Patty Murray

Mrs. MURRAY

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as if in morning business.

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, let me thank the Senator from California, Mrs. Boxer, for raising the issue that today is International Women's Day--it is a very important day for women around the world and their rights--and to thank her for her work on the resolution asking the Foreign Relations Committee to hold a hearing on CEDAW, which is a very important resolution. It is time that we as a Senate hear what is involved and have a chance to get testimony and to possibly move forward on it. It would be a great step forward.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I have come to the floor this afternoon to publicly thank my colleague from the State of Washington, Mr. Gorton, for endorsing my bill, S. 2004, the Pipeline Safety Act of 2000. I am delighted Senator Gorton joined with me on this very important public safety issue. Senator Gorton has the respect of many in the Senate leadership, and I expect he will be a great help in helping us pass this pipeline safety bill. I look forward to working with him to make sure that the tragedies he talked about today--such as the one that occurred in Bellingham, WA--don't happen again. I also wish to take a moment to recognize the efforts of many, many people in my home State of Washington--especially the mayor of Bellingham, Mark Asmundson, who has done more than anyone I know to raise public awareness about pipeline dangers and to call for stronger safety measures. I encourage my colleagues, many of whom I have met personally over the last several months on this issue, to take this opportunity now to join Senator Gorton and me in helping to ensure the safety of the pipelines that transport natural gas, oil, and other hazardous liquids throughout our communities. Since 1986, there have been more than 5,700 pipeline accidents nationwide. These accidents have killed 325 people and injured another 1,500. Three of those people died in Bellingham, WA, last June. We want to make sure we take steps this year to ensure that does not happen again to any other community. It is time to act. It is time to prevent another disaster. My bill, S. 2004, would expand State authority. It would improve inspection practices, a move that is drastically needed. It would expand the public's right to know. For any of you who may suffer from a disaster in the future, you will quickly find that your communities and cities won't have the ability to ask pipeline companies whether pipelines have been inspected, and what problems there are, or actions they have taken to solve those problems, unless we pass the public's ``right-to-know provision.'' It will improve the quality of pipeline operators, and it will increase funding to improve safety. I look forward to working with the rest of the Washington State delegation to put the lessons that we learned all too tragically in Bellingham, WA, into law. I ask my colleagues, many with whom I have met, to again take a look at this legislation and join us in sponsoring it, and for this Senate and Congress to move on this very important piece of safety legislation. Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I am delighted to be on the floor with my colleague, Senator Kennedy, to talk about an issue that many think is the most important issue facing America today. That is the issue of education. We are finally in the Senate talking about issues that are relevant to families. As they sit at the kitchen table in the evening, they, too, understand education is absolutely critical to the future of this country. We are finally today with this amendment talking about a measure which will ensure that every teacher in this country is fully qualified and has the tools and the support to help our children reach their full potential. For years, parents and teachers have been asking for support on teacher quality. Last year, I came to the Senate floor to introduce a bill to help recruit, retain, and reward America's best educators. I am thrilled today to discuss many of the items in that bill. I hope we will have an up-or-down vote on this amendment so families across our country can see whether or not this Senate supports quality teaching. I thank the Senator from Massachusetts for helping this day become possible and by leading to make education a front and center issue in this Congress, as it is in the classrooms and homes across America. Before I discuss the specifics of the amendment, I wish to make another point loudly and clearly: Today there are thousands of world- class, high-quality teachers in our schools. They are professionals. They care deeply about the quality of our children's education. Any Member would be lucky to have our children in those classrooms. However, the current system makes it harder and harder for teachers to do their best. Instead of offering them the support they need to make a difference--smaller classes, classrooms that are safe, afterschool care--this current system puts too maybe roadblocks in front of too many teachers. We are here today to discuss teacher quality. I want my colleagues to keep in mind that we are not criticizing teachers. They are overworked and underpaid and not given enough respect. They are, indeed, heroes. We are trying to change the system to allow more teachers to become master teachers. I hope throughout this debate my colleagues will refrain from attacking the very people who try their hardest day in and day out to help our children and do the right thing for our country. As I said many times before, teachers do one of the most important jobs in America, and we should make it easier, not harder, for them to do their best. The amendment from the Senator from Massachusetts could not come at a better time because there are so many challenges to quality teaching, and those challenges just keep growing. Teachers and parents have told me the main challenges are the three Rs: Recruiting great teachers, retaining great teachers, and rewarding great teachers. Statistics today show we need more educators to meet our growing student population. In fact, in the United States, we are expecting to face an unprecedented teacher shortage in the next few years. The National Center for Educational Statistics estimates we will need between 1.7 to 2.7 million new teachers by the year 2008. One reason not many people want to go into the teaching profession is there are not enough incentives for recent college graduates to become teachers. With the wide range of employment opportunities available to young people today, to our college graduates, teaching is not the most attractive option. The teaching profession, as we all know, is just not a lucrative place to be. In the USA Today Teacher Survey, 69 percent of teachers said most people do not consider teaching to be an attractive career choice. So we are not attracting enough talented people into the teaching profession. As I am sure has happened to many of my colleagues, I have gone into a classroom and asked: How many of you young people intend to be a teacher? Very few hands go up. But if you ask those young people: How many of you would become teachers if you knew you would get the training, the support, the money, and the respect that other professionals get? A lot more hands in those classrooms go up. So our first challenge is recruiting young people into the teaching profession. That is what this amendment does. Next, we need to retain great teachers. When you think about it, there really is nowhere for a great teacher to go. If they move up, they move out of the classroom into administration or into another profession. While we need great administrators, we should do everything we can to keep our really great teachers in the classrooms. We need to give our teachers options such as becoming master teachers, so they can continue to grow while helping our kids in their classrooms. There are a lot of reasons for this retention problem. Unlike any other profession, teachers do not have adequate access to continuous high-quality professional development, so we need effective, ongoing professional development programs that are aligned with local standards and curricula. Finally, we need to reward our good teachers. Mr. President, I have come to the floor to thank Senator Kennedy for his leadership on the most critical issue we see facing our students today--making sure every teacher in every classroom is a quality teacher. I thank my colleague from Massachusetts, and I urge my colleagues to support this critical amendment.

Mrs. MURRAY

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

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.

