Patty Murray

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, if the Senator from California will yield me 5 minutes.

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, since 1995, we have had more than 110 anti-choice votes in Congress. More than 110 times, we have voted to restrict or deny access to safe and legal reproductive health care. More than 110 times we have voted to undermine and limit the constitutional guarantees that were provided in the Roe v. Wade decision. The goal is clear: Little by little, the proponents of the underlying bill want to place so many barriers and obstacles in front of women and their physicians that abortions will only be available to a few wealthy women, just as it was before the Roe v. Wade decision. A woman who is a victim of rape or incest, a woman whose life is at stake, will not even be able to find a provider. In fact, I want my colleagues to know we are already seeing this. In some States, there are no doctors now who are willing to provide a legal health care procedure. We are going back to the dark days when women's health was at risk because of the laws of this land. Let there be no confusion; the proponents of this bill want to outlaw abortions step by step since they know a majority of Americans will not give up their rights to make this decision on their own with their own family and their own faith. If you support the Roe v. Wade decision, you have to support the Harkin amendment. If you support a woman's right to choose, you have to support the Harkin amendment. And a ``no'' vote will send a message that the Senate does not support Roe or recognize the importance that a woman has to make this decision on her own. I urge my colleagues to vote for the Harkin amendment and put us on record where we ought to be: To allow women to have safe, legal reproductive choices that allow them to make this decision with their family and their faith. That is where this decision rests, not on the floor of the Senate. I thank my colleague from California.

Mrs. MURRAY. I ask the Senator from California for an additional 3 minutes.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I commend the Democratic leader, Senator Daschle, for bringing to the attention of the Senate this extremely important day, October 21. It is the Day of National Concern about Young People and Gun Violence. This is a day that all Members in the Senate have recognized as a day we want young people everywhere to take a pledge to not bring a gun to school and to resolve their conflicts without using a gun. It is a very important message. This is a bipartisan message. Senator Kempthorne and I began this effort 4 years ago. This year, Senator John Warner and I put this resolution forward in a bipartisan way. It was supported by all Members of the Senate. It is a simple message to young children. Millions of them today took the pledge and joined with others in their community to take the power of reducing violence into their own hands. As leaders of the United States, we have a responsibility to do all we can to reduce youth violence in this country. We need to stand behind these young kids who are taking violence and the issue of violence in their own hands and say we, as the leaders of this country, stand with you. I commend Senator Daschle for his statement, for bringing to the attention of the Senate our responsibility as adults to reduce the number of guns to which our young kids have access, and urge our colleagues to move forward on these critical issues that have been left behind in this session of Congress. I yield the floor.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I feel compelled to express my concerns with the Commerce, Justice, State, and the judiciary appropriations bill for fiscal year 2000. I am disappointed by the inadequate funding for coastal salmon recovery and the Pacific Salmon Treaty. While I cannot complain about the funding for Washington State in relation to Alaska, California, and Oregon, I do believe the overall funding is woefully inadequate to address the tremendous crisis facing threatened and endangered salmon runs. Each state and their counties and cities are prepared to face the challenge of salmon recovery, but they must be given the tools to do so. The funds for Pacific coastal salmon recovery should be at the President's request level of $100 million. In relation to the Pacific Salmon Treaty, I must again bemoan the lack of adequate funding. The treaty agreement was signed late in the appropriation process and thus it is understandable that large scale funding would be difficult. However, the funding provided under this conference report does not approach our obligations under the treaty. We need to be signaling the intention of the U.S. to meet its treaty obligations and this bill does not do this. I believe the funding for the Northern and Southern Funds called for under the treaty should be more than the $10 million provided. Furthermore, the elimination of the buy-back money for fishers is not only cruel to the families affected by the fishing reductions, but again does not send the right message to Canada. In a related matter, the conference report contains legislative language that exempts Alaska from the provisions and requirements of the Endangered Species Act in relation to salmon. While I appreciate the State of Alaska's desire to have the Pacific Salmon Treaty protect its salmon fishery from any jeopardy findings, the provision is not in the spirit of the treaty. The states of Oregon and Washington, as well as the Pacific Northwest tribes, negotiated in good-faith to conclude the treaty. I must support Governor Kitzhaber and Governor Locke and the tribes in their opposition to this provision. This legislative provision is in effect an addendum to the treaty that the treaty negotiators did not agree to. It should be removed. I am very disappointed the conference did not adopt the language of the Hate Crimes Prevention Act. Hate crime is real. Despite great gains in equality and civil rights over the latter part of the century, hate crimes are still being committed and offenders must be punished. Including this provision would have given us more tools to fight hate. The proposal would have expanded the definition of a hate crime and improved prosecution of those who act our their hate with violence. If someone harms another because of race, gender, color, religion, disability or sexual orientation, they would be punished. I am very disappointed that the conference failed to include the Senate language of the Hate Crime Prevention Act. Along with many of my colleagues, I will continue to push this legislation. It is about basic human rights for those who all too often persecuted while the majority looks the other way. I am also unhappy the Community Oriented Policing Services Program (COPS) was so underfunded. The Subcommittee mark in the Senate included no funding for COPS. Some of us on the full Appropriations Committee restored a modest amount of money to the program. The President requested $1.2 billion, but the conference funded COPS at only $325 million. That is wrong. COPS is one of the most successful programs of this decade. The initiative to get an additional 100,000 new police officers on the streets was widely criticized by many from the other side of the aisle. They said that the federal government could never successfully assist local law enforcement. They were wrong. The program is now praised by former opponents, the states are happy with it, and it has proven to be very effective. Another problem is that once again behind closed doors, we continue to assault reproductive health care for women. Section 625 of this conference report includes a major authorizing change that was not part of the House or Senate passed bills. We did not debate or discuss this major expansion of the conscience clause included in Public Law 106-58, FY00 Treasury Postal Appropriations. For those members who were not in this closed door meeting, let me explain. Section 625 would allow a pharmacist to object to providing a woman with a prescribed contraceptive if he or she felt the use of this contraceptive was contrary to their own individual religious beliefs or moral convictions. Pharmacists can make a moral judgment and deny women access to emergency contraceptives or any form of contraceptive. We already allow plans participating in the FEHBP to object on religious grounds to providing reproductive health services; we now will allow pharmacists to deny women access. A small town pharmacist could simply object to filling a prescription because she morally objects to the use of contraceptives. A woman is now subjected to the moral judgment of her pharmacists. Is she free to simply go to another pharmacy? In many rural communities there really aren't nearby other options. In addition, many plans require use of a preferred provider for pharmacy benefits. What happens if your preferred provider is morally opposed to providing contraceptives? I do not oppose conscience clauses, but I do oppose denying women access to legally prescribed contraceptives simply based on moral objections. This is simply outrageous and once again the threat to women's health is ignored. Let me end on a positive note. I am appreciative of the subcommittee's work to provide $5 million in State Department monies for costs related to the World Trade Organization Ministerial meeting which will be held in Seattle, WA. The President requested $2 million and I am pleased Senator Gregg and Senator Hollings agreed to my request for a significant increase for WTO expenses. I had hoped for some additional language to ensure that the State Department reimbursed localities in Washington State for legitimate WTO police and fire expenses. The WTO Ministerial will be the largest trade meeting ever held in the United States, both the Federal Government and Washington State are bearing significant costs to host the world's trade negotiators. I expect and I will push the State Department to be responsive to the needs of local governments in Washington State in the expenditure of these additional monies.