Patty Murray

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, as the Senate finally concludes its work for the legislative year, I want to outline my position on a few of the final issues. Unfortunately, I needed to travel back to Washington state to attend the funeral of my good friend and mentor, Pat McMullen, and missed three votes. Before leaving, I voted in favor of the ``motion to proceed'' to the omnibus appropriations bill, which also included fixes to the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 and the tax extenders package. With that vote, I registered my support for this important funding and corrections bill. I also would have voted in favor of the Work Incentives Act. First, I would like to address just some important provisions in the omnibus appropriations bill. There are many things that we do here that have little direct impact on the lives of real people and real families. However, this legislation is one of those times when we act to provide real help and real hope to working families, children and our senior citizens. The package that we are about to enact, provides an additional $2 billion investment in the National Institutes of Health (NIH). There are few people in this country who are not touched in some way by the research supported by NIH. An additional $2 billion keeps us on track to doubling our investment in medical research. Research that saves lives and prevents human suffering. Our investment has already brought us closer to finding a cure for devastating diseases like Parkinson's, leukemia, heart disease, and breast cancer. We must continue this commitment as this investment is about saving dollars and lives. The impact on Washington state is also significant. I am proud of the fact that Washington state is one of the top recipients of NIH grants. The outstanding research being conducted at research institutions like the University of Washington and the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center are known throughout the world. We are truly a world leader in medical research. This appropriations package will also provide additional resources to improve access to quality health care for the uninsured and the most vulnerable. The additional funding for the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) and the additional $100 million provided for Community Health and Migrant Health Care Centers provide a critical health care safety net for those working families who simply cannot afford insurance. There are more than 80 clinics in Washington state providing quality, affordable health care services who will be able to expand and meet the growing needs of the uninsured populations. I am pleased we have been successful in providing, for the first time, a direct appropriation to support poison control efforts and education and training for Children's Hospitals. I have been a long time proponent of these efforts and recognize the importance of this investment in our children. Overall, this appropriations package includes a $34.5 billion investment in health care programs. This investment will strengthen the public health infrastructure, provide essential prevention and treatment services to individuals with mental illness and ensure that our senior citizens are not forgotten. The additional $45 million provided to support Older Americans Act programs ensures that we can honor our commitment to our nation's elderly by providing important services like nutritional assistance, employment training, respite care, in-home care, and abuse prevention. In addition, as part of this appropriations bill, we have succeeded in saving quality health care for millions of Medicare beneficiaries. The corrections to the Balanced Budget Act address the unintended consequences of the reductions called for in 1997. Then, we anticipated a total of $100 billion over five years to ensure Medicare's solvency. Unfortunately, our estimates have proven incorrect and we were facing well over $200 billion in reductions which are impacting quality care for millions of seniors and the disabled. The BBA97 corrections provide additional resources for home health care, skilled nursing facilities, nursing homes, hospitals, cancer treatment centers, teaching hospitals like the University of Washington, community health care centers, rehabilitation services, and health maintenance organizations. This one time correction will prevent the closing of facilities or home health care agencies and does not jeopardize our goal of solvency for the Medicare Trust Fund. I know from my own health care providers and my own hospitals what this fix means. I also know that without it, rural health care was in real jeopardy. I told my constituents that I would not leave for the year until we acted to address the looming crisis. This has been accomplished in a bipartisan and comprehensive manner. I would also like to address the tax extenders package included in this bill. I generally support the tax extenders package. It includes the expansion of some tax credits that I have strongly supported over the years. First, the research and experimentation tax credit represents a critical investment for our nation. If we are to continue creating more and higher-paying jobs for American workers, we must encourage the business community to invest in research and development. This bill does just that. I have cosponsored two bills to make the R&E tax credit permanent, so I look forward to working with my colleagues to make that happen. I am also pleased this legislation includes extensions of the Welfare-to-Work Tax Credit and the Work Opportunity Tax Credit, which help us move toward our goal of ensuring that all Americans benefit from the new economy. This extenders package also includes an extension of employer provided educational assistance. I am disappointed the package does not include compensation for graduate school assistance. I believe this commission is short-sighted. At a time when the American economy is so rapidly changing, we need to ensure that our workforce is able to meet the demands of the new economy. Our tax code should also reflect our commitment to cleaner energy. While this package extends the wind and biomass tax credit, it does not expand the definition of biomass to include open loop biomass. Meanwhile, it expands the code to include incentives for the production of energy from chicken waste. I have no doubt that some of my colleagues are trying to address legitimate animal waste issues in their states. However, if the code is to be expanded, it should be expanded to include open loop biomass. If Congress considers major tax legislation next year, this should be a top priority. While the efforts I have mentioned above help businesses and the poor, the bill also helps middle class Americans. In 1997, we passed important non-refundable tax credits, like the child tax credit, that have greatly benefitted the middle class. This legislation will ensure families can continue to use these credits without being affected by the alternative minimum tax. Finally, the Senate passed another piece of important legislation today: the Work Incentives Act. The WIA bill rewards those disabled individuals who want to go back to work but face the prospect of falling off the so called ``health care cliff.'' We have been successful in treating many illnesses and injuries that once permanently disabled workers. They may not be cured but can be productive. Unfortunately, if they do try and return to work they lose their link to life, their health insurance. This legislation, of which I am proud to have been an original cosponsor, will allow workers to return to work and continue to receive Medicare. It will also allow many to buy-in to Medicaid. This legislation is not just about giving people the chance to return to some kind of productive life. It is about saving precious dollars as well. Workers who give up their Social Security disability payments to go back to work will be paying taxes and contributing to the Social Security and Medicare Trust Fund. This is a win-win for all of us. It is also the kind of policy that simply makes sense. People should not be penalized for trying to go back to work. Mr. President, I have voted in support of the motion to proceed to this omnibus appropriations, B.B.A. of '97, and tax extenders package. I am particularly pleased we have been able to secure yet another year of commitment to our children by helping reduce class sizes in the early grades. I will be working hard to ensure this important program is authorized in the Elementary and Secondary Education Act next year. I must also note extreme disappointment in the decision to pit United Nations dues against women's reproductive health care. I remain committed to family planning throughout the world and will be working with the administration to ensure the United States continues to lead the way in protecting women's health, including our reproductive health.

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.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, today I introduce legislation on another topic I will be discussing with Chairman Jeffords as we move forward with reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act in the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee. I am introducing legislation today to fund an innovative book distribution program targeted at giving low-income students their own ``first book.'' The ``First Book'' program is a non-profit private organization that has been tremendously successful gathering and distibuting new children's books to needy children throughout the nation. Key to the success of ``First Book'' are local boards called ``First Book Local Advisory Boards.'' Under my legislation, which would provide $5 million a year federal investment to such boards, will help them leverage millions more in funds from other sources. ``First Book'' has been successful because it is locally-driven, and reflects private industry initiative. ``First Book'' provides new books, which the program purchases from publishers at discount rates, to disadvantaged children and families primarily through tutoring, mentoring, and family literacy programs. This bill builds on successful efforts underway in communities across the country. It takes what has been a successful but very targeted program, and will increase its reach and effect into many more American communities. ``First Book'' makes a very real difference for disadvantaged children and their families, and with this investment, it will make a difference for thousands more.

