vouchers plans shift taxpayer dollars away from public schools to private and religious schools. One parent in Washington told me last week: ``I don't want you to give me a few hundred dollars to send my kid to another school. I want you to make my school work better.'' The real question, and the one we are failing to answer, is: How can we work in partnership with states, educators, and parents to make sure that every student gets the things they need to reach their potential? Many of my colleagues are asking the wrong question. they ask: How can the Federal Government's role in education be eliminated? They are talking about process, when we should be focusing on results. This Congress should be asking: How can the Federal Government support local schools? How can we meet our national education priorities, like making sure every child can read, write, and use a computer? And how can we help school districts do the things that are hardest for them to do, like hiring new teachers and building new schools? I am afraid some of my colleagues aren't looking for ways to answer these questions. I am afraid they just want to gut our national education partnership. In this country, we already have local control over education. State and local school districts set the curriculum. They hire the staff. States set standards and certify teachers. States and localities raise and spend 93 percent of all education funding. A lack of local control is not the problem. It is a lack of sufficient support and resources. States, school districts, parents, and teachers are demanding that we, at the Federal level, work in partnership to ensure our kids get a good education. What matters to parents is that their kids get the best education possible. Parents don't care how the workload is divided. They care about results. And Democrats are focused on results. One of the problems with block grants is that--in the budgeting process--they always end up getting cut because those dollars are not longer tired to a specific need. With block grants, our kids end up with fewer educational resources than they had before. In fact, we are already seeing a move underway to give our students fewer resources. The Republican budget plan passed out of the House could jeopardize our ability to meet the needs in America's schools. Their plan could jeopardize our ability to keep hiring new teachers to make classrooms less crowded. They could jeopardize our ability to provide afterschool programs, to ensure safe and drug-free schools, to modernize old schools, and to build new ones. Their plan could result in having $2.6 billion less for education than the President has requested. We shouldn't be shortchanging America's students, but I am concerned that is what the House Republican budget plan would do. In fact, according the Congressional Budget Office, the Republican budget plan doesn't even keep up with inflation for key domestic investments, like education. Parents, teachers and students in my home State--and across the country--are asking for help in education. They want us to work in partnership with them to help their children reach their potential. They want us to support the commonsense solutions that produce real results for our students. And when they hear Members of this Congress talking about things that really don't make a difference in the classroom, they get pretty frustrated. After meeting with and listening to so many frustrated parents and educators, I have come to the floor today to carry their message. They want us to: Focus on what works. They want us to support the things that make a difference for children in the classroom. And they want us to work together in partnership with State and local educators to help children learn to meet the challenges of the new millennium. I urge my colleagues to hear these calls loud and clear, to respond by bringing the debate here in Congress back to the realities that teachers, students and parents see in their classrooms every day across this country, and to pass a budget that follows our recipe for success by investing in the resources that every student needs. Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.