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, I rise today in support of meaningful campaign finance reform. It is high time that this Congress act to improve our political process and to restore faith in our democracy. In fact, it is past time. When I was elected by the people of my State in 1992, one of the key things they asked me to do was to help fix our campaign finance system. I have been part of the reform effort since I walked through these doors. Well, here it is, 7 years later. And it's the same old story. Campaigns still cost too much money. And too often, the power of ideas is pushed aside by the power of money. That is not the way our system should work. We need to do all we can to show the American people that their voices count--and to provide that their voices will be heard over the roar of special interest money. Overall, I do think we have made some positive changes in the way the Capitol operates since my election. I do think we have addressed some of the issues families care about. But our campaign finance system still undermines our best efforts--draining public interest in our political process and sapping the energy from American voters in ways that will affect our democracy for years to come. The opponents say the public doesn't care about campaign finance reform. But, in fact, the role of money in our elections and the rise of special interest influence have a profound--and very negative-- effect on public perception of politics. Many people believe that Members of Congress are controlled by special interests and wealthy donors--and are no longer listening to their concerns. It keeps them from voting and from participating in the decisions that affect their lives. We are here to represent the people of our States. As a representative of working Americans, I have felt from the beginning that it is my duty to ensure their voices and concerns are heard loudly and clearly in the political process. If my constituents believe they aren't being heard and that is partially due to the influence of special interests, then I must do something about it. This legislation is an opportunity to act. I think this legislation could go further, for example, in the way it treats types of advocacy. Express advocacy is designed to get the public to vote for or against a specific candidate. For that reason, express advocacy is regulated. There is another type of advocacy that is not regulated. It's called ``issue advocacy.'' Issue advocacy campaigns were intended to allow groups and individuals to communicate their support or opposition to particular policy issues. Unfortunately, these activities have become organized campaigns run by partisan groups to influence the election or defeat of a particular candidate. At a minimum, the public has a right to know who is funding these so-called ``independent expenditures'' by requiring the producers of these campaigns to disclose their contributors. A earlier version of this bill would have made issue advocacy subject to similar restrictions as express advocacy. That is one of the improvements I would like to see as we go through the amendment process. But there are other amendments that would weaken the bill's provisions and could kill this legislation. One is the so-called Paycheck Protection Act. It is a poison pill to kill true campaign finance reform. This provision would defund unions by setting up barriers to their obtaining union dues to spend on political activities. However, the Republican Paycheck Protection Act misses the target. Despite the rhetoric, no worker is ever forced to join a union or pay for political and legislative activities with which he or she does not agree. Never. But the vast majority of unions--and their supporters--believe their voices are critical to a strong healthy economy and to strong, healthy families. And I agree with them. I am not optimistic about this process. We have some very determined foes who oppose any attempt at reform. While we have 100 percent of the Democratic caucus and a handful of brave Republicans, it appears we do not have 60 votes to stop a filibuster against reform. This makes me unhappy, but not willing to give up. I will continue to participate in the coalition of those Senators pushing for reform. I will keep my commitment to bring public faith back into our political system and to return political power to our citizens. And I will anxiously await the day when 60 of my Senate colleagues agree with the American people that now is the time for campaign finance reform.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I rise to join my colleagues in voicing my strong support for Senate ratification of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. I joined many of my colleagues in calling for Senate consideration of the CTBT. But I must say, I am very disappointed in the process put into place for the consideration of this hugely important issue. This Senate is failing our great tradition of considering treaties without partisan political influences. So many giants in American history have argued for and against treaties right here on the Senate floor. Senator Henry ``Scoop'' Jackson from my own State of Washington was one of these giants. Following his death in 1983, Charles Krauthammer wrote the following in Time magazine: The death of Senator Henry Jackson has left an empty stillness at the center of American politics. Jackson was the symbol, and the last great leader, of a political tradition that began with Woodrow Wilson and reached its apogee with John Kennedy, Lyndon Johnson, and Hubert Humphrey. That tradition--liberal internationalism--held that if democratic capitalism was to have a human face, it had to have a big heart and strong hand. Scoop believed in that strong hand. Senator Jackson was one of the Senate's workhorses on defense issues. Few had the intimate knowledge of defense and foreign policy matters that Scoop did. And this expertise extended to arms control issues as well. Jackson was famous for taking apart arms control agreements and forcing the Executive Branch and his congressional colleagues to understand fully the matter at hand. And, Jackson was a leader at perfecting arms control agreements that fully protected U.S. interests. Senator Jackson was a defense giant throughout the cold war. He championed his country's defense from the days of FDR to Ronald Reagan's first term as President. Yet, he managed to vote for every single arms control treaty that came before the Senate. He tackled the issues and he protected U.S. interests and national security with absolute devotion to country free from partisan politics. Jackson epitomized the Senate at its best; senators working together without time constraints; senators holding the Administration accountable; senators engaged to strengthen U.S. foreign and defense policy. Sadly, this Senate has taken a different course. Few can argue with any sincerity that the Senate has given the CTBT a thorough consideration. The treaty's certain defeat was dictated by partisanship before a single hearing was held on the issue. Advise and consent, the Senate's historical and constitutional duty has been laid aside by a majority party currying favor with extremist political forces. In spite of the pre-determined fate of the CTBT, I want to take a few minutes to briefly explain my strong support for the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. The arguments used to end nuclear testing in 1992 are just as valid today. My service in the Senate has largely mirrored the U.S. moratorium on nuclear weapons tests. President Bush wisely halted U.S. nuclear weapons testing after a thorough review of our nuclear weapons arsenal and particularly the safety, reliability and survivability of our stockpile. The directors of our nuclear weapons laboratories, numerous prestigious weapons scientists, prominent military leaders and many others remain convinced that the United States can safely maintain its nuclear weapons stockpile without nuclear testing. The CTBT freezes in place U.S. supremacy in nuclear weaponry. The United States maintains a 6,000 warhead nuclear arsenal. This arsenal is the result of more than 1,000 nuclear weapons tests. Our nuclear weapons program is without equal in the world. Dr. Hans Bethe, Nobel Prize winning physicist and former Director of Theoretical Division at the Los Alamos Laboratory wrote the President on this very point in early October. Dr. Bethe's letter states: Every thinking person should realize that this treaty is uniquely in favor of the United States. We have a substantial lead in atomic weapons technology over all other countries. We have tested weapons of all sizes and shapes suitable for military purposes. We have no interest in and no need for further development through testing. Other existing nuclear powers would need tests to make up this technological