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, today I introduce legislation on another topic I will be discussing with Chairman Jeffords as we move forward with reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act in the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee. The bill deals with an improvement I hope we can make in the Stuart McKinney Homeless Education program. While the McKinney program is relatively small, my hope is that we can greatly improve its effectiveness by recognizing and funding innovative approaches for serving homeless students. Chairman Jeffords and others have recognized that keeping a homeless child in their school district of origin is vital to their success. Children, especially homeless children, need continuity in their lives. Yet as a nation, we have not yet focused on funding the innovative practices that will show how this can be done and done effectively. In addition, there are chronic problems facing homeless children, such as the problems of trying to reach out to unaccompanied homeless youth, those young people who do not have parents or guardians with them in their homeless situation. Homeless preschoolers present another whole range of issues that many schools struggle to overcome. My legislation will provide $2 million each year in national competitive challenge grants for innovation in the education of homeless children and youth. We follow this same approach in education technology and other areas, and challenge grants are remarkably successful in sparking innovation and dissemination of new methods of instruction. Homeless students face many challenges, and schools face challenges in serving them. Creating a small challenge grant for homeless education is one necessary step we can take to help schools help these students succeed and achieve.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I rise this evening in very strong support of my friend Ronald Gould's confirmation to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. This has been a long hard-fought battle and I commend him for his patience, perseverance, and persistence. We made it, Ron. Congratulations! Let me share with my colleagues some of the special things about Ronald Gould that make him a person I was proud to recommend to the President for a seat on the Federal bench. He has personally supported me in my political career and helped others to believe in me. Ron is an excellent lawyer, a strong advocate for the legal profession, a community booster, a dedicated family man, a Distinguished Eagle Scout, and a man who has overcome much in his personal life to continue to be all of these things. I am honored to have been a part of his journey to the Federal bench. I would like to highlight some of Mr. Gould's personal history. He married his wife Suzanne more than 30 years ago, and they have two children. their 23-year-old son Daniel, who is also an Eagle Scout, is a jazz saxophone performer and technology student who recently graduated from Stanford University and founded his own Internet startup business. Their 20-year-old daughter Rebecca is a sophomore at Hampshire College in Amherst, MA. Rebecca was selected for the Seattle ``High School Hall of Fame'' for her courage in conquering challenges following an auto accident in which she was seriously injured. Mr. Gould also has been supported in this and all other endeavors of his life by his mother, Sylvia Gould. She is an active 81-year old walker and swimmer who justifiably takes some credit for her son's accomplishments since she encouraged him to do well in school and succeed as a Boy Scout. Mr. Gould graduated the Wharton School of Business and Commerce at the University of Pennsylvania with a B.S. in economics. He received his J.D. degree in May 1973, graduating magna cum laude from the University of Michigan Law School where he won academic awards and served as editor-in-chief of the Michigan Law Review. During law school he received the Abram Sempliner Memorial Award for legal excellence, the Henry Bates Memorial Scholarship, and the Order of the Coif. After law school, Mr. Gould served as a law clerk for Judge Wade McCree on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. He next served as a law clerk for Justice Potter Stewart at the U.S. Supreme Court during the 1974 term. Since December 1975, Mr. Gould has practiced law as an associate and then as a partner with Seattle's largest firm, Perkins Coie. He has had a varied civil litigation practice, including litigation in antitrust, banking, director and officer liability, and trade secrets. Mr. Gould is highly respected in his field and has worked for many of our region's most influential companies and constituencies. Mr. Gould's fellow lawyers in the King County Bar Association honored him with the 1987 Award for Distinguished Service to the Legal Profession and Public. He was elected to the Board of Governors of the Washington State Bar Association for 1988-91 and served as President of the Washington State Bar Association for its 1994-95 term. Also, as President-Elect and as President of the Washington State Bar Association, Ron co-founded with Washington State Attorney General Christine Gregoire a project to implement mediation in Washington State high schools to prevent youth violence. This program teaches young people how to avoid the kind of tragedies our nation has seen too much of in recent years. Mr. Gould shares my commitment to public education. He has served Bellevue Community College as a trustee from 1993 to the present and was elected chair of the Board of Trustees in 1996. In addition, Mr. Gould has served as a member of several legal delegations under the People to People Citizen Ambassador Program, founded by President Eisenhower and supported by Presidents since as a means of enhancing international personal diplomacy and goodwill. He has participated in legal delegations to eastern Asia, Tokyo, and Eastern Europe. Mr. Gould's long and consistent leadership service to the Boy Scouts has been well-recognized. He became an Eagle Scout in 1962. He serves on the executive board of the Chief Seattle Council of Boy Scouts of America, which serves over 40,000 youth and participating adult leaders. Mr. Gould has served as vice president for Programs, vice president for Exploring, vice president for Special Events and chair of the Jamboree Committee. In 1995, he received the Silver Beaver Award for Chief Seattle Council, the highest award given to volunteer leaders. In 1998, he received from Boy Scouts of America the Distinguished Eagle Scout Award, reflecting decades of service to scouting and his profession. Mr. President, I commend my colleagues for their decision to support Mr. Gould's confirmation unanimously. Again, I am proud of Ron and look forward to seeing him serve justice as a circuit court judge. I have no doubt he will carry his commitment to the profession and to the larger community to the federal bench and be one of our outstanding Ninth Circuit judges.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, today I introduce legislation on another topic I will be discussing with Chairman Jeffords as we move forward with reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act in the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee. The bill deals with an improvement I hope we can make in the Stuart McKinney Homeless Education program. While the McKinney program is relatively small, my hope is that we can greatly improve its effectiveness by recognizing and funding innovative approaches for serving homeless students. Chairman Jeffords and others have recognized that keeping a homeless child in their school district of origin is vital to their success. Children, especially homeless children, need continuity in their lives. Yet as a nation, we have not yet focused on funding the innovative practices that will show how this can be done and done effectively. In addition, there are chronic problems facing homeless children, such as the problems of trying to reach out to unaccompanied homeless youth, those young people who do not have parents or guardians with them in their homeless situation. Homeless preschoolers present another whole range of issues that many schools struggle to overcome. My legislation will provide $2 million each year in national competitive challenge grants for innovation in the education of homeless children and youth. We follow this same approach in education technology and other areas, and challenge grants are remarkably successful in sparking innovation and dissemination of new methods of instruction. Homeless students face many challenges, and schools face challenges in serving them. Creating a small challenge grant for homeless education is one necessary step we can take to help schools help these students succeed and achieve.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, today I introduce legislation on another topic I will be discussing with Chairman Jeffords as we move forward with reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act in the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee. I am introducing legislation today to fund an innovative book distribution program targeted at giving low-income students their own ``first book.'' The ``First Book'' program is a non-profit private organization that has been tremendously successful gathering and distibuting new children's books to needy children throughout the nation. Key to the success of ``First Book'' are local boards called ``First Book Local Advisory Boards.'' Under my legislation, which would provide $5 million a year federal investment to such boards, will help them leverage millions more in funds from other sources. ``First Book'' has been successful because it is locally-driven, and reflects private industry initiative. ``First Book'' provides new books, which the program purchases from publishers at discount rates, to disadvantaged children and families primarily through tutoring, mentoring, and family literacy programs. This bill builds on successful efforts underway in communities across the country. It takes what has been a successful but very targeted program, and will increase its reach and effect into many more American communities. ``First Book'' makes a very real difference for disadvantaged children and their families, and with this investment, it will make a difference for thousands more.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, today I introduce a bill entitled the ``Quality and Accountability Are Best for Children Act.'' Every child in every classroom in America deserves to have a fully-qualified teacher; this legislation takes a comprehensive approach to helping communities make that a reality. The bill should be seen as complementary to the professional development sections of last year's Higher Education Act, and to the professional development sections of S. 7, the Public Schools Excellence Act. It should also be seen as part of a comprehensive strategy to forge a strong partnership on education between the Congress and the teachers, families, and students in communities across America which it serves. While my efforts today are to address educator quality issues, I also recently introduced S. 1773, the Youth and Adult School Partnership Act of 1999, and S. 1772, the Family and School Partnership Act of 1999. In addition, I have been working for some time to pass S. 1304, the Time for Schools Act. All these efforts work in concert, to address the very real needs of our local schools when it comes to investing in the strategies that work, and in making it possible to involve all the necessary members of our local school communities in the decisions that affect them. I have spoken before about what I have heard from the literally thousands of families and students and educators and community leaders I have met. I have spoken about how most Americans want an increased but appropriate federal role in education. They want decisions about how to help students achieve at higher levels to be made in the local school, but they also want increased federal funds--help where help is needed--to support their local efforts. Most people are shocked to learn that their federal government only devotes 1.6 percent of overall spending to education. I have spoken before about how the federal class size reduction initiative has at its core a streamlined funding mechanism that targets funds to a goal and then holds the school accountable to the local community for making progress toward that goal. I have talked about how important I feel this funding mechanism can be as a way for us to look at other federal programs in education. I have spoken about the importance of keeping the federal role firmly in mind: to ensure opportunity on the one hand, and to fund shared national priorities on the other. In addition, we must ensure accountability for results at every step along the way. We need to remember that what families and students and educators and community leaders have asked us for is targeted help and support, to fund such efforts as reducing class size, and providing for special education students, and after-school programs, and school modernization, and education technology, and school safety and other efforts. Our responsibility is to give them the help they have sought, and no topic is more important to them than funding the necessary steps it will take to help local schools improve the quality of their corps of educators. We must rethink how educators are taught, and how we support their learning of the new skills it takes to teach students the basics and ``new basics'' that it will take for them to succeed in today's complex world. In addition, we must fund local schools' efforts to recruit, retain and reward the world's finest corps of educators. And assure that their local communities can hold them accountable for doing so. Today I introduce the Quality and Accountability are Best for Children Act, or Quality ABCs Act. This bill will help school districts improve the quality of their educator corps, and help communities hold schools accountable for results. Since all communities are struggling to improve the quality of their teaching force, funds are provided at a level that allow all school districts to participate. It will authorize an additional formula grant, based on enrollment, in the amount of $2 billion per year for teacher quality improvement, plus $100 million per year for principal professional development. Funds will supplement current federal, state, and local professional development efforts, and school districts are encouraged to use existing law, waivers, of Ed Flex authority to coordinate activities at the local level. With the goal of reducing paperwork and avoiding lengthy program descriptions, my legislation is based on the bipartisan mechanism agreed to under the fiscal year 1999 Appropriations Class Size Reduction Initiative. Applications are streamlined, school districts can use money flexibly at the local level, as long as they target funds to improving educator quality in at least one of three subject areas (recruitment, retention, and rewards) and school districts are accountable to the local community in the form of a report card describing district efforts to improve teacher quality. School district are required to use funds to improve educator quality, but have a broad range of options to do so. To recruit new teachers, school districts may use tools such as the following: Establishing or expanding teacher academies, teachers-recruiting- future-teacher programs, and programs to encourage high school and middle school students to pursue a career in teaching; Establishing or expanding para-professional training programs, paraeducator-to-teacher career ladders or other efforts to improve the training and supervision of para-educators; Establishing or expanding programs for mid-career professionals to become certificated teachers; Reaching out to communities of color or other special populations to make the teaching corps more reflective of current and future student demographics: Placing advertisements, attending college job fairs, offering signing bonuses, and other recruitment efforts; Embarking on and coordinating with other activities to help recruit the best quality teaching corps, such as: offering forgivable loans; assisting new hires to reach higher levels of state certification or to become national board certified teachers; recruiting new teachers in specific disciplines including math and science; In addition, the Secretary of Education will be authorized directly, or by creating programs at the state or local level to: Offer incentives for teachers to achieve national board certification; Create forgivable loan programs under the current student aid programs; Report on successful efforts and take part in dissemination activities; Provide technical assistance to states and school districts to assist them to use technology in recruitment, processing, hiring, and placement of qualified teaching candidates. To retain teachers, school districts may: Use funds to offer or stipends or bonuses to educators to seek further subject matter endorsements, advanced levels of state certification or national board certification. These retention efforts can also fund other local initiatives specifically designed, such as mentor teacher programs, to retain teachers in the first 5 years of teaching; Local education agencies can use funds, within district criteria for mentor or master teacher criteria, for a range of retention activities: mentor and/or master teacher job classification/career ladders; sabbatical/research activities such as the Fulbright program, or working in industry/non-profit world to improve teacher education; or other activities that keep teachers fresh while preserving their job slot/pay/benefits. These retention efforts can also fund other local initiatives specifically designed to retain experienced teachers, beyond the first five years of teaching; To reward teachers: School districts can reward elementary and