Mrs. MURRAY. I will just take a few minutes to wrap up and then I can yield my time. A number of Senators want to vote. They have other business to do. Let me respond to the Senators from Georgia and New Hampshire. The Senator from New Hampshire is correct. We are in markup on the Elementary and Secondary Education Act in committee. Unfortunately, we just gave political speeches this morning and were not able to offer our amendments and go through that process. I know the committee intends to do that, but the majority decided what was going to be on the floor today--their education policy. This is what we are debating. This is our opportunity as Democrats to say what we believe is important. We believe clearly that we have a choice. We can take very important Federal resources and offer them to families who are wealthy enough to put $2,000 away and get $3 to $7 back in a tax cut, or we can use that money for programs that we know work. The Senator from New Hampshire indicated he did not believe class size reduction worked. Let me tell you two things, Mr. President. First of all, a very important study that was completed, a STAR study from Tennessee, that followed kids in the early grades, first through third grade, in small classes, and then watched their progress until they graduated a year ago, clearly found students in small classes, as we are asking this money to go for, had fewer discipline problems, graduated with higher scores in math and English, and in much greater numbers went on to college. What Member of this Senate has not been out here to say those are goals every one of us has: Better discipline and higher scores in math and English and higher rates of students going on to college? That is clearly a goal for all of us in public education. It is the STAR study and other studies that have shown it works. We are saying if we want to provide this money, we should do it for programs that work for kids. The mandatory provision the Senator from Georgia spoke to in the bill is, I believe, 13 lines long and merely says what this money goes for is for class size reduction with a quality teacher in every classroom. It provides some of those funds for training those teachers because that is a critical issue. I absolutely agree. Finally, let me say from a personal perspective, having been in a classroom as a teacher with a large class and a small class, I can tell you what the difference is. The difference between the large class and small class is the difference between crowd control and teaching; having the time to work individually with students, to understand what their needs are, to help them get through the difficult processes of learning in the early grades: Reading, writing and math. Those are very basic skills that a child needs to have. It is very clear to me we have a choice between a few families in this country who can afford to put away several thousand dollars a year and only get $3 to $7 back--a very few families--or we can use this money in a way that absolutely makes a difference in early grades for our children. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment and ask them to seriously consider what education policies we believe are important for families across this country. I believe reducing class size, providing quality teachers, making sure our schools are safe, are important criteria and a responsibility for us at the Federal level, to work in partnerships with our State and local school boards to make sure every child in this country--every child, not just a few--is able to learn to read and write and be a success.

Mrs. MURRAY. How much time is left on the other side?

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, the Senate is currently considering the Republican education agenda. I have listened carefully to the debate over the last several days. It seems to me the difference between the Democratic and Republican approaches couldn't be more clear. Democrats want to invest in policies that really make a difference for today's young people. On the other side, we are hearing the same old song and dance about tax cuts, vouchers, block grants, and savings accounts. I fear those policies will really weaken our public schools instead of strengthening them. The education savings account bill we are considering today would only help a very few wealthy families at the expense of everyone else. I urge my colleagues to reject it. We should be spending our limited time on the policies that parents and teachers know work--things such as smaller classes taught by fully qualified teachers. Those are the policies that time and time again have produced real results for our students --not tax schemes, not funding gimmicks, not policies that will drain money away from our public schools. That is why I am here this afternoon to introduce my class size amendment which will provide real help for students across the country. These education savings accounts will only help a few people with very high incomes. Unfortunately, families who aren't well off need more incentives to save for education. And this bill doesn't offer them any. For the 90 percent of Americans whose children attend public schools, this bill offers peanuts. The Joint Tax Committee found that the average benefit per child in public school would be between $3 and $7 per year over a 4-year period. This program is a backdoor voucher which will drain money away from our public schools and take scarce resources from students who need them most. All the while, this bill will do nothing to improve the quality of public education. I know I am not the only person in America who thinks we should be investing in the things that we know work in education. A recent poll was conducted for the National Education Association by two bipartisan research firms--a Democratic research firm and a Republican research firm. It found that Americans want specific policies--policies such as providing additional support for students with special needs, policies such as helping school districts attract quality teachers, and policies such as hiring 100,000 new, fully qualified teachers to reduce class sizes in our country. Those are some of the specific, concrete policies on which the American people want us to focus. In the same poll, the American public chose education as its No. 1 priority over tax cuts by a margin of two to one. The bill on the floor today ignores the priorities the American people are asking us to address. As a former school board member, let me give my colleagues a real- life opportunity to test this poll's funding. Monday night, for many districts, is ``School Board Meeting Night'' across the country. If my colleagues want to know what the education priorities are at home, all they have to do is attend a local school board meeting. Senators will have the ability to see locally- elected officials, respected community activists, parents, and students gather to discuss priorities and real problems. School boards all across the country face very tough issues. I know what service on a school board is. I know what school boards are dealing with. They are grappling with class size, hiring quality teachers, deteriorating facilities, textbooks, curricula, and other issues. I know what school boards are not dealing with. School boards are not debating tax cuts and vouchers. School boards are not considering diverting revenues from public schools to private schools. But that is what this bill would do. This is the wrong education debate for our country. The right education debate gives our students the tools and the support they need to reach their full potential. Every child in America deserves a well- trained teacher and a small class size. When a student's hand goes up in the classroom, she should get the help she needs and the attention she needs. That is why this Senate should pass this class-size amendment. I am offering this amendment for one reason--to continue the progress we have made in classrooms across America for the last 2 years. As a former teacher, I can tell you, it makes a difference if you have 18 kids in your classroom instead of 35. Parents know it, teachers know it, and students know it. By working together over the past 2 years, we have been able to bring real results to students. This year, 1.7 million students across the country are learning in classrooms that are less crowded than the year before; 1.7 million students are in classrooms where teachers can spend more time teaching and less time dealing with discipline problems; and 1.7 million students are in classrooms where they can get the individual attention they need and where they will learn the basics. That is progress. But it is not enough. There are still too many students in overcrowded classrooms. So far, we have hired 29,000 new fully qualified teachers. My class size amendment will continue our progress. I recently visited a classroom in Takoma, WA, where they have taken our class size money and put it into their first grade classrooms. Now 67 classrooms in that district have 15 students in the first grade. The teachers will say they know this is the first year they will be able to say at the end of the year that every child in their first grade classroom will be able to read. There will be direct results from this program we have passed the last 2 years. They could not make those promises with 30 kids in the classroom. They now can as a result of the work we have done. I wish to take a moment to go through the specifics of my amendment. This amendment uses $1.2 billion to reduce class size, particularly in the early grades, first through third, using highly qualified teachers to improve educational achievement for regular and special needs children. This amendment targets the money where it is needed within the States. Within States, 100 percent of the funds go directly to local school districts on a formula which is 80 percent need-based and 20 percent enrollment based. Small school districts that alone may not generate enough Federal funding to pay for a new teacher may join together to generate enough funds to pay for a new teacher or to institute a top-notch recruiting program. This amendment ensures local decisionmaking. Each local school district board makes the decisions about hiring and training their new teachers. The school district must use at least 75 percent of the funds to hire new certified teachers. This amendment promotes teacher quality. Up to 25 percent of the funds may be used to test new teachers or to provide professional development to new and current teachers or of regular and special needs children. The program ensures that all teachers are fully qualified. Under the amendment, school districts hire State-certified teachers so every student will learn from a highly trained professional. This amendment is flexible. Any school district that has already reduced class sizes in early grades, to 18 or fewer children, may then use the funds to further reduce class sizes in the early grades, to reduce class size in kindergarten or other grades, or carry out activities to improve teacher quality, including professional development. The class size program is simple and efficient. School districts fill out a one-page form which is available online. The Department of Education sends them the money to hire the new teachers based on need and enrollment. Let me add that teachers have told me they have never seen money move as quickly from Congress to the classrooms as they have under our class size bill. Finally, this amendment ensures accountability. The amendment clarifies that the funds are supplementary and cannot replace current spending on teachers or teacher salaries. School districts fill out no new forms to get the funding, they just add a description of their class size reduction plan to a current form. Accountability is assured by requiring school districts to send a report card in plain English to their local community, including information about how achievement has improved as a result of reducing class size. Those are the specifics of my amendment. I know this amendment will help my students. I urge my colleagues to support it.