gap. And even more importantly, a test ban would make it essentially impossible for new nuclear power to engage. Here's a leading nuclear scientist, a Nobel Prize winning physicist, and he says the CTBT is ``uniquely in favor of the United States.'' To me, this is an immensely powerful argument in favor of CTBT. Failure to ratify the test ban treaty will send a disastrous message to the international community. Already our closest allies are calling upon the United States to ratify the CTBT. Many countries urging the U.S. to ratify the treaty are the same countries covered by the U.S. nuclear umbrella including our closest NATO allies. Given our unmatched nuclear superiority, is the United States' national interest advanced by working with the global community to combat potential nuclear threats? The answer to me is a resounding yes. The United States is safer if the world is working together to combat any proliferation threats. Without the CTBT, the global effort to combat proliferation will be seriously undermined and U.S. credibility and sincerity will be jeopardized. Our efforts to contain and control a nuclear arms race in South Asia will be undermined. The global resolve to contain proliferation in the Middle East in countries like Iran and Iraq will diminish. Rogue states like North Korea will not face the same international resolve on weapons experimentation and development. It will be easier for nations like China to modernize its nuclear weapons program if the CTBT does not enter into force. Our already difficult efforts to work with a fraying nuclear establishment in Russia will also be setback by the U.S. failure to lead the effort to end nuclear weapons testing once and for all. The CTBT is largely a creation of the United States. For more than 40 years, Republican and Democratic Administrations have pushed the world to end nuclear weapons testing. President Clinton signed the CTBT upon its successful negotiation in 1996. More than 140 countries have signed the treaty. Some 40 countries have ratified the treaty. U.S. ratification of the CTBT is one of the last remaining hurdles to the treaty entering in force. Mr. President, I will cast my vote with absolute confidence for ratification of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I rise today to express my deep frustration with the fiscal year 2000 Agriculture Appropriations conference report before us today. Two weeks ago, the Republican leadership pulled the plug on conference negotiations--and killed our prospect for comprehensive sanctions reform and additional assistance for agricultural communities hit by economic and natural disasters. When we look back at this first session of the 106th Congress, I believe we will see that decision as an enormous missed opportunity. Mr. President, Washington State is the most trade-dependent State in the nation. And agriculture is one of its top exports. The growers in my State need open markets. Many times, market access is closed or limited because of the actions of foreign countries. We can and must fight to break down barriers erected by other nations. We must also fight to break down the barriers to foreign markets created by our own government. Sanctions that include food and medicine do not serve the interest of the United States, and they certainly do not serve the interests of American producers. Oftentimes with the best of intentions, we have cut off all trade with states that sponsor terrorism, fail to live up to critical agreements, or refuse to share our principles of democracy. Mr. President, we cannot and must not tolerate reprehensible actions by rogue states. But it is clear to me, and to 69 other Senators who voted for sanctions reform, that we do not act in the best interests of American foreign policy or American agricultural producers when we impose unilateral food and medicine sanctions. The people in the world we hurt most with unilateral sanctions are American growers. The Senate sanctions reform package was a huge step in the right direction. It deserves to become law. Wheat growers in my State deserve access to Iran, which was once our largest export market for soft white wheat. And pea and lentil growers deserve access to Cuba, a market valued at more than $17 million. In both of these cases, our foreign competitors have stepped into the market vacuum created by U.S. sanctions policy. The Administration started sanctions reform earlier this year. I applaud those efforts--belated as they were. I also applaud those in the Senate who worked so hard for passage of the Ashcroft-Dodd amendment. But now the Republican leadership has sent the message to our foreign competitors that they can continue to conduct business as usual--that U.S. growers will not soon be players in markets like Iran and Cuba. After hearing for years from some Republicans that the Administration lacked the will to reform our nation's outdated and ineffective sanctions policies, the Republican leadership proved it could not lead American agriculture into the 21st century. Too many of our producers already have empty wallets and empty bank accounts, and--in response-- Congress delivered empty rhetoric on sanctions reform. In September, I met with representatives of the Washington Association of Wheat Growers, the Washington State Farm Bureau, and the Washington Growers Clearing House. I expressed my strong support for the sanctions reform package and my hope that some agreement could be reached between the Senate and House. I did not count on the procedural maneuvering that doomed the sanctions package. Our growers deserved a better process and a better outcome. Mr. President, in a perfect world this bill would include sanctions reform. Its emergency provisions would include more money for specialty crops, additional funding for the Market Access Program, and increased Section 32 money for USDA purchases of fruits and vegetables. It would include more resources for farm worker housing and Natural Resource Conservation Service conservation operations. On the subject of minor crops, I would like to discuss the plight of apple growers in my state. The apple industry in particular is in the throes of the economic conditions as bad as anyone can remember. Poor weather has played a role, but more important are the economic factors. Apple juice dumping by China has removed the floor price for apples. Chinese apple juice concentrate imports increased by more than 1,200 percent between 1995 and 1998. I was pleased to sponsor a letter with Senator Gorton, signed by a total of 21 Senators, to Commerce Secretary Daley urging the administration to find that Chinese dumping is destroying our growers and to impose stiff retroactive duties. Weak Asian markets and high levels of world production have contributed greatly to the terrible economic situation in central Washington State. As a result, many small family farms that grow some of the best fruit produced in the world are going out of business. Many of these are not marginal producers. They are efficient growers whose families have been growing high quality apples and pears and other commodities for generations. As in other parts of rural America, the communities that rely on tree fruit production for their economic base are reeling. It is hard to diversify when your economic foundation is crumbling. It is estimated approximately 20 percent of Washington apple growers will lose their farms in the next three years. And that is a conservative estimate. Over the August recess, I met with community leaders in north central Washington State. Okanogan County alone has experienced $70 million in losses in the tree fruit industry leading the county to declare an economic disaster. Language in the conference report directs the Farm Service Agency to review all programs that assist apple producers, and review the limits set on operating loan programs used by apple growers to determine whether the current limits are insufficient to cover operating expenses. I urge FSA to complete this review as soon as possible so that those of us who represent apple producing states can improve the Federal Government's assistance to our growers. The conference bill before us provides $1.2 billion in disaster assistance. The report language for that section of the bill mentions the plight of apple growers and urges the USDA to address the problem. However, let's be clear that it will be very difficult for my state's apple producers to get meaningful assistance through this bill. Simply put, this bill is not a victory for apple growers or their communities. In the future, some of my colleagues may criticize the Secretary of Agriculture for not recognizing the critical need in apple country and failing to deliver assistance. Earlier this year, August Schumacher, Under Secretary for Farm and Foreign Agricultural Services, came to Washington State to hear from apple growers. I know the administration understands the needs of growers in my State. But the administration can't realistically address the needs of growers all over the country with only $1.2 billion. Nevertheless, I look forward to working with my colleagues to direct aid to apple growers in Washington State. I believe this Congress needs to accept responsibility for the shortcomings in the bill. The Republican leadership certainly bears complete responsibility for the unacceptable manner in which this bill was taken out of the hands of congressional appropriators in the middle of conference negotiations. Mr. President, while this bill is flawed, it is still a step in the right direction. I intend to vote for the conference report. Although we didn't do it two weeks ago, we must send the message this week that Congress will try to reestablish opportunity in rural America. I will vote for this bill because it provides emergency assistance to many of our farmers and ranchers. It funds research, including new positions for potato and temperate fruit fly research that are critical to minor crop producers in my state. It delivers a nearly $52 million increase for programs in President Clinton's Food Safety Initiative, including $600,000 for research into listeriosis, sheep scrapie, and ovine progressive pneumonia virus (OPPV) at ARS facilities in Pullman, Washington and in DuBois, ID. It provides critical funding for WIC and other feeding programs, and for P.L. 480. Mr. President, I was tempted to vote ``no'' on this conference report. But just as I believe the Republican leadership should have embraced responsibility on sanctions reform, I believe voting to pass this conference report is the most responsible approach. It is my sincere hope the Senate will pass sanctions reform and other legislation to provide greater economic security to communities that rely on agriculture before the end of this session.