secondary schools, based on improvement in the proportion of highly qualified teachers or other measures of teacher quality--improved recruiting, retention, improved ``in endorsement'' ratio, higher percentage of certificated staff, higher levels of certification, professional development curricular improvement; School districts can provide teachers with a one-time bonus/reward of $5,000 for achieving national board certification; Each state will receive $100,000 to support the McAuliffe awards and National Teacher of the year awards to create additional forms of conferring respect and recognition upon distinguished educators. The bill requires school district report cards to contain information about efforts they have undertaken to improve the recruiting, retention, rewarding, and accountability for teachers. Reports include which programs were offered locally, how much of the funding was spent on which efforts, and what results were achieved in terms of measurable improvements to teacher quality and student achievement. Each report card shall include information about how parents and other community members can access processes under school district policies regarding teacher accountability. The bill includes an effort to provide, on a statewide basis, professional development services for public elementary school and secondary school principals designed to enhance the principals' educational leadership skills. The programs will provide principals with: Knowledge of effective instructional leadership skills and practices; Comprehensive whole-school approaches and programs that improve teaching and learning; Improved understanding of the effective uses of educational technology, including best practices for incorporating technology into the instructional program and management of the school; Increased knowledge of State content and performance standards, and appropriate related curriculum; Assistance in the development of effective programs, and strategies for assessing the effectiveness of such programs; Training in effective, fair evaluation and supervision of school staff, and training in improvement of instruction; Assistance in the enhancement and development of the principals' overall school management and business skills; Knowledge of school safety and discipline practices, school law, and school funding issues. The bill also includes the K-12 school sections of my teacher Technology Training Act. Last year, I included in the Higher Education Act provisions to improve pre-service teacher training offered by universities, by including technology in teacher training. The Quality ABCs Act will take the relevant steps to integrate technology into the professional development offered by school districts. This bill is only one step but it is a necessary one. We cannot succeed in improving student learning if we do not also invest in the quality of our educators. We must assure that schools can use all the tools at their disposal to do what's necessary, and the Quality ABCs Act funds the recruitment, retention, rewards and accountability measures essential to their success. In all these pieces of legislation, whether I am a sponsor or a cosponsor, my approach is to offer help where help is needed. Schools face increasing challenges and higher expectations from their communities and from all Americans. Now is not the time for easy answers. Too many have suggested that it's all about paperwork or all about trust or all about bureaucracy. We must take steps to squeeze the most out of every dollar, and make things more efficient, but, as we've seen with the funding mechanism under the class size reduction initiative, local flexibility, targeted to a specific purpose, with local accountability built in, can work very well. But even that approach is only a partial answer. Helping all our schools perform for all students now and into the next century is a monumental task. None of these challenges is easy. The kind of student success we are hoping for will not happen without an actual, working partnership among local schools and school districts, state and regional education agencies, and the federal government. The success will not happen without a partnership between educators and families and young people and community leaders. No person, school, or government entity has the resources, the research, the leadership, the experience, or the capability to go it alone. People cannot succeed in a global economy without an education that is world-class, relevant, and sufficiently funded. We all must work together as a nation if we want to succeed as a nation in a complex world. We owe this kind of perspective to our children and to our future. We must all strive to find the areas where we agree. Only a shared vision of the future of education will help us all to move toward our destination. Let us take that first step together. Mr. President, the drafting of these bills would have been impossible without the efforts of two legislative fe3llows in my office, Ann Mary Ifekwunigwe and Peter Hatch. I thank them for their work. Mr. President, I ask that the text of the bill be printed in the Record. The bill follows:

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, today I introduce a bill entitled the ``Quality and Accountability Are Best for Children Act.'' Every child in every classroom in America deserves to have a fully-qualified teacher; this legislation takes a comprehensive approach to helping communities make that a reality. The bill should be seen as complementary to the professional development sections of last year's Higher Education Act, and to the professional development sections of S. 7, the Public Schools Excellence Act. It should also be seen as part of a comprehensive strategy to forge a strong partnership on education between the Congress and the teachers, families, and students in communities across America which it serves. While my efforts today are to address educator quality issues, I also recently introduced S. 1773, the Youth and Adult School Partnership Act of 1999, and S. 1772, the Family and School Partnership Act of 1999. In addition, I have been working for some time to pass S. 1304, the Time for Schools Act. All these efforts work in concert, to address the very real needs of our local schools when it comes to investing in the strategies that work, and in making it possible to involve all the necessary members of our local school communities in the decisions that affect them. I have spoken before about what I have heard from the literally thousands of families and students and educators and community leaders I have met. I have spoken about how most Americans want an increased but appropriate federal role in education. They want decisions about how to help students achieve at higher levels to be made in the local school, but they also want increased federal funds--help where help is needed--to support their local efforts. Most people are shocked to learn that their federal government only devotes 1.6 percent of overall spending to education. I have spoken before about how the federal class size reduction initiative has at its core a streamlined funding mechanism that targets funds to a goal and then holds the school accountable to the local community for making progress toward that goal. I have talked about how important I feel this funding mechanism can be as a way for us to look at other federal programs in education. I have spoken about the importance of keeping the federal role firmly in mind: to ensure opportunity on the one hand, and to fund shared national priorities on the other. In addition, we must ensure accountability for results at every step along the way. We need to remember that what families and students and educators and community leaders have asked us for is targeted help and support, to fund such efforts as reducing class size, and providing for special education students, and after-school programs, and school modernization, and education technology, and school safety and other efforts. Our responsibility is to give them the help they have sought, and no topic is more important to them than funding the necessary steps it will take to help local schools improve the quality of their corps of educators. We must rethink how educators are taught, and how we support their learning of the new skills it takes to teach students the basics and ``new basics'' that it will take for them to succeed in today's complex world. In addition, we must fund local schools' efforts to recruit, retain and reward the world's finest corps of educators. And assure that their local communities can hold them accountable for doing so. Today I introduce the Quality and Accountability are Best for Children Act, or Quality ABCs Act. This bill will help school districts improve the quality of their educator corps, and help communities hold schools accountable for results. Since all communities are struggling to improve the quality of their teaching force, funds are provided at a level that allow all school districts to participate. It will authorize an additional formula grant, based on enrollment, in the amount of $2 billion per year for teacher quality improvement, plus $100 million per year for principal professional development. Funds will supplement current federal, state, and local professional development efforts, and school districts are encouraged to use existing law, waivers, of Ed Flex authority to coordinate activities at the local level. With the goal of reducing paperwork and avoiding lengthy program descriptions, my legislation is based on the bipartisan mechanism agreed to under the fiscal year 1999 Appropriations Class Size Reduction Initiative. Applications are streamlined, school districts can use money flexibly at the local level, as long as they target funds to improving educator quality in at least one of three subject areas (recruitment, retention, and rewards) and school districts are accountable to the local community in the form of a report card describing district efforts to improve teacher quality. School district are required to use funds to improve educator quality, but have a broad range of options to do so. To recruit new teachers, school districts may use tools such as the following: Establishing or expanding teacher academies, teachers-recruiting- future-teacher programs, and programs to encourage high school and middle school students to pursue a career in teaching; Establishing or expanding para-professional training programs, paraeducator-to-teacher career ladders or other efforts to improve the training and supervision of para-educators; Establishing or expanding programs for mid-career professionals to become certificated teachers; Reaching out to communities of color or other special populations to make the teaching corps more reflective of current and future student demographics: Placing advertisements, attending college job fairs, offering signing bonuses, and other recruitment efforts; Embarking on and coordinating with other activities to help recruit the best quality teaching corps, such as: offering forgivable loans; assisting new hires to reach higher levels of state certification or to become national board certified teachers; recruiting new teachers in specific disciplines including math and science; In addition, the Secretary of Education will be authorized directly, or by creating programs at the state or local level to: Offer incentives for teachers to achieve national board certification; Create forgivable loan programs under the current student aid programs; Report on successful efforts and take part in dissemination activities; Provide technical assistance to states and school districts to assist them to use technology in recruitment, processing, hiring, and placement of qualified teaching candidates. To retain teachers, school districts may: Use funds to offer or stipends or bonuses to educators to seek further subject matter endorsements, advanced levels of state certification or national board certification. These retention efforts can also fund other local initiatives specifically designed, such as mentor teacher programs, to retain teachers in the first 5 years of teaching; Local education agencies can use funds, within district criteria for mentor or master teacher criteria, for a range of retention activities: mentor and/or master teacher job classification/career ladders; sabbatical/research activities such as the Fulbright program, or working in industry/non-profit world to improve teacher education; or other activities that keep teachers fresh while preserving their job slot/pay/benefits. These retention efforts can also fund other local initiatives specifically designed to retain experienced teachers, beyond the first five years of teaching; To reward teachers: School districts can reward elementary and secondary schools, based on improvement in the proportion of highly qualified teachers or other measures of teacher quality--improved recruiting, retention, improved ``in endorsement'' ratio, higher percentage of certificated staff, higher levels of certification, professional development curricular improvement; School districts can provide teachers with a one-time bonus/reward of $5,000 for achieving national board certification; Each state will receive $100,000 to support the McAuliffe awards and National Teacher of the year awards to create additional forms of conferring respect and recognition upon distinguished educators. The bill requires school district report cards to contain information about efforts they have undertaken to improve the recruiting, retention, rewarding, and accountability for teachers. Reports include which programs were offered locally, how much of the funding was spent on which efforts, and what results were achieved in terms of measurable improvements to teacher quality and student achievement. Each report card shall include information about how parents and other community members can access processes under school district policies regarding teacher accountability. The bill includes an effort to provide, on a statewide basis, professional development services for public elementary school and secondary school principals designed to enhance the principals' educational leadership skills. The programs will provide principals with: Knowledge of effective instructional leadership skills and practices; Comprehensive whole-school approaches and programs that improve teaching and learning; Improved understanding of the effective uses of educational technology, including best practices for incorporating technology into the instructional program and management of the school; Increased knowledge of State content and performance standards, and appropriate related curriculum; Assistance in the development of effective programs, and strategies for assessing the effectiveness of such programs; Training in effective, fair evaluation and supervision of school staff, and training in improvement of instruction; Assistance in the enhancement and development of the principals' overall school management and business skills; Knowledge of school safety and discipline practices, school law, and school funding issues. The bill also includes the K-12 school sections of my teacher Technology Training Act. Last year, I included in the Higher Education Act provisions to improve pre-service teacher training offered by universities, by including technology in teacher training. The Quality ABCs Act will take the relevant steps to integrate technology into the professional development offered by school districts. This bill is only one step but it is a necessary one. We cannot succeed in improving student learning if we do not also invest in the quality of our educators. We must assure that schools can use all the tools at their disposal to do what's necessary, and the Quality ABCs Act funds the recruitment, retention, rewards and accountability measures essential to their success. In all these pieces of legislation, whether I am a sponsor or a cosponsor, my approach is to offer help where help is needed. Schools face increasing challenges and higher expectations from their communities and from all Americans. Now is not the time for easy answers. Too many have suggested that it's all about paperwork or all about trust or all about bureaucracy. We must take steps to squeeze the most out of every dollar, and make things more efficient, but, as we've seen with the funding mechanism under the class size reduction initiative, local flexibility, targeted to a specific purpose, with local accountability built in, can work very well. But even that approach is only a partial answer. Helping all our schools perform for all students now and into the next century is a monumental task. None of these challenges is easy. The kind of student success we are hoping for will not happen without an actual, working partnership among local schools and school districts, state and regional education agencies, and the federal government. The success will not happen without a partnership between educators and families and young people and community leaders. No person, school, or government entity has the resources, the research, the leadership, the experience, or the capability to go it alone. People cannot succeed in a global economy without an education that is world-class, relevant, and sufficiently funded. We all must work together as a nation if we want to succeed as a nation in a complex world. We owe this kind of perspective to our children and to our future. We must all strive to find the areas where we agree. Only a shared vision of the future of education will help us all to move toward our destination. Let us take that first step together. Mr. President, the drafting of these bills would have been impossible without the efforts of two legislative fe3llows in my office, Ann Mary Ifekwunigwe and Peter Hatch. I thank them for their work. Mr. President, I ask that the text of the bill be printed in the Record. The bill follows:

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. I ask for an additional 30 seconds.