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

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I want to share with my colleagues some great education news for schools in Washington state and around the country. Today, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation announced a nationwide commitment to provide $350 million over three years to help students succeed in the classroom. As a former educator in Washington state, I'm especially pleased that more than $200 million dollars will go to Washington state classrooms. This generous contribution will put money where we know it will make a difference: helping all students achieve by developing strong leadership skills in our teachers and administrators. As we work here in the Senate on our national education policy, today's announcement is a reminder that educating our children is a team effort--and there are important roles for federal, state, and local officials, as well as businesses, nonprofit organizations, and individuals. For years, the people I represent have seen first-hand the generosity and sense of community that Bill and Melinda Gates possess. Their foundation has worked to vaccinate poor children against diseases, to bring computers to libraries across the country, and to provide scholarships to talented minority students. We in Washington state have known about it since the beginning, and I'm proud that today, the whole nation gets to see it--and benefit from it. I couldn't be more proud of the Gates Foundation on this special occasion and can't wait to see the many ways this will improve education for millions of students. As we begin our work to reauthorize the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, I hope that this major announcement serves to remind us that local school districts--on their own--don't have all the resources they need. Individuals have a role to play as mentors, volunteers and coaches. Charitable foundations have a role to play, and the federal government also has a role to play. I hope the Senate will follow the important and thoughtful example set by the Gates Foundation to do our best to give all students the resources and the tools they need to reach their potential.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I have come to the floor today to talk about the budget the President has presented to Congress this year. Every budget is a statement of priorities, and I wanted to share with my colleagues how this budget matches up with the priorities of the people I represent. I will spend a moment talking about how we should consider budgets in this remarkable period of economic strength. The President's FY 2001 budget comes at a time of great prosperity and also great challenges. I take the budget decisions we will make this year very seriously. We have an historic opportunity to meet our long-term commitments and make vital investments. In looking at the budget, I am focused on two priorities. First, we cannot squander the surplus. It has been too hard to reach this point of progress. When I came to the Senate in 1993, our fiscal house was a mess. But we made the tough, fiscally responsible decisions that have brought us to this point. The surplus is not here by accident. We made very difficult choices, and now is not the time to abandon our steady, responsible approach. We have a responsibility to use the surplus in ways that will meet our long-term commitments and continue our economic growth. We know that Social Security and Medicare are running out of money. These are promises from one generation to the next. And it would be wrong-- fiscally and morally--not to save those programs while we have the chance. We should also remember that these surplus projections are just that--protections. I worry that some of the projections my Republican colleagues have used are too rosy--in part because they are based on faulty assumptions, and they do not account for any slowing down of our economy. I think we should use the most realistic estimates available. Second, we have to continue to make the responsible investments that will help our economy grow. We must maintain our investments in areas like education, R&D, infrastructure, criminal justice, agriculture, and defense. We must strengthen Social Security and Medicare. And we must provide targeted tax relief. I am pleased that the President has presented a responsible plan for meeting those objectives. One important investment is paying down the debt. We are responsible for paying down a major portion of the public debt. A commitment of $2.5 trillion over ten years--as called for by the President--would make us debt free within 13 years. Mr. President, now is the time to pay down the debt--while the economy is strong. I know there will be a lot of debate over tax cuts this year. There is room for tax cuts--but they need to be responsible. We should remember that just last year Republicans were pushing an irresponsible, $790 billion tax cut. I am glad the American people rejected it. And this year, some presidential candidates appear willing to roll the dice on even riskier schemes. This year we should be on the look out for tax cuts that do not help our country. When looking at tax cuts, I will be asking: Do they contribute to our future and promote our economic growth by investing in workers and education? I would like to turn to the investments we have to make in education. When I think of the types of investments that have real returns for America's families--education tops the list. Investing in education pays dividends in boosting our country's productivity and expanding our people's potential. We must continue to invest in education so that every American will have the tools and skills to succeed in the global economy. We know that by reducing class size, investing in teacher quality, and making higher education more accessible, we are improving the prospects for our nation and our people. And I am proud of the many education investments this budget makes. We must stay on the path of hiring 100,000 fully-qualified teachers to reduce class size. We know that kids learn the basics and have fewer discipline problems in smaller classes. The budget boosts funding to $1.75 billion, an increase of $450 million over the current level. That's enough to hire about 49,000 teachers, nearly half-way to our long term goal. So I commend the president's budget for its commitment to reducing class size. By working together over the past two years, we've already made the classroom a better, more productive place for 1.7 million students--and with the President's latest commitment, we can bring the benefits of smaller classes to many more students. We know that when we reduce the number of students in each classroom--we need more classrooms, so I am pleased the President's budget also follows through on our efforts to boost school construction. The President's budget also takes greats steps forward to improve teacher quality. As I listened to the President's State of the Union Address last month, I was excited to see that efforts to boost teacher quality are finally getting the national attention they deserve. We need to have a plan to recruit, train and reward great teachers; a plan to help high-poverty school districts attract great teachers through better pay and higher standards; and a plan to reward school districts that make progress in reducing the number of uncertified teachers and teachers teaching outside their subject area. These would all represent great steps forward. We need to boost hometown teacher recruitment, to help professionals from diverse fields make the transition to the classroom, and to promote professional development for school leaders. But there is more we should do to boost teacher quality. That's why, last year, I introduced the Quality and Accountability are Best for Children Act--Quality ABCs (S. 1926). After talking with parents, teachers and students, I wrote a bill that will hold educators accountable for their students' progress. It will help keep great teachers in the classroom by offering them improved professional development and career ladders. It will reward and recognize great educators. It will offer a meaningful financial bonus for states to improve teacher pay and it will ensure teachers have the training they need to use technology in the classroom. I believe the President's budget--and his State