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, included in the Manager's amendment is an important provision relating to women's health and access to reproductive health care services. I am pleased to have worked with the managers of this bill to send a strong message on the importance of direct access for women to their OB/GYN. I was disappointed that we were unable to address the rule XVI concerns with the amendment I had originally filed. My original amendment would simply allow women and their OB/GYNs to make important health care decisions without barriers or obstacles erected by insurance company policies. My amendment would have required that health plans give women direct access to their OB/GYN for all gynecological and obstetrical care and would have prohibited insurance companies from standing between a woman and her OB/GYN. However, it has been determined that my amendment would violate rule XVI. As a result of the announcement by the chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee that he will make a point of order against all amendments that may violate rule XVI, I have modified my amendment. The modification still allows Members of the Senate to be on record in support of women's health or in opposition to removing barriers that hinder access for women to critical reproductive health care services. I am offering a sense-of-the-Senate that puts this question to each Member. I realize that this amendment is not binding, but due to opposition to my original amendment, I have been forced to offer this sense-of-the-Senate. I am disappointed that we could not act to provide this important protection to women, but I do believe this amendment will send an important message that the U.S. Senate does support greater access for women to quality health care benefits. I have offered this amendment due to my frustration and disappointment with managed care reform. I have become frustrated by stalling tactics and empty promises. The managed care reform bill that passed the Senate has been referred to as an empty promise for women. I can assure my colleagues that women are much smarter than they may expect and will not be fooled by empty promises or arguments of procedural discipline. When a woman is denied direct access to the care provided by her OB/ GYN, she will not be interested in a discussion on ERISA or rule XVI. She wants direct access to her OB/GYN. She needs direct access, and she should have direct access. My amendment also reiterates the importance of ensuring that the OB/ GYN remains the coordinating physician. Any test or additional referral would be treated as if made by the primary care physician. This amendment does not call for the designation of an OB/GYN as a primary care physician, it simply says that if the OB/GYN decides additional care is necessary, the patient is not forced to seek approval from a primary care physician, who may not be familiar with her overall health care status. Why is this amendment important? The number one reason most women enter the health care system is to seek gynecological or obstetric care. This is the primary point of entry for women into the health care system. For most women, including myself, we consider our OB/GYN our primary care physician--maybe not as an insurance company defines it-- but, in practice, that's the reality. Does a woman go to her OB/GYN for an ear infection? No. But, does a pregnant woman consult with her OB/GYN prior to taking any antibiotic for the treatment of an ear infection? Yes, most women do. I know the policy endorsed in this amendment has in the past enjoyed bipartisan support. The requirements are similiar to S. 836, legislation introduced by Senator Specter and cosponsored by several Senators both Republican and Democrat. This amendment is similar to language that was adopted during committee consideration in the House of the fiscal year 1999 Labor, HHS appropriations bill. A similar directive is contained in the bipartisan House Patients' Bill of Rights legislation. It has the strong support of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and I know I have heard from several OB/GYNs in my own state testifying to the importance of direct access to the full range of care provided, not just routine care. I would also like to point out to my colleagues, that 39 states have similar requirements and that as participants in the Federal Employees Health Benefit Plan, all of us--as Senators--have this same guarantee as well as our family members. If we can guarantee this protection for ourselves and our families, we should do the same for women participating in a manager care plan. I realize that this appropriations bill may not be the best vehicle for offering this amendment. However, I have waited for final action on a Patients' Bill of Rights for too long. I have watched as patient protection bills have been stalled or delayed. Last year we were told that we would finish action on a good Patients' Bill of Rights package prior to adjournment. Well, here we sit--almost 12 months later--with little hope of finishing a good, comprehensive managed care reform bill prior to our scheduled adjournment this year. I also want to remind my colleagues that we have in the past used appropriations bills to address deficiencies in current law or to address an urgent need for action. I believe that addressing an urgent need in women's health care qualifies as a priority that we must address. I realize that the authorizing committee has objected to the original amendment I filed. As a member of the authorizing committee as well, I can understand this objection. But, again I have little choice but to proceed on this appropriations bill. We all know that it was only recently on the fiscal year 1999 supplemental appropriations bill that we authorized a significant change in Medicaid recoupment provisions despite strong objections from the Finance Committee. In last year's omnibus appropriations bill, we authorized a requirement that insurance companies must cover breast reconstruction surgery following a mastectomy. I can assure my colleagues that this provision never went through the authorizing committee. I would also point out that there are several antichoice riders contained in this appropriations bill that represent a major authorization. As these examples show, when we have to address these types issues through appropriations bills--we can do it. We have done it in the past, and we should do it today to meet this need. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. We all talk about the need to ensure access for women to health care. I applaud Chairman Specter's efforts in this appropriations bill regarding women's health care. Adopting this amendment gives us the opportunity to do something that does ensure greater access for women. This is what women want. This is the chance for Senators to show their commitment to this critical benefit. I would like to quote a statement made by our subcommittee chairman that I believe more eloquently explains why I am urging this amendment. ``I believe it is clear that access to women's health care cuts across the intricacies of the complicated and often divisive managed care debate.'' I could not agree more. We know from the current state requirement and the Federal Employee Health Benefit Program requirement, this provision does not have a significant impact on costs of health care. We also know from experience that it has a positive impact on health care benefits. Since 60 percent of office visits to OB/GYNs are for preventive care, we could make the argument that adoption of this policy would reduce the overall costs of health care. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment and ask that we do more than simply make empty promises to women. We need an honest and fair debate on this policy. I would ask my colleagues to seek further education or advice from women as to the importance of direct access and ask their female constituents about the relationship they have with their own OB/GYN. Let women speak for themselves. If you listen, you will hear why this policy is so important and why women trust their OB/GYN far more than their insurance company or their Member of Congress.