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, what we as Democrats are going to stand strong for is a commitment we made a year ago to assure that every child in first, second, and third grade gets the attention they deserve. If our Republican colleagues want to add additional money to the budget for block grants, for needs in our schools that we agree are important, we are more than happy to talk to them about it. But we believe the commitment we made a year ago is a promise that should be kept. I thank the Chair and yield the floor.

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I rise in support of the Kennedy amendment that we will be voting on shortly. It is important to note that 59 percent of the over 11 million workers who would receive a pay increase as a result of this minimum wage are women--women, by and large, with children; women who, because the minimum wage is so low today, are working two, three, four jobs. Those losing out in the country today because of the lack of a minimum wage increase are our children. They are being left home alone. They aren't getting the attention they deserve. They are not getting the support they deserve. A vote for the Kennedy amendment is a vote for our children. While I have the floor, I understand the Senator from Pennsylvania came to the floor this morning to question the President's constitutional authority to insist on reducing class size. I remind our colleagues, reducing class size is something we as Democrats have fought for, stood behind, and we stand behind the President in the final budget negotiations. This is not about constitutional authority. It is about making sure young kids in first, second, and third grade get from a good teacher the attention they need in order to read and write and do arithmetic. That is a bipartisan agreement we all agreed upon a year ago, $1.2 billion to help our local schools reduce class size. To renege on that commitment 1 year later and to have language which takes that money and gives it to whatever else school districts want to use it for sounds good except we lose out. A block grant will not guarantee that one child will learn to read. A block grant will not guarantee that a child who needs attention will have it on the day he or she needs it. A block grant will not assure that our children get the attention they deserve and learn the skills they need.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I rise today in strong support of the Kennedy amendment and as a cosponsor of the minimum wage increase. In this debate, many people have the wrong idea about who this increase would affect. Many people think the typical wage earner is a young man or woman flipping burgers or working at a convenience store trying to make a few extra dollars to buy some CD's or to go to the movies. That image is inaccurate. And until we really understand who the people are who rely on the minimum wage, we won't approach this debate with the urgency it requires. To clear up that misconception, let me set the record straight. In reality, 70 percent of the people earning a minimum wage are over the age of 20. That means that 11.4 million adults this year will have to try to live on a salary of $10,700. Forty percent of these same adults are the sole source of income for their families. These are people who are working hard--just to get by and support their families. They deserve a fighting chance. I am especially concerned that 59 percent of those struggling on the minimum wage are women. 6.8 million women--many of these single mothers--would benefit directly from this increase. These single mothers are doing their best. They are trying to raise two kids--on average--on a below-poverty income. And how does this Congress support these struggling parents? By attacking programs like Medicaid, by cutting child care support, by taking away funding for nutrition programs, and by taking actions that hurt working families in need. These are the same group of people that Congress says it wants to keep off of public support. But how does this Congress support these struggling parents? By cutting vital programs and fighting efforts like this one--an effort that will help them work themselves above the poverty line. This amendment does not eliminate jobs. It keeps people working-- people who otherwise would be completely reliant on public support. Just a $1.00 raise would generate $2,000 in potential income for minimum wage workers. For an average family of four, that means 7 months of groceries, 5 months of rent, or 13 months of health care expenses. I reached my decision to support this increase after very careful consideration. I have listened to the concerns of small business owners from across my state, who shared with me their thoughts about this increase. I am happy to say that most of the businesses in Washington state are experiencing unprecedented growth. In fact, since the federal minimum wage was last increased in 1996- 97, employment in Washington has grown. Since September 1996, 231,900 new jobs have been created in Washington state--an increase of 9.5%. Washington's economy is strong, and our low-wage workers should share in that success. Because my constituents understand the value of the minimum wage, they overwhelmingly passed their own minimum wage increase last year in Washington state. They raised the state minimum wage to $5.70 this year. In the year 2000, it will move to $6.50, and after that it will be indexed based on the Consumer Price Index. Mr. President, we should follow the example of my state and increase the minimum wage for all Americans. The increase that we passed in the last Congress should be the first step--not the last--on our road to help these hard-working citizens. It should be the first step because the economy and our world have changed--and we need to keep up with those changes. In 1979, a person could work 40 hours a week at minimum wage and stay out of poverty. Today, it takes 52 hours. To just reach the poverty line for a family of four, the minimum wage would have to be $7.89. That's why our last increase was a good start and why this proposed increase is the next vital step to helping these working families rise out of poverty. Overall, a slight increase in the minimum wage provides those who work hard and play-by-the-rules an increased opportunity to succeed. If any of my colleagues oppose this minimum wage increase, I would ask them to consider trying to live on $10,700 this year--not just live on it--but try to raise a family on it. I think when you consider this debate in those terms, the right thing to do becomes clear. It would be embarrassing if this Congress voted to raise its own salary but didn't vote to let hard-working American families work their way out of poverty. I urge my colleagues to vote to increase the minimum wage. Let's show the American people that we have our priorities straight.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, this is a difficult day for the people of my home State of Washington. I spent a lot of time last night talking with my neighbors, my family members, and local officials in Seattle. Like me, they are all trying to make sense out of something that makes no sense--yesterday's act of violence which killed two people, injured two more, and brought fear to my own neighborhood. I wasn't sure if I should come to the floor today because I kept asking myself, What is there left to say? That once again, Americans are mourning after yet another deadly shooting? That once again, our families and our neighbors are gripped with fear because someone with a gun has decided to act violently? That once again, these outbreaks of violence aren't going away--they are just becoming too common? I decided I should come to the floor to offer first my condolences to the families who have been involved and to talk to the people of my State and to thank the law enforcement officials who have responded and to talk to my colleagues about what we can do. My heart goes out to everyone who walks along the Burke-Gilman Trail, a trail I have walked on so many times. My heart goes out to every child who was held in school until they got home safely last night and into their parents' arms. My heart goes out to everyone who works and lives and knows this neighborhood. On Tuesday, it was safe. Today, it is gripped with fear. Do we see what is happening? Or have these crazy acts become so common that we think we just cannot do anything about them? Can't we see it was someone else's neighborhood yesterday? It was my neighborhood today. Tomorrow it could be your neighborhood. What can we do? Why haven't we done something already? Are we too gripped with partisanship? Are we too tied to special interests to act? Are we too afraid to change the status quo or to even question our own rhetoric? Are we asking the right questions? Are we really posing the right answers? I know it is in our spirit as Americans to hope for the best and to believe things will get better. That is usually the way it is. But how many shootings will it take before we realize things aren't getting better on their own? They are getting worse, and it is up to us to take action. It seems to me we, as a nation, have not dealt with the mentally ill. We don't want to pay for costly services. But don't we all end up paying later at a far higher cost? It seems to me, as a nation, we have not spoken out against violence in a strong and consistent manner. Can't we find a way to speak out without violating our freedom of speech? Can we have this conversation without falling into the traps of the far right and the far left? Every time we turn on the news and we are gripped by fear, guns are involved. What tragedy will it take before we act? How many people have to die? How many shootings is it going to take? How close to home do they have to strike? We had a shooting here in the Capitol, in the heart of democracy, and we still have not acted. Can't we make commonsense rules about keeping guns away from those who shouldn't have them? I personally am tired of the old rhetoric. From the far left they say: Take all the guns away. From the far right they say: It is not the guns, it is lax law enforcement. Give me a break. We are the greatest nation in this world; can't we come up with some commonsense ideas about how to protect our own people? I think we can. This Congress has failed miserably. Here we are, in the same year as the Columbine tragedy, with no juvenile justice bill, no background checks for guns sold at gun shows, no resources for our communities to help those who are mentally ill, and no afterschool activities for our kids. That is shameful. I hope my colleagues will stop and think for a minute and realize this is not happening to someone else. It is happening to all of us. It was Hawaii on Tuesday. It was Washington on Wednesday. It could be your State today. Those are just the mass shootings that get a lot of media attention. We should not forget, on the average, 12 children a day die from gunfire. I say to my colleagues, I would love to work with anyone from either side of the aisle who wants to take the time to really talk about what our country is facing. There are many factors. People are overstressed; violence is pervasive; weapons are easy to get. It is a flammable combination that has exploded too often. Our country is looking for leaders who will work together on this. I say it is time to try. I invite anyone who wants to work with me to let me know. I certainly am one mom who has had enough. I yield the floor. Several Senators addressed the Chair.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I join my colleague on this side in urging a ``no'' vote on this bill, simply because, as Senator Wellstone just stated, of our compassion for the thousands of women who will not receive services--victims of domestic violence who won't have housing or counseling or health for their young children; the thousands of people who have diabetes or cancer who will not see the result of research done at NIH because of a 1-percent across-the-board cut; and, the thousands of women and children who depend on Head Start, who depend on our education programs, on the social services that are out there so that those young families can grow and be responsible and contribute back to our economy as strong families in the future. A 1- percent cut doesn't take into account the humanity behind the numbers in this bill. Finally, on the topic of class size reduction, and why this side is so adamant about it, a block grant cannot guarantee that one child will get a better education. Because of the bipartisan work we did last year, today 1.7 million children are getting a better education in a smaller class size that guarantees they will have the ability to read, write, and perform the skills they need to do in order to compete in our complex world. If we continue this program, there will be millions more who are able to learn to read, write, and do better in school. This is a partnership we have with our States and our local school districts. Our responsibility is to help them do what they need to do; to provide help where help is needed. There has been a call for reducing class size from across this country, because people know what works. The Congress should be a partner and continue our promise of a year ago in making sure that happens. The bill will be vetoed; it will be an item of contention. The Democrats stand firm. We want to make sure those children get the best education possible. We are a partner in making that happen. I yield the floor. impact aid reauthorization