of the Union Address--are a great start to boosting teacher quality across America. The President's budget also makes important investments in early education, in Headstart funding, in preventing youth violence, and in expanding college access. Mr. President, clearly this is a budget that recognizes the importance of education. It matches our funding with our priorities. But there are some initiatives that do not require a budget allocation. And I would like to spend a moment highlighting some of the efforts I will fight for as we reauthorize the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. First, there is a lot we can do to boost parental involvement. Parents are a child's first and best teachers, and studies have shown that when families are involved in education their children do better in school. Today, it is difficult for parents and family members to participate in their children's education--either because they do not feel welcomed by schools or because their time is limited by work and other constraints. That is why I've introduced two bills to make it easier for parents to help their children succeed in school. First, I introduced the Time for Schools Act, S. 1304, which allows parents to take up to 24 hours of unpaid leave from work each year to attend academic events at school. And second, with input from parents and teachers, I wrote the Parent- Family School Partnership Act, S. 1772, which will encourage families to participate in schools, will train educators in the best ways to involve parents, will invest in family involvement efforts, and will use technology and community college partnerships to boost parental involvement. A great classroom and a great teacher only go so far, these bills will go a long way to ensuring that students get the most from school by having a parent involved. We should also do more to expand technology in the classroom. In 1997, we made sure that new teachers get the technology training they need before they enter the classroom. This year, we should work to make sure that current teachers receive technology training as part of an on-going professional development. That effort is part of my ``Quality ABCs'' bill that I just referred to. And I support increasing resources for, and access to, education technology, improving coordination and effective uses of education technology--including distance learning and advanced placement services. And finally, protecting students from inappropriate material on the Internet. We should offer students a voice in education decisions. I have always believed that young people should have a role in the decisions that affect them. That's why I introduced the ``Youth and Adult School Partnership Act,'' S. 1773, which will create more meaningful roles for students in their schools and communities, invest in successful student-adult partnerships, and continue researching the link between student involvement and student achievement. Finally, we should promote the types of local partnerships that help students succeed. As I have visited schools throughout my State, I have been impressed by how well they have formed partnerships with local business and non-profit organizations. I visited one community, where the local chamber of commerce runs a Teacher Internship Program--where teachers spend their summers in the business world--seeing--first- hand--the skills their students will need. And those efforts can have great results for our students. So we must continue to promote these local partnerships. I have laid out my vision--the Democratic vision--for how we can improve public education. I have been working on this for many years, and it seems that the response from the other side is always ``Schools are failing, and local control is the answer.'' Education in our country is already under local control. I served on a local school board, and I can tell you that as a fact. Do we need to reduce paperwork? Yes. Do we need to be more flexible? Yes. But the real question is: What are we doing to support education? This budget-- and the ideas I just mentioned--offer a specific blueprint--for how we can improve education. I fear that instead of giving these tools to our educators, the majority would rather criticize our public schools. Too often, their rhetoric tears down, when we should be building up. The majority's education agenda too often resembles an effort to assign blame. I believe a better approach--the Democratic approach--is to strengthen the partnerships that improve education. We Democrats--in the Senate and the House along with the President-- are offering something positive--and I hope that this agenda of excellence is greeted by honest examination and constructive debate focused on helping students learn--and not the usual partisan blame game. We have a chance to lead. We have a chance to really improve public education for all Americans. Let's not abandon the principles that have made our nation great. Let's not let partisan gamesmanship stand in the way of progress. Let's take this unprecedented opportunity in our nation's history to make the investments we need, and to do right by our nation's parents, our nation's educators, and--most importantly--our nation's future--the children attending our public schools. I yield the floor.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. This letter was written to the Commerce, Justice, State Appropriations Committee and in close consultation with WTO organizers in Seattle, including the City of Seattle. Unfortunately, despite efforts by my office and the City of Seattle, no other Senators signed the letter urging the Appropriations Committee to provide the WTO funding, as well as earmark funds for the City of Seattle. I worked to make it a bipartisan letter. Perhaps if other Senators had signed the letter when I asked last year, we would have been able to provide earmark money for Seattle and avoid part of the problem now facing my state, as was discussed by my colleague from Washington earlier today. The WTO was a difficult period for my constituents. We are continuing to deal with the many issues raised for our state during the ministerial. The city of Seattle and other local governments have been forced to bear $12 million in security costs. this is a far higher cost than anyone anticipated. It threatens to force other budget cuts to make up for the State Department's refusal to work with my constituents. Congress--with strong assistance from the President and Vice President--did provide $5 million in WTO money. The issue before us now is between my constituents--who have been asked to absorb virtually all WTO security costs--and the State Department. Obviously, this issue will not go away. And I have already begun to work with the administration to get further support in forcing the State Department to assume some responsibility for the $12 million in WTO security costs. Now is not the time for the State Department to discredit or deny the legitimate issues raised by my constituents. And now is not the time to politicize an issue that remains difficult and volatile for my constituents. Seattle and Washington state want to heal the WTO wounds This administration has been enormously helpful to Washington state interests. Across the board, the President and the Vice President, have both devoted time, energy and resources to Washington state's problems fighting for jobs for aerospace workers, supporting our high tech economy, devoting new resources to environmental problems, and addressing our difficult transportation problems are all examples of the close working relationship between this administration and Washington state. And I expect the same degree of support in trying to resolve the current problem on WTO security related costs incurred by the city of Seattle and other local governments in Washington state. Mr. President, I encourage my colleagues to join me in working with the administration to address this very difficult problem. The best way to do this is through cooperation--by trying to convince the State Department that in hosting international events, we must be careful not to ask local governments to assume costs that are clearly federal responsibilities. Mr. President, I will continue my efforts to ensure that the city of Seattle and other local governments are not left holding the bag, and once again, I welcome my colleagues to join me in this effort.