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, this evening we will vote on what is arguably the most important of our 13 appropriations bills, the Labor, Health and Human Services and Education Appropriations Act. When it comes to funding for education, the Congress has fundamentally ignored the messages of the American people. In this bill, education spending remains in the neighborhood of 1.6 percent of overall federal spending, a very poor neighborhood indeed. The American people cannot understand why, if education is their first priority, it is the last bill passed and the lowest funding priority of their Congress. They cannot fathom why, in a year when school districts across the country are hiring highly-qualified teachers to reduce class size, the Congress is walking away from its commitment. The House, regrettably, has done far worse by education than any of us could have imagined. The drastic cuts to education that would take effect under the House bill would send America back into the 19th century, not forward into the 21st. The House bill would cause 142,000 fewer children to be served in Head Start, would keep 50,000 students out of after-school programs, and would deprive 2.1 million children in high-poverty communities of extra help in mastering the basics of reading and math. The Senate has done better by our schools, but only through smoke- and-mirrors budgeteering that should give our school communities no long-term confidence. Advance funding is not without effect on the local school budget, which demands consistency and predictability. The numbers in the Senate bill are a better level from which to negotiate in the conference committee, but even these funding levels ignore the grim reality that our schools face a fundamentally tougher job than they did even five years ago, with skyrocketing enrollment, of students who are more expensive to educate, and who have less support at home and in the community. Despite all this, at least the Senate provides current funding for most educational services, makes some effort toward meeting the higher needs in others, and does a good job of providing new investments in a few areas. Funding for the Individuals with Disabilities in Education Act is increased by more than $900 million, a good start toward meeting our national commitment to fund forty percent of a local school district's costs of educating a disabled child. The $200 per student increase for Pell grants is a good investment, but only about half of what is needed this year. I'm particularly proud that we were able to increase funding for adult and family literacy, by increasing the adult basic education program by more than $100 million. This means that thousands more adults and their families will be able to take the first steps toward increased viability in our changing economy. The failures in this bill are many, however. As an example, let's look at funding for vocational and technical education. Current funding or freezes in funding are not sufficient in a world where the economy changes as rapidly as ours is changing. Young people need the skills not only to survive but to thrive. All young people need access to applied skills as well as theoretical ones, in order for them to succeed in the workplace, the classroom, and in life. And yet, we do not make the significant investments needed. The largest failure of all, of course, is the backward step the majority is taking on class size reduction. Reducing class size by helping school districts hire 100,000 high-quality teachers nationwide is an investment in our schools that is paying dividends right now. The first 30,000 teachers are in the classroom, and what a classroom it is. To walk from a class with 25 or 28 first graders into one of the smaller classes I've been visiting this fall is a stark contrast. Improved achievement, increased time on task, more individual attention, and a lack of discipline problems are obvious in the smaller class. The teacher in the larger class looks as if he is running to catch up, and the student must keep her hand in the air for too long a time. This is a very real, tangible investment we have made in our schools. The Senate and the House, on a completely partisan basis, are reneging on the most common-sense investment in school improvement made in recent history. The reason that the Republicans are so afraid of these 30,000 teachers is that this program is actually working. Pili Wolfe, Principal at Lyon Elementary School in Tacoma, Washington, where federal class size funds are being used to dramatically reduce class size in first grade, and to provide high- quality professional development for teachers through a program called Great Start, says: ``Children in our first-grade Great Start classrooms have shown more growth within the first month of school than any previous first-grade class.'' Andrea Holzapfel, a first-grade teacher at Lyon, says: ``Smaller numbers allow me to spend significantly more time in individual and small-group instruction. Having fewer children allows more participation by the kids in discussion and classroom activities.'' The program works. The one-page, on-line application form means no paperwork, no bureaucracy. Two-hundred and sixty-one of Washington state's two-hundred and ninety-six school districts have already put class size reduction and teacher professional development into effect in their schools. The accountability is to the local community, through a school report card describing how many teachers were hired and in which grades. Improved student achievement will be the ultimate measure of the success of this year's investment. But the investment cannot stop here. The President has said that this bill is headed for a veto, because of the lack of continued investment in class size reduction, and other key education efforts. One such effort is GEAR UP, which enables low-income schools and their neighboring colleges to form partnerships to get mentors to help students study hard, stay in school, and go on to college. Funding for this program is only $180 million, not the $240 necessary to get this important investment to the communities where it is needed most. Increased funding for after-school programs was given short shrift, despite what the research shows about the link between young people having no positive pursuits in the afternoon and evening, and the related increase in crime. Education technology has been cut by the House, and the Senate numbers are not sufficient to meet the growing need in an area where the federal government is the primary funding source in most schools and communities, far beyond the investments made by states and localities. When it comes to education, this Congress has not stepped up to the very challenge we are asking the educators, students, families and communities across America to meet. When the expectations on Congress increased, the level of commitment and vision decreased. I am voting for this bill to move the process along. If class size funding and other key investments are not restored, the conference report will be vetoed. If it is vetoed, I and many of my colleagues will vote to sustain that veto. This bill in its current form is only a vehicle through which we may negotiate higher numbers in conference. The American people have a stake in this battle. We need to hear their voices now. This has been a difficult vote for me. While the bill does provide a significant investment in public health and safety, it does so on the backs of our children and retreating from our commitment to improve class size. This bill cannot survive in its current form. I do want to point out what I believe are positive aspects of this bill. I applaud the efforts of Chairman Specter and Senator Harkin in preparing an appropriations bill that meets important public health priorities. I know how difficult this appropriations process has been and know their job was not easy. As a member of the Labor, Health & Human Services & Education Subcommittee, I am pleased that our product does maintain our commitment and investment in public health. The additional $2 billion investment for NIH alone will bring us that much closer to finding a cure for diseases like cancer, Parkinson's, cardiovascular, Alzheimer's, MS and AIDS. Every dollar invested in NIH reaps greater savings in health care dollars as well as greater savings in human lives. This additional investment will ensure that we remain on a course to double NIH funding. I know how important this funding is and am proud to represent outstanding research institutions like the University of Washington and the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center who receive significant