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I thank the chairman of the Labor-HHS Subcommittee for his commitment to children and health. He stood with many of us many times. Unfortunately, the Labor bill that is now before us simply doesn't make the grade. I believe a number of our colleagues on this side of the aisle will be speaking against this and voting against this in the hopes that when the President vetoes it, the Senator from Pennsylvania, chairman of the committee, will work out some of the things about which we care deeply. When you leave something for the last minute, you can't do it justice. This Congress has left our investment in educating our children, in protecting our American workforce, and in ensuring the health of the people of this country for the last minute, and the failures are pretty obvious. The Labor-HHS appropriations bill should have been the first bill we brought to the floor--not the last. This Congress has tried every trick and every gimmick to play games with the budget. I am here to say we are nearing the end of this game; and for the American people who are watching this Congress, they must wonder how serious we are about addressing their concerns. If this flawed proposal passes, the American people will be the ones who lose out. I am on the floor to say this combination D.C./Labor-HHS conference report--with its irresponsible across-the-board cuts--fails to make the vital investments we need, the investments our constituents are asking for. Mr. President, I will vote against this conference report, and I will tell you why. First, and most important, this bill will not guarantee that we reduce class size. Now, last year, this Congress, the House and Senate, Democrats and Republicans, made a bipartisan commitment to help our districts hire and train new teachers. We did that because research shows students who learn in classes where there are fewer students in the early grades do better throughout their educational careers. They learn the basics-- math, science, and English--and they have fewer discipline problems. We did that because it was a goal of all of us to make a concerted national effort to make sure that young children learned the basics, reduced the discipline problems, went on to college, and would be viable contributors to our economy when they graduated. Last year, we made that bipartisan commitment and promised the parents of this country we would give their schools targeted money for smaller class sizes for the next 7 years. This bill walks away from that commitment. That is not acceptable. Not only does it walk away, but it broadens the use of the money so much that it could open the door to using vital, public education, class size dollars for private school vouchers. Now, the President has said he will veto this bill if it does not keep our commitment to hire more teachers to reduce class size. I am proud that 37 Senators have joined with me to sign a letter saying they will back up that veto because we know that guaranteeing smaller classes for our children is worth fighting for. The Labor-HHS bill's failure on class size is glaring. But to me it is just a start of many things that need to be fixed once this is vetoed and sent back to us in order for Democrats to be supportive. It also fails to help families gain the literacy skills they need. When the Senate passed its version, we were able to provide an increase of $103 million, which would have taken thousands of people off of waiting lists for literacy services. But in this conference agreement, they cut the Senate number by $43 million. Those families were just about to get the skills they needed to rejoin our economy, and this agreement pushes them to back of the line. This bill fails to make kids safer in our schools. In a year when the tragedy at Columbine High School is still fresh in our minds, this bill cuts-- cuts--$31 million from the Senate bill for the Safe and Drug-Free Schools Program. Local educators tell me we should double our funding in this area which is vital. Cutting it is just not acceptable. This bill also fails the children who depend on the Head Start program. Head Start often makes the difference between success and failure in school for so many disadvantaged children. This bill does not do right by them. This bill also cuts basic skills education for disadvantaged students. And it underfunds education technology programs at a time when we know all of our students need to get the skills in technology so that they can get the jobs that are open and waiting for them in so many communities across our country. It also cuts the vocational education program at a time when we know we need to make sure our kids graduate with skills to help them get jobs. This bill does not do enough to support the Reading Excellence Act and bilingual education. This bill underfunds several important programs that build access and success for higher education students by not adequately funding Pell grants and vital programs like GEAR UP, LEAP, and TRIO. I could go on. But it is clear that on education this bill is a missed opportunity. I am sure many people will try to claim that this agreement is ``a victory for education.'' But I can tell you as a former teacher and a former school board member that it is a hollow victory. Mr. President, on labor issues, the Labor, HHS bill fails to adequately protect American workers and to promote universal employment. This bill cuts funds for vital organizations, like the National Labor Relations Board--by 5 percent--and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration--by 6 percent--below the administration's request. I don't want to be any part of a bill that could harm our ability to enforce the labor and workplace laws that protect the health and safety of our country's workers. This bill's irresponsible across-the-board spending cut would also hurt many vital job programs. For example, it would cut the Department of Labor's Youth Activities formula grants by $9.7 million, closing the door to almost 5,700 disadvantaged young people as they seek job training, summer employment, and educational opportunities. That is not acceptable to this Senator. Mr. President, when it comes to protecting the health of our citizens, this bill is a mixed bag. While it does offer important support for the National Institutes of Health, for telemedicine for Children's Hospital in Seattle, poison control, and community and migrant health centers, the areas where it fails are so significant and so glaring that I cannot support the underlying bill. This bill fails to address the human and social costs of AIDS and HIV. This bill's arbitrary and irresponsible across-the-board cut means that AIDS patients and their communities will suffer because it doesn't meet the growing need for services--services like drug assistance and pediatric AIDS care. Similarly, the D.C. appropriations bill will hurt our ability to halt the spread of the disease because the bill continues to prohibit public funds from being used for clean needle exchange. This bill also reduces our commitment to reproductive health care and family planning. I find it painfully ironic that last week, 48 Senators went on record against the principles of Roe v. Wade, claiming that abortion should not be a choice for women. Yet when it comes to reducing unintentional pregnancies or providing health care services for pregnant women, those same Senators are simply not there. This bill means that 40,000 women will be denied access to basic reproductive health care. It will reduce women's access to critical pre-natal care. This bill's irresponsible across-the-board cut will also weaken our ability to respond to domestic violence. This bill would spend less money than we are spending this year on programs under the Violence Against Women Act. That means less money for rape prevention and for battered women's shelters. Many communities in my State are struggling--struggling--to help women and children affected by rape and abuse. Reducing the Federal commitment in this area is simply unacceptable. Some people will say this bill's across-the-board cut won't hurt anyone. They are wrong because denying emergency shelter to a battered woman and her children is painful. Denying access to reproductive health care services to 40,000 women is painful, and denying access to life-saving drug therapies for AIDS patients is worse than painful, it is deadly. Mr. President, we still have an opportunity to do the right thing for our children, our families and our communities. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this bill so the President can veto it and we can fix it--by undoing its damaging across-the-board cut and keeping our commitment to reduce class size. Let's show the American people that even though this Congress has failed--throughout the session--to do its work in a timely, responsible way, we still have the wisdom to get things right at the end.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, we are nearing the end of the budget process, and there were inferences made on the floor yesterday that the class size initiative should not be part of the final budget agreement because--it has been claimed--the President doesn't have the authority to insist that we hire more teachers to reduce class size. Mr. President, I have come to the floor today to clarify the President's important--and authorized role--in fighting for smaller classes. I have also come to the floor to remind my colleagues that this year we have smaller class sizes--where discipline has been restored and kids can learn the basics--because last year Congress made a bipartisan agreement--and a bipartisan commitment--to hire 100,000 new teachers in order to reduce size in first, second, and third grades. Today, as the budget process winds down, I want to make sure that our agreement is not pushed aside. Let me remind my colleagues that the President does have the authority in the Constitution to register his opinion on whether or not the budget is acceptable. In fact, the President doesn't just have the authority, but he has the responsibility under Article I, Section 7 to return bills with his objections that he does not approve of. And I'm glad the President has that authority and that he will use it if this Congress doesn't guarantee class size reductions. And 38 Senators signed a letter saying we would stand behind his threatened veto because we agree class size reduction is critical. Mr. President, in trying to reduce the number of students in each classroom, I have followed the process. In March, I was told it wasn't the right time. In the subcommittee, I was told we weren't allowed to offer amendments. In full committee, I was told it was too controversial. Then, when I got the floor, I was told I'd have to wait until the Elementary and Secondary Education Act was written. If we have to wait until then, we won't be able to tell kids they will have small classes next year, and we can't tell teachers they will have their jobs next year. Mr. President, I have followed the process, and I have waited. But I am tired of waiting as I sense that this Congress is trying to undo our bipartisan commitment. What am I supposed to tell students, ``Congress has to write the ESEA and until then, you have to learn your ABCs in a class with 35 students.'' To me, that is not acceptable. I'm not going to tell them that. If this Congress feels so strong that guaranteeing smaller classes is not important, you can give them your excuses. This is about money in the budget that Congress approved last year, and it is about us keeping our commitment to improving education by reducing class size. The class size reduction effort has been a success in its first year. Today, we have kids learning in classrooms that are less crowded--learning to read, learning to write, and learning the basics with fewer discipline problems. They are working with a trained professional. Research shows they are going to have higher graduation rates, higher grade point averages and a higher likelihood of pursuing higher education. They are going to be successful because of the work this Congress did one year ago. And the President has a right to insist on it. We as Democrats have a right to insist on it, and--as a Senator in this body--I am here to insist on it. Now is the time to keep our commitment. Now is when the decisions are being made. Now is when we have to stand up for smaller classes. If we have to wait until after all budget deals have been cut, until after all the money has been spent, we will have failed those teachers, we will have failed those parents, but most importantly, we will have failed those children. Mr. President, it is a national priority to reduce class size so kids can learn the basics and so discipline can be restored in the classroom. It is a promise we made last year and we need to put the money behind it, wherever it is appropriate. A few weeks ago, I met with a teacher in Tacoma, WA, named Kris Paynter. Last year, there were 30 kids in her first grade class. This year there are 13 because of this program. That makes a huge difference for those kids. I saw a disciplined classroom where kids could learn the basics. Next year, we don't know how many kids will be in Ms. Paynter's class. And we can't even guarantee those 29,000 teachers hired last year will keep their jobs. Mr. President, putting all of these process questions aside, what really matters at the end of the day is that kids have smaller classes. The teachers and parents in this country care that we do it. Period. The millions of children who are now in smaller classes aren't wondering ``has this been authorized?'' or ``is this in the budget?'' or ``does the President have the constitutional authority to reduce class sizes?'' What really matters is that we fulfill our promise to parents, teachers, and students that we made last year in a bipartisan process. Mr. President, I hate to say it, but at every turn, this Congress has put special interests ahead of the interests of real families. This is the last opportunity we will have to do something significant for kids. We didn't address the loopholes that still allow kids and criminals to get their hands on guns. We didn't make schools safer after the Columbine tragedy. We didn't provide health insurance to more kids. This is the last chance we have in this Congress to do something for out kids, fix a problem we know exists. And I am here to say that we cannot let this chance pass. We need to keep our commitment to reducing class size. We need to be able to tell those teachers they will have jobs next year, and we need to be able to tell those kids they will have small classes next year. Let's stand behind our commitment.