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I come to the floor today as part of my on-going work to ensure that the city of Seattle gets the money it should receive for security costs incurred during the 1999 World Trade Organization Ministerial. Mr. President, I have been working with the city of Seattle, the administration, and others on this issue for more than a year and let me say that I welcome Senator Gorton's interest in this topic earlier today. Actually, back in 1994, I worked to resolve a similar problem associated with Seattle's hosting of the Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation forum. In 1994, working with the Clinton administration, we were able to provide the city of Seattle with close to $1 million for APEC related costs. Mr. President, for the record, I want to walk my colleagues through some of the history of the issue of the funding of the WTO that was discussed on the floor earlier today. From the moment Seattle was awarded the WTO Ministerial meeting, I worked with the city of Seattle and others to ensure Seattle was given an opportunity to successfully host the WTO. For almost a year, I met with the city, the Seattle Host Organization, our Trade Representative Charlene Barshefsky and others within the executive branch. At every opportunity, I stressed the importance of supporting the city of Seattle in its efforts to provide the necessary security arrangements to the delegates and other WTO visitors. The Clinton administration--in its fiscal year 2000 budget--requested $2 million in State Department money for WTO related expenses. This request was formulated months before a U.S. host city for the WTO was selected. From the very beginning, the Washington congressional delegation and WTO organizers in Washington state realized this request would be inadequate. Beginning in March of 1999, with my appropriations request letter to the Commerce, Justice, State appropriations subcommittee, I encouraged the Congress to provide $5 million to the State Department for WTO related expenses. And I urged the Congress to essentially earmark one- half of this money for Seattle to meet a portion of the WTO security expenses. The Senate Commerce, Justice, State bill did provide the State Department with $5 million for WTO related expenses, but the House version did not. During the conference report, I worked with my Washington state congressional colleagues to protect the $5 million in new WTO money. Unfortunately, the original CJS conference report did not provide new money. Instead, it said the State Department could take up to $5 million for existing accounts and move them over to be used for WTO expenses. When I saw that language, I was concerned. To me, it increased the likelihood that the State Department would not assist Seattle with WTO security related costs. Fortunately, as often happens with appropriations bills, the final product is a compromise between the Congress and the administration. On several occasions, I continued to express to the administration the need for securing $5 million in new money--rather than relying on the State Department to move old money around. Mr. President, I asked unanimous consent to print in the Record a letter dated September 28, 1999.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, let me assure my colleagues, this issue is not about theater. It is about the very real issue of violence against women. I join with my colleague, the Senator from New York, and thank him for his work on this amendment and urge my colleagues to support it. This amendment is not about abortion. This amendment is about violence against women. We cannot allow violent extremists to use the bankruptcy code to carry out their agenda of violence. If anyone thinks this is simply another abortion or choice issue, let me point out to all of you, there are groups and individuals who teach violent protesters how to protect their financial assets in the event of a civil or criminal penalty. There are classes one can take or pamphlets one can read spelling out how violent protesters can get around any punitive financial damage by simply running to bankruptcy court. It is simply beyond comprehension how we can allow those convicted of violence and intimidation to be excused from punitive financial penalties. If we are serious about reducing violence and sending the right message to our children, we must support the Schumer amendment. In 1998, there were two murders and one attempted murder of clinic workers. Since 1990, abortion clinic arson and bombings have resulted in over $8.5 million in damages. Two bombs were recently discovered at clinics in Kentucky and Ohio. Every day, women are harassed and intimidated as they seek proper health care services. This violence must stop, and those responsible must be held accountable. Passage of the Schumer amendment will send the message that violence will not be tolerated. Peaceful protests will continue. Each individual has a right to freely express their views and their opinions. But no one has a right to carry out a campaign of fear and violence. For too many women, these clinics are their only access to health care, including cancer screening and prenatal care. Constant and violent threats diminish access to health care for hundreds of women and subject them to unreasonable abuse and intimidation. Do not reward those who seek to deny women access to legal, affordable health care services. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to do the right thing and support the Schumer amendment. I yield back my time to the Senator from New York.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, it is with great respect and admiration that I rise today to pay tribute to Ms. Hazel Wolf, of Seattle, Washington, who passed away at the age of 101 on Wednesday, January 19, 2000. A tireless advocate for conservation and social justice, Ms. Wolf was an outstanding example for all Americans. She combined humor with persistence as she set about combating injustice. She will continue to live in the hearts and minds of the many who knew her. And there are many, for Hazel had the remarkable ability to engage just about anyone, from Senator to second grader. Hazel Wolf was born in Victoria, British Columbia, on March 10, 1898. In 1923, she moved to the United States with her daughter, Nydia. She was a union organizer for the Works Progress Administration and avidly followed politics, eventually becoming a Democrat. Until 1965, she worked as a legal secretary for the Seattle civil rights lawyer John Caughlan. It wasn't until her retirement that she became such an involved environmental activist and leader. Ms. Wolf began working with the Audubon Society in the early-1960s and helped start 21 of the 26 Audubon Society chapters in Washington State. In 1979, she worked to organize the first statewide conference to bring together environmentalists and Native American tribes, the Indian Conservationist Conference. She served as Secretary of the Seattle Audubon Society chapter for three decades, and for 17 years she edited an environmental newsletter, `Outdoors West'. In 1990, her discussions with a Soviet delegation led to the creation of the Leningrad Audubon Society in Russia. Ms. Wolf was also a founder of Seattle's Community Coalition for Environmental Justice, which works to improve environmental safety in poor city neighborhoods. She also belonged to the Sierra Club, Greenpeace and the Earth Island Institute. Ms. Wolf was a frequent and favorite speaker at schools and environmental conferences throughout the Northwest. In 1997, the National Audubon Society awarded her the prestigious Audubon Medal, for Excellence in Environmental Achievement. She received numerous other awards, including the State of Washington Environmental Excellence Award, the National Audubon Society's Conservationist of the Year Award and the Washington State Legislature Award for environmental work. To celebrate her 100th birthday in 1998, the Seattle Audubon chapter created the Hazel Wolf ``Kids for the Environment'' endowment, which will fund programs to provide urban children from lower-income communities with opportunities to experience the natural world. In Issaquah, Washington, there is a 116-acre wetland named after her. On the other side of the Cascade Mountains near Yakima, a bird sanctuary bears her name. Hazel Wolf served as the environmental conscience of the Northwest, with her dedication to protecting forests, saving salmon, educating young people and preserving the outdoors for future generations to enjoy. The most significant and important tribute we can give to Hazel Wolf is to continue the work which she pursued with such vision and passion. We will miss you Hazel, but rest assured, we will continue the work you started.