research funding from NIH. I am also pleased that we have provided funding for trauma care planning and development for the states. This is an essential program that assists the states in efforts to effectively develop trauma care strategies. We have neglected trauma care and we have lost ground in life saving delivery of critical care. I was pleased that the Subcommittee recognized the importance of trauma care planning. As many of my colleagues know, I have been pushing for federal funding to establish a national poison control plan. My allegiance to ``Mr. Yuk'' is well known within this chamber, as well as within the HELP Committee. It was only two years ago that I offered an amendment during FDA reform to protect voluntary poison control labeling like Mr. Yuk from possible elimination. I have used my position on the Appropriations Committee to push for funding for poison control centers and for a national 1-800 hotline. I am pleased that this legislation includes $3 million for poison control efforts. This line-item within HRSA is a major victory for children and their parents. We have taken a huge step forward in developing a national poison control plan that builds on successful efforts in all of the states, like those made in Washington state. As one of the most vocal women's health care advocates in the Senate, I am pleased that the Committee report to accompany this Appropriations bill addresses several women's health issues and enhances programs to eliminate gender bias or discrimination. I want to thank the Chairman for his support of funding for the CDC Breast and Cervical Cancer Screening Program for low income women. This continued commitment will save lives and improve survival rates for women who often have little or no access to cancer screening. We know that early dedication offers the greatest hope of survival. I am pleased that we have been able to provide additional funding to expand the WISE WOMEN program to screen for cardiovascular disease as well as breast and cervical cancer. Cardiovascular disease is the number one killer of American women. Twice as many women die from cardiovascular disease than breast and cervical cancers combined. I was disappointed that we could not find additional monies to expand this program in all 50 states, and will continue to work to secure additional funding for FY2000. There are many reasons why I consider the Labor, HHS Appropriations bill one of the most important appropriations bills and the one piece of legislation that truly effects all Americans and offers hope to the most vulnerable. But, perhaps one of the most critical programs funded in this appropriations bill is funding for battered women's shelters. This funding does save lives. This funding is the life line for battered and abused women and children. I am proud to have worked with the Chairman of the Subcommittee to increase our investment in battered women's shelters. I am working for the day when we need no more battered women's shelters. Unfortunately, we have a long way to go. But, by increasing the funds available by $13.5 million for FY2000, we have offered communities more resources to assist victims of domestic violence find a vital, life-saving safe shelter. I am hopeful that these important public health investments will survive what will likely be a difficult conference with the House.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I strongly oppose this amendment. It is our responsibility as the Nation's leader to reduce the hazards that America's workers face--not putting roadblocks in the way of increased workers safety. Ergonomic injuries are the single largest occupational health crisis faced by men and women in our workforce today. We should let the OSHA issue an ergonomics standard. Ergonomic injuries hurt America's workers. Each year, more than 600,000 private sector workers in America are forced to miss time from work because of musculoskeletal disorders, MSDs. These injuries hurt our America's companies because these disorders can cause workers to miss three full weeks of work or more. Employers pay over $20 billion annually in worker's compensation benefits due to MSDs and up to $60 billion in lost productivity, disability benefits, and other associated costs. The impact of MSDs on women workers is especially serious. While women make up 46 percent of the total workforce and only make up 33 percent of total injured workers, they receive 63 percent of all lost work time ergonomic injuries and 69 percent of lost work time carpal tunnel syndrome. In addition, women in the health care, retail and textile industries are particularly hard hit by MSDs and carpal tunnel syndrome. In fact women suffer over 90 percent of the MSDs among nurses, nurse aides, health care aides, and sewing machine operators. Women also account for 91 percent of the carpal tunnel cases that occur among cashiers. Despite all the overwhelming financial and physical impacts of MSDs and the disproportionate impact they have on our Nation's women, there have been several efforts over the years to prevent the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, OSHA from issuing an ergonomics standard. Let's be clear, this amendment is intended to delay OSHA's ergonomic standard until yet another scientific study is performed on ergonomic injuries. We have examined the merits of this rule over and over again. Contrary to what those on the other side of this issue say, the science supports an ergonomics standard. We also had a bipartisan agreement that the current National Academy of Sciences, NAS, study would--in no way--impede implementation by OSHA. NAS has already studied this issue. The new study would address the exact same issues that were dealt with in the previous study. They are also using the same science. No new science. It is mind boggling. The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, NIOSH, studied ergonomics and conclude that there is ``clear and compelling evidence'' that MSDs are caused by work and can be reduced and prevented through workplace interventions. The American College of Occupational and Environmental Medicine, the world's largest occupational medical society, agreed with NIOSH and saw no reason to delay implementation. The studies and science are conclusive in the Senator's mind. Further--and possibly most persuasive--last year, the administration and leaders in Congress on this side of the aisle only agreed to a new study because those on the other side said that this new study would not delay the issuance by OSHA of a rule on ergonomics. Now they are not standing by their word. We cannot afford to delay an important standard which will greatly improve workplace safety. I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment. We should allow OSHA to issue an ergonomics standard. It will be an important first step in protecting our Nation's workers from crippling injuries.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, teacher quality is one of the most critical factors influencing student achievement and success. I urge my colleagues to support the Kennedy amendment, which would increase Teacher Quality Enhancement grants from $80 million to the fully authorized level of $300 million. I am a cosponsor of this amendment, along with Senator Reed of Rhode Island and others, because I firmly believe that an investment in teacher quality is an investment in our children's future. We know all learners have the capacity for high achievement. We must increase our investment in teacher quality enhancement so every child in America is taught by the most qualified teacher available. We must invest in our teachers. We must help them reach the highest levels of competency, so they in turn can help their students reach the highest summits of achievement. As we work to bolster teacher quality, we must also focus our attention on reducing class size. Smaller classes have led to dramatic gains in student achievement. We must continue to reduce class size so highly qualified teachers can provide students more individualized attention. Reducing class size and increasing investment in teacher quality enhancement are key to ensuring academic success for all students.