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I want to join with my colleagues in paying tribute to Senator John Chafee. With his passing this week, the Senate lost a wise and courageous voice. Anyone who spent any time in the Senate could see that Senator Chafee's reputation for honesty and individual conviction were well-deserved. I want to offer his family my deepest sympathy and my deepest appreciation for sharing him with us for so long. He served as a role model of what a Senator should be. The more I think about Senator Chafee--the more I realize the qualities that are rare today, were common in the gentleman from Rhode Island. Rare qualities like courage, independence, and a desire to always do what is right. He often fought alone for what he believed was right. He worked for legislative compromise, but never compromised his own principles. I was proud to join with him on many important initiatives, and his mark can be found on many of the landmark environmental protection laws enacted in the last twenty years. He was a thoughtful environmentalist--protecting the health and welfare of people, wildlife, and the environment as a whole, while at the same time balancing the needs of the economy. He recognized the fact that the West had a different relationship with its natural resources than the East. His work on clean air, clean water, oil pollution, and endangered species has benefited the entire nation. The people and the environment in my state, 3,000 miles away from Rhode Island, are far better off today, because a man named John Chafee served 23 years in this body. Senator Chafee was also a consistent and articulate supporter of trade. And on issues like China MFN, he and I worked for the same goals. Senator Chafee was a champion of women's health care long before it was politically correct. Long before anyone had ever heard of ``soccer moms,'' he stood alone many times to fight for women's health, and he never backed down. Senator Chafee was also a strong advocate of a woman's right to choose. He was a voice of reason in an increasingly emotional debate. He protected a woman's right to determine her own fate and to make her own health care decisions. He worked to improve access to reproductive health care services and to improve security at women's health clinics. I always took a great deal of comfort knowing he was at the table fighting for women. Perhaps his greatest commitment was to children, all children. He worked to expand Medicaid to provide health care for milllions of low income children. He fought to protect Medicaid. I know there are milllions of children who are now healthy adults because of the work of Senator Chafee. One of my most vivid memories of Senator Chafee was fighting on the floor in June 1997 to expand health care security for the 10 million uninsured children. He refused to give up his goal, and he refused to pass an empty promise. His work created the successful, bipartisan Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP) which ultimately will provide health security for five million children. Think of the kind of impact he will have on the quality of life for these five milllion children. Mr. President, I believe one of my roles in the Senate is to speak for those that have no voice--children, working families, the environment, battered women, and the elderly. Those are the same causes John Chafee served and served so selflessly. I only hope I can measure up to the standard he set. When someone like John Chafee--someone with rare personal qualities and a legacy found in the millions of people his policies helped--when someone like that leaves this world, it makes the rest of us reflect on his contribution. Mr. President, this Senate is the poorer for his passing.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I am introducing a bill today to make sure we treat America's veterans with the compassion they deserve. They have sacrificed so much of their personal lives for our country. And with this bill, I want to show them we appreciate their service, and we will be there when they need help. When veterans need medical care, they file a claim for benefits with the Veterans Administration. It requires researching information over many years and from many different government organizations. Traditionally, the Veterans Administration has helped veterans research and file their claims. That's the way it should be. But a series of recent court decisions have changed that--and made it harder for veterans to file their claims. I want to set the record straight. The VA has a duty to assist veterans in filing their claims. So today, I am introducing legislation to amend Title 38 of the United States Code to clarify and improve veterans claims and procedures. My legislation clarifies that the Department of Veterans Affairs has a duty to assist veterans in preparing all of the facts pertinent to a claim for benefits. The VA has historically aided veterans in gathering information from the federal bureaucracy so they can file a claim. Let's not forget--the claims process was set up to aid our veterans. It's important to all veterans, especially those with severe mental and physical disabilities. Homeless veterans need help. Elderly veterans need help. And family members--who sacrifice to care for veterans--need help from the federal government. Anyone who has ever dealt with a veterans claim for benefits knows this is a very difficult process. It can be frustrating for veterans who--even in the best of circumstances--may be forced to wait several years for a claim to be approved and granted. Veterans already pay a heavy cost for delayed benefits. They often face financial, family, and health problems, as they try to resolve their claims. Yet, as we speak, the claims process at the VA is becoming even more difficult for America's veterans and their families. Through a series of court decisions, the VA's historic duty to assist veterans has been set aside. The courts responsible for veterans claims have determined that it is now the individual veteran's responsibility to file a well-rounded claim before they can get assistance from the VA. The effect has been to place the burden on the individual veteran to gather information--service records, medical records, and other documentation--from the federal government in order to file a claim. Mr. President, the courts have decided our veterans in need of assistance must go it alone. Homeless veterans suffering from Post Traumatic Stress Disorder must now prepare their claims without assistance from the government they sacrificed for. Veterans who are sick, mentally or physically disabled, indigent, or poorly educated now face new barriers to assistance they may be legally entitled to receive. Veterans without the financial resources, time or familiarity with the claims process system must navigate through the bureaucracy without federal assistance. That's not the way we should treat America's veterans. Clearly, the courts have misinterpreted Congressional intent. The Veterans Judicial Review Act was signed into law during the 100th Congress with the following language, It is the obligation of the Veterans Administration to assist a claimant in developing facts pertinent to his claim and to render a decision which grants him every benefit that can be supported in law while protecting the interests of the Government. Somehow the courts interpreted that language differently. My objective in introducing legislation today is not to quarrel with the courts. I simply want to reassert congressional intent and re-establish the VA's duty to assist veterans. My legislation simply confirms the Congress believes it is important and appropriate for the federal government to assist veterans in preparing claims for benefits. Mr. President, this legislation is widely supported among those who work on veterans benefits claims every day. Numerous veterans advocacy groups, including the Disabled American Veterans, strongly support my legislation. This bill has original cosponsors from both sides of the aisle. It is a bipartisan response to a real problem confronting America's veterans. Let's do the right thing for America's veterans and particularly for those veterans who need the government's assistance the most. I urge prompt Senate consideration and passage of this legislation.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I am introducing a bill today to make sure we treat America's veterans with the compassion they deserve. They have sacrificed so much of their personal lives for our country. And with this bill, I want to show them we appreciate their service, and we will be there when they need help. When veterans need medical care, they file a claim for benefits with the Veterans Administration. It requires researching information over many years and from many different government organizations. Traditionally, the Veterans Administration has helped veterans research and file their claims. That's the way it should be. But a series of recent court decisions have changed that--and made it harder for veterans to file their claims. I want to set the record straight. The VA has a duty to assist veterans in filing their claims. So today, I am introducing legislation to amend Title 38 of the United States Code to clarify and improve veterans claims and procedures. My legislation clarifies that the Department of Veterans Affairs has a duty to assist veterans in preparing all of the facts pertinent to a claim for benefits. The VA has historically aided veterans in gathering information from the federal bureaucracy so they can file a claim. Let's not forget--the claims process was set up to aid our veterans. It's important to all veterans, especially those with severe mental and physical disabilities. Homeless veterans need help. Elderly veterans need help. And family members--who sacrifice to care for veterans--need help from the federal government. Anyone who has ever dealt with a veterans claim for benefits knows this is a very difficult process. It can be frustrating for veterans who--even in the best of circumstances--may be forced to wait several years for a claim to be approved and granted. Veterans already pay a heavy cost for delayed benefits. They often face financial, family, and health problems, as they try to resolve their claims. Yet, as we speak, the claims process at the VA is becoming even more difficult for America's veterans and their families. Through a series of court decisions, the VA's historic duty to assist veterans has been set aside. The courts responsible for veterans claims have determined that it is now the individual veteran's responsibility to file a well-rounded claim before they can get assistance from the VA. The effect has been to place the burden on the individual veteran to gather information--service records, medical records, and other documentation--from the federal government in order to file a claim. Mr. President, the courts have decided our veterans in need of assistance must go it alone. Homeless veterans suffering from Post Traumatic Stress Disorder must now prepare their claims without assistance from the government they sacrificed for. Veterans who are sick, mentally or physically disabled, indigent, or poorly educated now face new barriers to assistance they may be legally entitled to receive. Veterans without the financial resources, time or familiarity with the claims process system must navigate through the bureaucracy without federal assistance. That's not the way we should treat America's veterans. Clearly, the courts have misinterpreted Congressional intent. The Veterans Judicial Review Act was signed into law during the 100th Congress with the following language, It is the obligation of the Veterans Administration to assist a claimant in developing facts pertinent to his claim and to render a decision which grants him every benefit that can be supported in law while protecting the interests of the Government. Somehow the courts interpreted that language differently. My objective in introducing legislation today is not to quarrel with the courts. I simply want to reassert congressional intent and re-establish the VA's duty to assist veterans. My legislation simply confirms the Congress believes it is important and appropriate for the federal government to assist veterans in preparing claims for benefits. Mr. President, this legislation is widely supported among those who work on veterans benefits claims every day. Numerous veterans advocacy groups, including the Disabled American Veterans, strongly support my legislation. This bill has original cosponsors from both sides of the aisle. It is a bipartisan response to a real problem confronting America's veterans. Let's do the right thing for America's veterans and particularly for those veterans who need the government's assistance the most. I urge prompt Senate consideration and passage of this legislation.