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, I come to the floor today to recognize the Weyerhaeuser Company's 100th anniversary on Tuesday, January 18, 2000. In 1990, a group of investors led by Frederick Weyerhaeuser incorporated the Weyerhaeuser Company. With three employees in Tacoma, Washington, Weyerhaeuser began one hundred years of expansion and growth across our State, Nation and international borders. Today, Weyerhaeuser is the world's largest owner of softwood timber, and the largest producer and distributor of engineered wood products. An economic pillar in the Northwest and throughout the nation, Weyerhaeuser employs over 45,000 people. The company's current success is directly related to its commitment to sustainable forestry and community involvement. Frederick Weyerhaeuser's founding vision is captured in his statement ``this is not for us, it is for our children.'' Steven R. Rogel, Weyerhaeuser's current chairman, CEO, and president has committed the company to ``safety and to being a good corporate citizen. Weyerhaeuser continues to manage woodlands to sustain the supply of wood and protect the ecosystem.'' Through product research, Weyerhaeuser has successfully developed new products and services to meet changing customer demands. Dedicated to the communities which support it, Weyerhaeuser has distributed over $127 million to communities for educational, environmental and other programs. Through the years, Weyerhaeuser has supported recycling programs becoming the third largest recycler in the Nation. The company's 24 recycling facilities collect nearly four million tons of paper each year. In 1980, Mt. St. Helens in Washington state erupted, destroying thousands of acres of forest. Weyerhaeuser salvaged timber and replanted 18 million seedlings in the volcanic area. The company joined the Department of Transportation to create the visitor center at Mt. St. Helens which educates people about the environment. Over the years, Weyerhaeuser has become an international trade leader and an engine adding to the economic success of Washington state and the entire nation. I would like to congratulate the Weyerhaeuser Team on its past 100 years of business success. I know their innovation will carry them through the next century, and I look forward to the benefits Weyerhaeuser will continue to bring to the people of Washington State.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, at the start of this session, I've come to the floor to introduce a bill that will improve the safety of all Americans by raising the safety standards on the oil and gas pipelines that run through our communities. Today, I'm introducing the Pipeline Safety Act of 2000. Until recently, like many Americans, I wasn't aware of the potential safety hazards that pipelines can pose. These pipelines stretch across America--running under our homes and near our schools and offices. Nationwide, the Office of Pipeline Safety oversees more than 157,000 miles of underground pipeline which transport hazardous liquids and more than 2.2 million miles of pipeline which transport natural gas. They perform a vital service--bringing oil and essential products to our homes and businesses. I rarely heard about them, so I assumed they were safe. But last year, there was a deadly pipeline accident in my home state of Washington. And the more I learned about how pipelines are regulated in the United States--the more concerned I became. Today, seven months after that disaster in Bellingham, I am here on the Senate floor with a bill that takes the lessons of pipeline disasters and turns them into law--so that these tragedies won't happen again. Mr. President, on June 10th, in Bellingham, Washington, a gas pipeline ruptured--releasing more than a quarter of a million gallons of gasoline into Whatcom Creek. The gas ignited--sending a huge fireball racing down the creek--destroying everything in its path for more than a mile. The dramatic explosion killed three young people who happened to be playing by the creek. It created a plume of smoke which rose more than twenty-thousand feet into the air. This photo behind me was taken just moments after the explosion. One minute, a quiet residential area; the next moment, a disaster. Besides the tragic loss of these three young lives, this explosion caused horrendous environmental damage. In fact, I was scheduled to be at this exact site just a few weeks later to designate a newly restored salmon spawning ground. When I saw the damage a short time after the explosion, frankly, I was shocked. Take a look at these pictures. This was before the explosion where we were going to dedicate a salmon creek spawning ground. This is afterwards. As you can see, this explosion destroyed all of the plant and animal life in the creek, and it was once a lush and diverse habitat. In moments, it was destroyed and gone. The explosion also had an impact on the entire community. Neighbors could not sleep at night, and young children--still to this day--panic during lightning storms. And, of course, three families--who lost their children--will never be the same. Mr. President, as I researched this issue, I learned that what happened in my state was not unique--in fact--it wasn't even rare. According to the Office of Pipeline Safety, since 1986, there have been more than 5,500 incidents, resulting in 310 deaths and 1,500 injuries. Those 5,500 incidents also caused nearly a billion dollars in property damage. On average, our nation suffers one pipeline accident every day. Clearly, this is a national problem--requiring a national solution. This chart shows some of the major pipeline accidents since 1981. This chart only shows the accidents investigated by the National Transportation Safety Board--not all 5,500. As you can see, these disasters can occur anywhere--in anyone's neighborhood, in anyone's community, close to anybody's school, near anybody's place of work. And they have devastating results. While the pipeline industry--by and large--does a good job of safely delivering the fuel we need to heat our homes and drive our cars, there are some examples where they failed to protect the public. According to a New York Times article from January 14th of this year: One of the nation's largest pipeline operators quit inspecting its lines for much of the 1990's and instead found flaws by waiting for the pipes to break. Koch Industries agreed to pay a fine of $30 million--the largest civil environmental penalty to date. That company's behavior resulted in leaks of three million gallons of crude oil, gasoline, and other products in 300 separate incidents in the last nine years. We can't just rely on the industry to police itself. As this example showed, one company decided it was cheaper to wait for accidents to happen, than to take steps to prevent them. The time has come to raise the standards for pipeline safety. Too often the public is left in the dark. Neighbors don't know they live near pipelines. Schools and communities aren't told when there are problems with a pipeline. The time has come to expand the public's right to know about the pipelines that run near their homes. Too often pipelines operators don't have the training or experience they need to handle emergencies. Sometimes their actions cause accidents, and many times they make these disasters even worse. We should certify pipeline inspectors so we will know they have the training they need. In fact, in 1992 Congress passed a law requiring certification of pipeline operators. But a few years later, that requirement was repealed. That's a mistake we need to correct, and today, the need for qualified, certified operators is even greater. Too often there aren't enough resources to oversee the industry or to carry out vital safety programs. The time has come to put the resources behind these new standards. The time has come to reduce the risks pipeline pose. And the bill I'm introducing today does just that. Here are the key provisions of my bill: First, my bill will expand state authority to give states more control over pipeline safety standards. It's time to make states equal partners when it comes to pipeline safety. States should be able to use their knowledge of local conditions and circumstances to increase safety. States should be able to set up even more stringent standards than the federal government in areas like: Requiring additional training and education of inspectors and operators; Allowing states to require additional leak detection devices; Allowing states to certify procedures and responses to accidents; and Allowing states to enforce regulations. While some new state authority gives the Secretary of Transportation the discretion to allow states to regulate, it is my intent that the Secretary work aggressively at accomplishing these partnerships in the way I outline in my bill. I also strongly support efforts to better equip states as they respond to accidents. This involves better coordination between state and federal agencies so that police, fire, and emergency medical personnel will be better able to respond to pipeline disasters. The federal government should also encourage states to work more closely with pipeline companies on prevention. Second, my bill will improve inspection practices. We must develop guidelines and requirements for the internal and external inspection of pipelines. Current law only requires that pipelines be inspected internally when they are new and being used for the first time. My bill requires pipeline companies to periodically inspect their pipelines internally and externally and report their findings to federal and state authorities, as well as the public. My bill also requires pipeline companies to take action if those findings uncover problems. Third, my bill will strengthen the public's ``right to know.'' Currently the public does not have the right to know about spills and problems with pipelines. My bill would require pipeline companies to disclose problems with the pipeline and what the