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, as a member of the Foreign Operations Appropriations Subcommittee, I have always supported the subcommittee's bill here on the Senate floor. We always have difficult and controversial choices before our subcommittee. Under the leadership of Senators McConnell and Leahy, we have been able to do a reasonable job crafting a bill with bipartisan support. Unfortunately, that is not the case this year. I will be voting against the foreign operations appropriations measure. I take this action for a number of reasons. Most importantly, this bill is woefully underfunded. The bill is $2 billion less than President Clinton's request and some $800 million below last year's congressionally approved funding level. This account has already been cut significantly in recent years. The most recent cuts, in my estimation, will cripple our already meager foreign aid efforts. We spend a great deal of time here in the Congress talking about the U.S. role as the world's lone superpower. The foreign operations bill is a test of our sincerity in providing global leadership beyond the realm of U.S. military might. This bill does so many things that project an America to the world that we can and should all be proud of. We educate young girls, we provide microcredit loans to small family enterprises, we export democracy throughout the world, we cooperate with human rights activists and monitors, and we create opportunities for American citizens and business interests abroad. Unfortunately, the bill on the floor today cripples our efforts to work internationally, vital work that is in the national interest of the United States. The foreign operations bill fails to provide any funding to the important Middle East peace process. The President had requested $500 million in assistance to aid the implementation of the Wye River Accords. This small investment in peace and security is even more important given the recent agreement between Israel's new government and the Palestinian Authority. Now is the time to reassert U.S. support for the peace process that, at this moment, shows so much hope and promise. I also am disappointed that this bill underfunds our export promotion programs. For example, the Export-Import Bank, which protects and creates American jobs, is funded below the 1999 level and far below the Administration's 2000 request. U.S. workers compete in the global economy. That's a fact. It is equally true that other governments in Asia and Europe do far more to help their exporters succeed. Our ability to compete and win abroad for American workers is impacted by the foreign operations bill. And this bill could do far more for American workers. Finally, I continue to have reservations regarding the funding levels and the restrictive language placed on our international family planning assistance programs. The restrictive language is particularly harmful as it cripples the provision of valuable family planning programs which aid population control, economic development, environmental protection and some many other areas. Our false family planning debates driven by domestic politics here in the United States only harm thousands of women and families in the developing world. Mr. President, this bill will not become law. President Clinton has promised a veto for numerous, very legitimate reasons. I encourage the President to follow through with a veto if this bill makes it to his desk. And I am anxious to work with my Senate colleagues on a new version of this bill. This is an important bill. Given the resources, I am confident that Senator McConnell and Senator Leahy can deliver a bill the Senate will again endorse with wide bipartisan margins.

Mr. MURRAY

Mr. MURRAY. Mr. President, I am pleased to join with my Democratic colleagues in introducing this important legislation. In the Balanced Budget Act of 1997, we reformed the Medicare program to extend its solvency. In the past year, we have seen the dramatic and negative impact of those reforms on patients and health care providers. The bill we are introducing today will fix those unintended consequences and will ensure that millions of seniors have access to high quality health care. I urge the Republican leadership to act on it before we adjourn for the year. Two years ago, the Medicare Program was in serious trouble--facing bankruptcy within 5 years. We had to make substantial changes to the program to extend its solvency. It was a painful and difficult process, but we made changes intended to slow the growth of Medicare expenditures. And overall, it worked. Medicare is still functioning and is on a more sound financial footing. But the revisions we implemented went too far. Let me give you an example. Based on the estimates we had at the time, our changes were supposed to reduce the overall growth in Medicare expenditures by $100 billion over 10 years. In reality, the changes we enacted will result in more than $200 billion in lost Medicare revenue for health care providers over the same period. This was not the order of change I supported. And today we see that those revisions are hurting our health care providers and making it more difficult for them to give patients the high quality care they need. When I meet with health care providers in my state, this is their top concern. Each day we delay making these corrections, we make it harder for them to ensure that quality health care is available to millions of seniors. I have heard from hundreds of hospital administrators, home health care workers, doctors, rehabilitation therapists, teaching hospitals, skilled nursing facilities, and hospice providers. For example, I've received letters from Providence General Medical Center in Everett, Washington, from hospital caregivers at Prosser Memorial Hospital, from the University of Washington's School of Medicine and from hundreds of others. They have shared with me the impact of the 1997 changes and what it means for patient care. I believe the situation is critical. If we fail to correct this, we will see hospitals closing. We will see home health agencies turning away patients. We will see skilled nursing facilities unable to take complex patients. We will see a devastated rural health system. Our health care system is in jeopardy. The bill we are introducing today will go a long way toward correcting some of the unintended consequences of the Balanced Budget Act of 1997. I worked with my Democratic colleagues in drafting what I believe is a reasonable bill that provides immediate relief to hospitals, home health care agencies, skilled nursing facilities and hospice care to ensure that seniors in this country have access to quality, affordable health care services. The bill we have put forth is modest. It is not a cure-all, but it addresses the most pressing challenges. This is not about repealing the fiscal discipline imposed in BBA97. This is about adjusting the changes we made to reflect the current estimates. Our bill fixes the problems and provides legislative remedies. It does not jeopardize the solvency of Medicare. We can and should make changes to improve access and ensure access without jeopardizing solvency. There is still much we have to address from quality care to affordable health insurance to prescription drugs. However, if the hospitals close or seniors are denied quality care, the ability to pay is not an issue. The very foundation of our health care system is at stake. This legislation is long overdue. We need to pass it and make the Medicare Program function better today. Mr President, at the same time, we cannot forget that the entire Medicare Program will run out of money in 2015. So, I want to remind my colleagues there is still much work to be done to ensure Medicare remains a stable program that our children will be able to count on for their health care. Mr. President, from my point of view, this Congress has failed on too many vital issues this year. This Congress failed to pass a real Patients' Bill of Rights--that would put patients and doctors, not insurance companies, in charge of their medical decisions. Earlier this week, this Senate failed our children, by cutting our commitment to putting 100,000 teachers in the classroom to reduce the size of our overcrowded classrooms. This Congress failed to help our farmers, and all those facing too many challenges in rural America. Let me just say, that I am not giving up or letting up on any of those fights--because they are too important. And let's not forget that this Congress even failed to do one of its most basic work--passing our appropriations bill on time, with real numbers--not gimmicks. Mr. President, it is high time we bring some good news back to our constituents. I want my hospitals and health care providers, as well as the senior citizens in Washington State, to know I have heard their concerns and I recognize the dangerous implications of BBA97 on health care. It is high time we show them we see the problems facing Medicare, we understand them, and we are acting to fix them. It is high time we move on our priorities. This is one of them. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. The Senator is correct.