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, we are rapidly coming to the end of the session. This Congress has a lot of unfinished business left in far too many areas: Patients' Bill of Rights, prescription drug, guns, juvenile justice, and education. Today I want to take a few minutes to talk about one of America's top priorities, education. Today I am going to be introducing, a little bit later, and describing several bills that will improve education in America. We are about to start our biggest debate on education in 5 years as we begin the work on the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. If the past few weeks are any indication, I am very concerned that in this critical education debate our children are going to be the losers, and that would really be a shame. Education has long been a bipartisan issue, but somehow in this Congress partisanship has too often pushed progress aside. Two weeks ago, I tried to help our schools continue a very successful initiative to hire more teachers so there would be fewer kids in each of our classrooms. Just 1 year ago, this initiative was announced as a bipartisan issue and leaders on both sides of the aisle claimed credit for this national effort to reduce class sizes in grades 1 through 3. But now, a year later, this amendment has been defeated on a party line vote. Parents and teachers want real solutions. They want real investments. They want a real commitment to our schools. I believe we can do what is right for education in this Congress. When we listen to parents and educators and students, a vision for improving our schools based on their real needs is clear. I believe we must first establish the following principles: We need to ensure that all children have an equal opportunity to learn. We need to elevate the teaching profession through better pay and greater respect. We need to hold educators accountable for students' progress. And we need to invest more money in public education. This plan is built on a partnership among Federal, State and local officials, working together to help all our students. It starts with making the school work for our students. That means making sure the school buildings are safe and secure and modern. That is why I am an original cosponsor of the School Modernization Act, so kids do not have to learn in crumbling schools or overcrowded classrooms. It means making sure the teachers have the training and professional development they need to give our kids the best. That is why I am an original cosponsor of the Public Schools Education Excellence Act. A section of that act that I wrote called Teacher Technology Training will make sure all educators know the best ways to use technology to teach our children. It means making sure education does not stop when the school bell rings. We need to give our kids safe and educational things to do when the schoolday is over and parents are still at work. And it means making sure there are, at most, 18 students in each classroom instead of 30. We know in smaller classes kids get the time and attention they need. That is why I wrote and I am going to continue to fight for the Class Size Reduction and Teacher Quality Act, to give schools the money they need to reduce our class sizes, particularly in the younger grades. Everyone wants smaller classes. When you ask experts in education, they tell you that, based on their research, smaller classes make a big difference. When you ask teachers what makes the biggest difference, the answer is smaller classes. And when you ask parents, Do you want your child in a class of 30 or 18? the answer is clear; they want smaller classes. Smaller classes help kids learn the basics and improve classroom discipline. Parents, teachers, and experts all want smaller classes. Last year, this Congress promised schools we would fund smaller class sizes for 7 years. This year, schools across the country are taking advantage of that program. But here we are, just 1 year later, and that commitment is fading. Last week, I released a letter signed by 38 Senators, Senators who are going to stand up for class size reduction. The President said if this Congress does not fund class size reduction, he will veto the bill. Last week, 38 Senators said they would stand with him and back up that veto. Let me say to my colleagues, if you shortchange class size, the President will veto your bill. If you try to override that veto, we will stand together to make sure our kids get the smaller classes they deserve, the ones we promised them 1 year ago, a promise made by both parties to all of our kids. I have other ideas on how we can help our students. As we begin discussing our Nation's Federal education law, I will introduce legislation to assure that all segments of our school community-- teachers, students, and families--play their role in improving education. To help teachers, my legislation will give us the tools to recruit the world's finest educators; to retain educators by improving professional development and creating career ladders so that our best teachers will not leave the classroom but will have the opportunity to continue to grow professionally; to make sure all teachers can use the tools of technology to boost student achievement. It will reward and recognize great educators. It will offer a meaningful financial bonus for States to improve teacher pay. And it will require educators to meet the same high standards we expect of our students. Today, I am introducing legislation to help students by creating more meaningful roles for students in their schools and communities, finding the best examples of students and adults working together and rewarding those efforts and sharing those ideas with all schools, and showing the link between student involvement and student achievement. Because we know parents and families are a child's first and best teachers, I am also introducing legislation that will invite families into our schools, train teachers, and administrators in the best ways to involve parents, and invest in family involvement at newer and higher levels. It will use technology to make it easier for parents to stay informed and involved in their child's education. Borrowing from an example in my home State of Washington, it will build on the success of parent cooperative preschools which use local community colleges as a vehicle to improve parent involvement and school readiness for young kids. I have talked with parents in my State, and it has become clear they want to be involved in their child's education. Too often, though, their jobs prevent them from being involved. That is why I introduced my Time for Schools Act. Which lets parents take up to 24 hours of unpaid leave off work each year to attend academic events at school and be involved in their child's education. That is the type of real- world solution that will help our parents. Those are all parts of the comprehensive vision for improving education. I believe this plan will help prepare America for the next century. It is based on what we know works and has real money to back it up. All too often, the debates on education begin with talk about how bad our public schools are. Everyone will hear that our schools are in shambles. I believe our schools are not failing, but if we let this Congress cut education funding, we will be failing our public schools. Most of our public schools are doing a good job. Some are not, but they are all facing more and more challenges with fewer resources than ever before. We have to recognize those challenges and prepare our schools and our children for the future. Today, I hear a lot of talk about bureaucracy. I hear our schools are trapped by red tape. I was a school board member, and I know what it is like to fill out forms and, yes, we should reduce paperwork. That is why the class size reduction application is only one page, is available online, and takes just a few minutes to fill out. Less paperwork is good. But somehow some people have convinced themselves that if there are fewer forms, our kids will magically get the resources they need. Fewer forms will not buy a textbook or build a classroom. It takes resources and support, and it takes real dollars. Reducing bureaucracy sounds good, but it means nothing if it is only as good as the paper on which it is written. I hear a lot of talk about flexibility. That sounds great. I support flexibility because I know that principals and local school boards understand their own needs best. But we cannot forget right now that the Federal Government sets money aside for specific programs, like for homeless children or gifted children, money to help our schools become safe and drug free. That money is targeted for special needs which we as a country believe are important, and those Federal funds do a lot of good because they are seven times more targeted than other education funds. That money ensures that every American child gets a good education. But the plans I hear about tell schools, ``Do whatever you want with the money.'' At the same time, those plans start cutting the amount of money available to schools, and then our kids are the losers. When that dollar is no longer attached to a specific need, like making our schools safe after Columbine, or meeting the needs of a child who is behind or a child who is gifted, it is a lot easier to cut that money. Now schools think they have a choice, but they really have fewer options because there is less money available than there was the day before. When schools have choice with less money, national priorities and protections lose out. Suddenly that choice does not sound so good. Suddenly that choice is not liberating; it is limiting, and that is wrong because some of our kids are going to be left behind when a bill promising some version of flexibility makes schools choose between children. Let's not forget that we have already passed a better version of school flexibility called Ed-Flex earlier this year. Let's see how that serves our children before we try more risky approaches. We cannot forget why the Federal Government got involved in education. Thirty years ago, when education was left to States and localities alone, some kids got left behind. So the Federal Government set a basic safety net for all children. These are the targeted funds that some plans would put into a block grant and then cut. The Federal Government does two other vital things: It helps us meet national priorities, such as teaching technology or reducing class size, and it also helps students meet their potential and achieve at their highest levels. When this Congress ignores the reasons why we have a Federal partner in education, we are left with false choices that fail our children. Our country deserves a real choice. We must offer real plans, real money to improve our schools, not false choices and not funding cuts. I urge my colleagues to listen to the American people. We should treat education like a priority and do right by all of our children.