company is doing to fix them. It will require pipeline companies to report to the public any spill and also to report the results of the periodic testing I am proposing. Fourth, my bill will improve the quality of pipeline operators. Current law allows companies to determine if their own operator is ``qualified'' to work on a pipeline. My bill would place the government in the position of determining whether the companies' assessment is accurate. We wouldn't want an airline pilot flying a plane unless the FAA determined he was qualified. Similarly, we should require the Office of Pipeline Safety to review and certify the qualifications of pipeline operators. Finally, my bill will increase funding to improve safety. We should increase funding for research that will help improve the devices that inspect pipelines and detect leads. We should also increase grant programs to state agencies that regulate and monitor pipelines. This should be a partnership that recognizes both the state and federal responsibility in making pipelines safer. Mr. President, I am proud to introduce this bill today because I know it's the right thing to do. This has been a long process, and I've received a lot of cooperation. Specifically, I would like to thank U.S. Secretary of Transportation Rodney Slater, the Office of Pipeline Safety, the National Transportation Safety Board, the City of Bellingham, my colleagues in the Senate, Gov. Locke, other federal and state agencies, and industry representatives. Senator Gorton, my colleague from Washington State, is well aware of the importance of this issue and I look forward to his continued input. I'm also looking forward to working with my colleagues in the House-- specifically Representatives Inslee, Metcalf, and Baird--who have expressed interest in this issue. This bill will raise safety standards so that every family that lives near a pipeline can sleep soundly at night. This accident should not happen again. The time has come to take the lessons of this tragedy and put them into law--so we can reduce the odds of another disaster. We have a responsibility to do it, this bill gives us the tools to do it, and I hope you will support me in this effort.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Thank you, Mr. President. (The remarks of Mrs. Murray pertaining to the introduction of the legislation are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, at the start of this session, I've come to the floor to introduce a bill that will improve the safety of all Americans by raising the safety standards on the oil and gas pipelines that run through our communities. Today, I'm introducing the Pipeline Safety Act of 2000. Until recently, like many Americans, I wasn't aware of the potential safety hazards that pipelines can pose. These pipelines stretch across America--running under our homes and near our schools and offices. Nationwide, the Office of Pipeline Safety oversees more than 157,000 miles of underground pipeline which transport hazardous liquids and more than 2.2 million miles of pipeline which transport natural gas. They perform a vital service--bringing oil and essential products to our homes and businesses. I rarely heard about them, so I assumed they were safe. But last year, there was a deadly pipeline accident in my home state of Washington. And the more I learned about how pipelines are regulated in the United States--the more concerned I became. Today, seven months after that disaster in Bellingham, I am here on the Senate floor with a bill that takes the lessons of pipeline disasters and turns them into law--so that these tragedies won't happen again. Mr. President, on June 10th, in Bellingham, Washington, a gas pipeline ruptured--releasing more than a quarter of a million gallons of gasoline into Whatcom Creek. The gas ignited--sending a huge fireball racing down the creek--destroying everything in its path for more than a mile. The dramatic explosion killed three young people who happened to be playing by the creek. It created a plume of smoke which rose more than twenty-thousand feet into the air. This photo behind me was taken just moments after the explosion. One minute, a quiet residential area; the next moment, a disaster. Besides the tragic loss of these three young lives, this explosion caused horrendous environmental damage. In fact, I was scheduled to be at this exact site just a few weeks later to designate a newly restored salmon spawning ground. When I saw the damage a short time after the explosion, frankly, I was shocked. Take a look at these pictures. This was before the explosion where we were going to dedicate a salmon creek spawning ground. This is afterwards. As you can see, this explosion destroyed all of the plant and animal life in the creek, and it was once a lush and diverse habitat. In moments, it was destroyed and gone. The explosion also had an impact on the entire community. Neighbors could not sleep at night, and young children--still to this day--panic during lightning storms. And, of course, three families--who lost their children--will never be the same. Mr. President, as I researched this issue, I learned that what happened in my state was not unique--in fact--it wasn't even rare. According to the Office of Pipeline Safety, since 1986, there have been more than 5,500 incidents, resulting in 310 deaths and 1,500 injuries. Those 5,500 incidents also caused nearly a billion dollars in property damage. On average, our nation suffers one pipeline accident every day. Clearly, this is a national problem--requiring a national solution. This chart shows some of the major pipeline accidents since 1981. This chart only shows the accidents investigated by the National Transportation Safety Board--not all 5,500. As you can see, these disasters can occur anywhere--in anyone's neighborhood, in anyone's community, close to anybody's school, near anybody's place of work. And they have devastating results. While the pipeline industry--by and large--does a good job of safely delivering the fuel we need to heat our homes and drive our cars, there are some examples where they failed to protect the public. According to a New York Times article from January 14th of this year: One of the nation's largest pipeline operators quit inspecting its lines for much of the 1990's and instead found flaws by waiting for the pipes to break. Koch Industries agreed to pay a fine of $30 million--the largest civil environmental penalty to date. That company's behavior resulted in leaks of three million gallons of crude oil, gasoline, and other products in 300 separate incidents in the last nine years. We can't just rely on the industry to police itself. As this example showed, one company decided it was cheaper to wait for accidents to happen, than to take steps to prevent them. The time has come to raise the standards for pipeline safety. Too often the public is left in the dark. Neighbors don't know they live near pipelines. Schools and communities aren't told when there are problems with a pipeline. The time has come to expand the public's right to know about the pipelines that run near their homes. Too often pipelines operators don't have the training or experience they need to handle emergencies. Sometimes their actions cause accidents, and many times they make these disasters even worse. We should certify pipeline inspectors so we will know they have the training they need. In fact, in 1992 Congress passed a law requiring certification of pipeline operators. But a few years later, that requirement was repealed. That's a mistake we need to correct, and today, the need for qualified, certified operators is even greater. Too often there aren't enough resources to oversee the industry or to carry out vital safety programs. The time has come to put the resources behind these new standards. The time has come to reduce the risks pipeline pose. And the bill I'm introducing today does just that. Here are the key provisions of my bill: First, my bill will expand state authority to give states more control over pipeline safety standards. It's time to make states equal partners when it comes to pipeline safety. States should be able to use their knowledge of local conditions and circumstances to increase safety. States should be able to set up even more stringent standards than the federal government in areas like: Requiring additional training and education of inspectors and operators; Allowing states to require additional leak detection devices; Allowing states to certify procedures and responses to accidents; and Allowing states to enforce regulations. While some new state authority gives the Secretary of Transportation the discretion to allow states to regulate, it is my intent that the Secretary work aggressively at accomplishing these partnerships in the way I outline in my bill. I also strongly support efforts to better equip states as they respond to accidents. This involves better coordination between state and federal agencies so that police, fire, and emergency medical personnel will be better able to respond to pipeline disasters. The federal government should also encourage states to work more closely with pipeline companies on prevention. Second, my bill will improve inspection practices. We must develop guidelines and requirements for the internal and external inspection of pipelines. Current law only requires that pipelines be inspected internally