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, we are rapidly coming to the end of the session. This Congress has a lot of unfinished business left in far too many areas: Patients' Bill of Rights, prescription drug, guns, juvenile justice, and education. Today I want to take a few minutes to talk about one of America's top priorities, education. Today I am going to be introducing, a little bit later, and describing several bills that will improve education in America. We are about to start our biggest debate on education in 5 years as we begin the work on the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. If the past few weeks are any indication, I am very concerned that in this critical education debate our children are going to be the losers, and that would really be a shame. Education has long been a bipartisan issue, but somehow in this Congress partisanship has too often pushed progress aside. Two weeks ago, I tried to help our schools continue a very successful initiative to hire more teachers so there would be fewer kids in each of our classrooms. Just 1 year ago, this initiative was announced as a bipartisan issue and leaders on both sides of the aisle claimed credit for this national effort to reduce class sizes in grades 1 through 3. But now, a year later, this amendment has been defeated on a party line vote. Parents and teachers want real solutions. They want real investments. They want a real commitment to our schools. I believe we can do what is right for education in this Congress. When we listen to parents and educators and students, a vision for improving our schools based on their real needs is clear. I believe we must first establish the following principles: We need to ensure that all children have an equal opportunity to learn. We need to elevate the teaching profession through better pay and greater respect. We need to hold educators accountable for students' progress. And we need to invest more money in public education. This plan is built on a partnership among Federal, State and local officials, working together to help all our students. It starts with making the school work for our students. That means making sure the school buildings are safe and secure and modern. That is why I am an original cosponsor of the School Modernization Act, so kids do not have to learn in crumbling schools or overcrowded classrooms. It means making sure the teachers have the training and professional development they need to give our kids the best. That is why I am an original cosponsor of the Public Schools Education Excellence Act. A section of that act that I wrote called Teacher Technology Training will make sure all educators know the best ways to use technology to teach our children. It means making sure education does not stop when the school bell rings. We need to give our kids safe and educational things to do when the schoolday is over and parents are still at work. And it means making sure there are, at most, 18 students in each classroom instead of 30. We know in smaller classes kids get the time and attention they need. That is why I wrote and I am going to continue to fight for the Class Size Reduction and Teacher Quality Act, to give schools the money they need to reduce our class sizes, particularly in the younger grades. Everyone wants smaller classes. When you ask experts in education, they tell you that, based on their research, smaller classes make a big difference. When you ask teachers what makes the biggest difference, the answer is smaller classes. And when you ask parents, Do you want your child in a class of 30 or 18? the answer is clear; they want smaller classes. Smaller classes help kids learn the basics and improve classroom discipline. Parents, teachers, and experts all want smaller classes. Last year, this Congress promised schools we would fund smaller class sizes for 7 years. This year, schools across the country are taking advantage of that program. But here we are, just 1 year later, and that commitment is fading. Last week, I released a letter signed by 38 Senators, Senators who are going to stand up for class size reduction. The President said if this Congress does not fund class size reduction, he will veto the bill. Last week, 38 Senators said they would stand with him and back up that veto. Let me say to my colleagues, if you shortchange class size, the President will veto your bill. If you try to override that veto, we will stand together to make sure our kids get the smaller classes they deserve, the ones we promised them 1 year ago, a promise made by both parties to all of our kids. I have other ideas on how we can help our students. As we begin discussing our Nation's Federal education law, I will introduce legislation to assure that all segments of our school community-- teachers, students, and families--play their role in improving education. To help teachers, my legislation will give us the tools to recruit the world's finest educators; to retain educators by improving professional development and creating career ladders so that our best teachers will not leave the classroom but will have the opportunity to continue to grow professionally; to make sure all teachers can use the tools of technology to boost student achievement. It will reward and recognize great educators. It will offer a meaningful financial bonus for States to improve teacher pay. And it will require educators to meet the same high standards we expect of our students. Today, I am introducing legislation to help students by creating more meaningful roles for students in their schools and communities, finding the best examples of students and adults working together and rewarding those efforts and sharing those ideas with all schools, and showing the link between student involvement and student achievement. Because we know parents and families are a child's first and best teachers, I am also introducing legislation that will invite families into our schools, train teachers, and administrators in the best ways to involve parents, and invest in family involvement at newer and higher levels. It will use technology to make it easier for parents to stay informed and involved in their child's education. Borrowing from an example in my home State of Washington, it will build on the success of parent cooperative preschools which use local community colleges as a vehicle to improve parent involvement and school readiness for young kids. I have talked with parents in my State, and it has become clear they want to be involved in their child's education. Too often, though, their jobs prevent them from being involved. That is why I introduced my Time for Schools Act. Which lets parents take up to 24 hours of unpaid leave off work each year to attend academic events at school and be involved in their child's education. That is the type of real- world solution that will help our parents. Those are all parts of the comprehensive vision for improving education. I believe this plan will help prepare America for the next century. It is based on what we know works and has real money to back it up. All too often, the debates on education begin with talk about how bad our public schools are. Everyone will hear that our schools are in shambles. I believe our schools are not failing, but if we let this Congress cut education funding, we will be failing our public schools. Most of our public schools are doing a good job. Some are not, but they are all facing more and more challenges with fewer resources than ever before. We have to recognize those challenges and prepare our schools and our children for the future. Today, I hear a lot of talk about bureaucracy. I hear our schools are trapped by red tape. I was a school board member, and I know what it is like to fill out forms and, yes, we should reduce paperwork. That is why the class size reduction application is only one page, is available online, and takes just a few minutes to fill out. Less paperwork is good. But somehow some people have convinced themselves that if there are fewer forms, our kids will magically get the resources they need. Fewer forms will not buy a textbook or build a classroom. It takes resources and support, and it takes real dollars. Reducing bureaucracy sounds good, but it means nothing if it is only as good as the paper on which it is written. I hear a lot of talk about flexibility. That sounds great. I support flexibility because I know that principals and local school boards understand their own needs best. But we cannot forget right now that the Federal Government sets money aside for specific programs, like for homeless children or gifted children, money to help our schools become safe and drug free. That money is targeted for special needs which we as a country believe are important, and those Federal funds do a lot of good because they are seven times more targeted than other education funds. That money ensures that every American child gets a good education. But the plans I hear about tell schools, ``Do whatever you want with the money.'' At the same time, those plans start cutting the amount of money available to schools, and then our kids are the losers. When that dollar is no longer attached to a specific need, like making our schools safe after Columbine, or meeting the needs of a child who is behind or a child who is gifted, it is a lot easier to cut that money. Now schools think they have a choice, but they really have fewer options because there is less money available than there was the day before. When schools have choice with less money, national priorities and protections lose out. Suddenly that choice does not sound so good. Suddenly that choice is not liberating; it is limiting, and that is wrong because some of our kids are going to be left behind when a bill promising some version of flexibility makes schools choose between children. Let's not forget that we have already passed a better version of school flexibility called Ed-Flex earlier this year. Let's see how that serves our children before we try more risky approaches. We cannot forget why the Federal Government got involved in education. Thirty years ago, when education was left to States and localities alone, some kids got left behind. So the Federal Government set a basic safety net for all children. These are the targeted funds that some plans would put into a block grant and then cut. The Federal Government does two other vital things: It helps us meet national priorities, such as teaching technology or reducing class size, and it also helps students meet their potential and achieve at their highest levels. When this Congress ignores the reasons why we have a Federal partner in education, we are left with false choices that fail our children. Our country deserves a real choice. We must offer real plans, real money to improve our schools, not false choices and not funding cuts. I urge my colleagues to listen to the American people. We should treat education like a priority and do right by all of our children.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. I yield the floor.

Mrs. MURRAY. I thank the Chair. (The remarks of Mrs. Murray pertaining to the introduction of S. 1772 are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, first, I thank my colleague from California for her tremendous amount of work on the floor on a very emotional and difficult issue to show all of us what is really behind the bill that is before the Senate and to stand up for women across this country to make their own health care decisions, along with their family and their own faith, without the interference of those of us on this floor who are not medical doctors and who are not members of that family. I thank the Senator from Iowa, Mr. Harkin, for offering the amendment we are now debating because his amendment--and I want my colleagues to look at it very carefully--is really what this debate is about, and I think everyone here knows it. The question is, Do we really stand for and behind Roe v. Wade? Do we really support a woman's right of choice? Are we going to allow women to make this incredibly important decision in consultation with their physician and their family and their faith or are we going to stand on the floor of the Senate and make that decision for her? I have often heard many of my colleagues talk about being pro-choice simply because they do not support overturning Roe v. Wade. But over and over, when it comes time to provide access or services or to allow Federal employees access to these services, these same pro-choice Members vote to restrict a woman's right to choose. I know the difference, as do the voters in my home State of Washington. In 1992, my State voted overwhelmingly in support of a woman's right of choice. The voters in Washington State recognized the importance of the landmark Supreme Court decision giving a woman the right to determine her own fate and make her own personal health and reproductive decisions. Washington State voters have also spoken out on this particular effort--the underlying bill--which attempts to undermine Roe v. Wade by outlawing one abortion procedure after another. In 1998, a year ago, the voters of my State overwhelmingly defeated a ballot initiative to ban the so-called partial-birth abortions. That initiative was almost identical to S. 1692. I am really proud of Washington State voters who stood up to defend a woman's right to her own reproductive health and choice decisions. That initiative which was on our ballot a year ago was defeated because there was no exception, no consideration for the health of the woman. Her life and her health were made not just secondary concerns but of no concern at all. In my State, voters understood why this kind of ban was a threat to all women. The Harkin amendment we are now debating gives us the opportunity to talk about the role of the woman in this decision. It will allow Members to stand up and say the Roe decision was an important one, one we stand behind. The Harkin amendment will send a message to women that we recognize the turning point in equality that followed the 1973 landmark ruling. As the Senator from Iowa pointed out, there was a time in our country's history when a woman could not own property, could not vote, or could not have access to safe family planning services. There was a time when women were not allowed access to equal education. There was a time in our history when having a child meant being forced out of the workplace. Those times have passed. Women made gains as those offensive policies were changed, banned, and overturned, and I will do everything I can to make sure votes such as the one we are talking about do not take us back to the dark days because the women of America are not going back. The proponents of S. 1692 say their intent is to end late-term abortions. We are not going to be fooled. We know this is just another attempt to chip away at Roe v. Wade. This is just another attempt to undermine that decision and deny access to safe and legal abortion services. This is just another attempt to harass providers and generate hateful rhetoric. This is just another attempt to limit access. The proponents are trying to achieve through public relations what they cannot do in the courts or in the legislatures. Their ultimate goal is to make the rights and health protections guaranteed in Roe worth nothing more than the paper on which it was written. The Harkin amendment calls them on this bluff and demands accountability.