when they are new and being used for the first time. My bill requires pipeline companies to periodically inspect their pipelines internally and externally and report their findings to federal and state authorities, as well as the public. My bill also requires pipeline companies to take action if those findings uncover problems. Third, my bill will strengthen the public's ``right to know.'' Currently the public does not have the right to know about spills and problems with pipelines. My bill would require pipeline companies to disclose problems with the pipeline and what the company is doing to fix them. It will require pipeline companies to report to the public any spill and also to report the results of the periodic testing I am proposing. Fourth, my bill will improve the quality of pipeline operators. Current law allows companies to determine if their own operator is ``qualified'' to work on a pipeline. My bill would place the government in the position of determining whether the companies' assessment is accurate. We wouldn't want an airline pilot flying a plane unless the FAA determined he was qualified. Similarly, we should require the Office of Pipeline Safety to review and certify the qualifications of pipeline operators. Finally, my bill will increase funding to improve safety. We should increase funding for research that will help improve the devices that inspect pipelines and detect leads. We should also increase grant programs to state agencies that regulate and monitor pipelines. This should be a partnership that recognizes both the state and federal responsibility in making pipelines safer. Mr. President, I am proud to introduce this bill today because I know it's the right thing to do. This has been a long process, and I've received a lot of cooperation. Specifically, I would like to thank U.S. Secretary of Transportation Rodney Slater, the Office of Pipeline Safety, the National Transportation Safety Board, the City of Bellingham, my colleagues in the Senate, Gov. Locke, other federal and state agencies, and industry representatives. Senator Gorton, my colleague from Washington State, is well aware of the importance of this issue and I look forward to his continued input. I'm also looking forward to working with my colleagues in the House-- specifically Representatives Inslee, Metcalf, and Baird--who have expressed interest in this issue. This bill will raise safety standards so that every family that lives near a pipeline can sleep soundly at night. This accident should not happen again. The time has come to take the lessons of this tragedy and put them into law--so we can reduce the odds of another disaster. We have a responsibility to do it, this bill gives us the tools to do it, and I hope you will support me in this effort.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I rise today with Senators Craig, Smith of Oregon, Boxer, and Feinstein to introduce the Agricultural Market Access and Development Act. Mr. President, farmers and ranchers in our nation are hurting. Rural communities in my home state of Washington have been severely impacted by the current crisis in agriculture. The causes are complex and diverse, and have been discussed at great length on the floor of the United States Senate. Low prices, the loss of markets in Asia, foreign trade barriers, dumping, and industry concentration are just a few of the difficulties farmers and ranchers, the Administration, and Members of Congress are struggling to overcome. I am pleased Congress acted to provide emergency assistance as part of the fiscal year 2000 agriculture appropriations act. However, while this package was desperately needed, it left our many so-called ``minor crop'' producers across the country. It failed to reform our nation's plicy on unilateral sanctions. And it didn't compel us to dedicate time to really resolve long-term issues that will put American agriculture on a more solid foundation. One long-term issue that deserves attention is federal support for market access and development. Today, I am introducing the Agricultural Market Access and Development Act to ensure our producers have the resources they need to expand their overseas markets. 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. While many Members of Congress and producers have advocated increased funding for MAP and the Cooperator Program, these efforts have been complicated by our work to balance the budget and meet other important national commitments. At the same time, the agricultural community is frustrated over the use--or lack of use--of the Export Enhancement Program. Debate will continue on the merits of using the Export Enhancement Program. Nevertheless, I believe we cannot afford to continue wasting the precious dollars we target toward agricultural trade. That is exactly what is happening now: hundreds of millions of dollars in the Export Enhancement Program remain unspent and unused while foreign governments heavily subsidize and protect their agricultural economies to the detriment of American producers. My bill seeks to recover some of our lost trade resources and convert them into new opportunities for our farmers and ranchers. My bill would give the Secretary of Agriculture the authority to direct a percentage of unspent Export Enhancement Program dollars to market access and development programs within the Commodity Credit Corporation. If less than 20 percent of funds authorized for the Export Enhancement Program are spent by July 1 of a given fiscal year, the Secretary could direct up to 50 percent of unspent EEP funds to other programs. If less than 50 percent--but more than 20 percent--of funds authorized for EEP are spent by July 1 of a given fiscal year, the Secretary could direct up to 20 percent of unspent EEP funds to other programs. Mr. President, I am introducing this legislation today to advance the discussion on using all of our trade resources. The numbers included in my bill will be subject to further discussion and I welcome it. However, I believe this legislation represents a serious effort to use our scarce resources wisely. Our current trade negotiations on agriculture show that we must be willing and able to use federal resources to promote trade. If we do not, our negotiations and our producers cannot succeed. As we head into the Seattle Round of the World Trade Organization this fall, we need to commit ourselves to promoting trade and expanding market access. Without this commitment, we will lose opportunities to market our products overseas. Without this commitment, the changes we made to our farm policy in 1996 will not have a chance in the world of succeeding. As I said before, Mr. President, agricultural producers in my state of Washington are hurting. My state is home to more than 200 ``minor'' crops. Washington state is known for its productive apple industry. Unfortunately, that industry is in the midst of a terrible economic crisis. The loss of markets in Asia, non-frozen apple juice concentrate dumping by China, oversupply, poor weather conditions in 1998, and generally low prices are driving hundreds of family farms out of business. This Congress needs to do a better job of addressing the plight of all commodity producers, not just those who grow major commodities. My legislation is a step in the right direction. It seeks to increase funding for the Market Access Program, which is popular among fruit and vegetable growers. In fact, it is one of the few federal programs that benefit fruit and vegetable producers. Since this Congress has shown its reluctance to target meaningful federal aid to minor crop producers, the least we can do is strengthen the voluntary programs that work for these producers. If we do not, we will be failing to promote economic stability in many rural communities. However, my bill is not just intended to help fruit and vegetable producers. It also encourages transferring unused trade dollars to the Foreign Market Development Program, which is used by program commodities. Both MAP and FMD represent the kind of federal-industry partnerships we should be encouraging at a time of limited government resources. Mr. President, let me briefly address one criticism of the Market Access Program: the issue of whether it is primarily a program that benefits large corporations. Congress reformed MAP--known before the 1996 farm bill as the Market Promotion Program--in 1996 to ensure that large corporations with no connections to producers could not access MAP funds. I strongly supported that change. The new law did allow for the program's continued use by farmers' cooperatives, some of which are major industry players. However, it is clear to me, and to others who follow the farm economy, that encouraging the development of farmers' cooperatives is one of the few bright spots in our efforts to keep family farms on the land. Therefore, while opponents will continue to point to a few examples of entities they believe in no way should be involved in the program, I believe my colleagues should keep the broader picture in mind. MAP deserves our support. Next year, Congress should address long-term agricultural issues. And one of those issues should be the transfer of unused Export Enhancement Program funds to market access and development programs. I urge my colleagues to join me in this effort. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be printed in the Record.