Mrs. MURRAY. I yield 4 minutes to the Senator from Illinois.

Mrs. MURRAY. Yes.

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

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I object.

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I rise to speak to the Labor-HHS appropriations bill that is currently on the floor. Our colleagues, Senator Harkin and Senator Specter, have done a yeoman's job of trying to put together a bill under extremely difficult circumstances for sure. They have been left with their bill until last, and every other appropriations bill has taken funds from this appropriations item. We are now left with a bill that we actually don't know how it is going to be funded. I have heard a lot of funding schemes, from taking money from defense, forward funding, a 13th month, to declaring emergencies. Basically, we are left with funding education, funding health research with money that is not real, that we don't know from where it is coming. We don't know what budget it is coming from or whether it is actually there. So I have a great concern about the reality of the funds for the most important funding we do in this body, that of educating our children, that for health care. Again, we are debating the appropriations bill that funds some of the most important things in the lives of families across this country. Certainly education is a top priority of every family. They have said they want us to make sure the Federal Government does its part to assure that every child, no matter who they are or where they come from, what their background is, what school they are in, gets a good education. We have fought hard in this body on the issues that make a difference in a child's classroom. Last year, 1 year ago, this body, in a bipartisan way, with the House agreed in the final appropriations bill, the omnibus bill, to reduce class size. It is a major priority of this Congress and of this country. We appropriated $1.2 billion to reduce class sizes in first, second, and third grades. That decision was applauded across this country by parents, by teachers, by business leaders, and by communities. Today, those teachers, nearly 30,000 of them, are teaching in our public schools. I had the opportunity last Monday to visit one of the classrooms in Tacoma School District. Tacoma School District has taken the class size funds we allocated and, in 57 first grade classrooms, they have reduced the class size to 15. I had the opportunity to sit down with those 15 children in the first grade classroom and talk to their teacher. She was ecstatic. She said, compared to a class she had worked in before with 27 children: I didn't know all of the kids. I didn't have the opportunity on a daily basis to sit down with them to find out where they were. I didn't have the opportunity as I worked with them throughout the year to make sure every child was keeping up. She said: Today, with 15 kids in my classroom, and only 10 days of classroom time at the beginning of the year, I know where every child is. I know what their skills are. I know what they need to work on, and I can guarantee as a teacher that by the end of this year every child in my classroom will be reading, will have the basic skills, and will be able to move on to second grade ready to learn. That is the goal we set when we allocated those funds 1 year ago. That is why I was so saddened to see, in the bill that comes before us, no money allocated to continue that program to reduce class size in first, second, and third grades; no money; zeroed out; no money to continue those teachers. Essentially, this bill fires the nearly 30,000 teachers who have been hired since 1 year ago who work in our classrooms to educate our students. This is an incredible step backwards. We did agree 1 year ago that we need to focus on kids in the early grades, that we need to do what we can to make sure that they learn reading, that they learn math, that they learn those basic skills so they can be productive in the outyears. We know from the studies that have been done that reducing class size in the first, second, and third grades works. We know students from small class sizes have enrolled in more college-bound courses such as foreign languages and advanced math and science. We know students in smaller class sizes have higher grade point averages. We know students in small classes have fewer discipline problems. We know students in small classes have lower dropout rates. It makes sense for us to continue to make sure that class sizes in first, second, and third grades are reduced, and that we continue the commitment we began 1 year ago. Our initial commitment was $1.1 billion. We agreed that we would add $200 million to that--that is the President's request--so that we can continue to expand and hire 8,000 more teachers. But under the bill that is before us, there is no money to reduce class size. There is no commitment to continue to hire those teachers or to retain those teachers. Essentially, the language as written in this bill says we will fire 30,000 teachers at the end of this school year. Not on my watch. Not on my watch are we going to go back on a commitment we made 1 year ago. Not on my watch are we going to send a message to young students that we no longer care about making sure they get the basic skills they need; that no longer is this Senate going to stand behind the dollars and the commitments we made 1 year ago; that no longer are we going to tell teachers they can count on us and they can count on our word when we tell them this is the commitment we are going to make to them. I have had the opportunity to talk with many teachers around my State and around my country. These teachers have been hired. They are in our classrooms. Forty-three percent of the teachers we have hired are teaching in first grade. Their class sizes are going to be reduced from an average of 22.9 to an average of 17.6 students--from 22 down to 17. And every teacher will tell you that for one less student they have in the classroom, the more time they have to spend with each individual student. Twenty-three percent of the teachers are teaching in second grade, and class sizes in second grades across this country are being reduced an average of 23.2 to an average of 18.1. Twenty-four percent of the teachers are teaching in third grade, and class sizes will be reduced from an average of 23.5 to an average of 18.3 for third graders in classrooms across the country. The money we allocated last year is being spent. We are getting overwhelming responses from teachers, parents, business leaders, and communities that have this class size money in place and are beginning to see the results of it. They are ecstatic. These teachers are in the classrooms. They are teaching. They are appalled that we are going to go back on our word; that this money is not going to continue to be there so that we continue the commitment we made 1 year ago. I have numbers from many of our States across the country where class size dollars have been put into place and where teachers are beginning to see the real results of what we did 1 year ago. I think one of the things we haven't talked about is the fact that when we put this program in place, we said--unlike the block grants, unlike many other programs--we want to make sure administration and paperwork are not going to hamper these dollars actually going into the classroom. The class size money that we put into place last year takes one form for a school district--one form, and a few minutes of an administrator's time. That is all it takes for the dollars we allocated, the $1.2 billion going directly to hire teachers. This is real money being used in real classrooms. Unlike block grants and other programs that we have, we can keep track of where this money is. We know the money is being used to hire teachers. We know that a portion of it is being used to train teachers to give them the skills they need. We know the real money is being used in a way that we can come back and test it and hold it accountable and show that our kids are learning because of something we did in the Senate. As a result of the work we did a year ago, 1.7 million children are now benefiting from smaller class sizes this year. More than 29,000 teachers have been hired with that money. Forty-three percent of them are teaching in the first grade, twenty-three percent are teaching in the second grade, and twenty-four percent are teaching in the third grade. In Anchorage, AK, very far from here, they received $1.8 million under our Class Size Reduction Program and lowered their average first grade class from 22 to 18 by hiring 40 new first grade teachers. If the District loses its funding under this bill, the 40 recently hired teachers will be laid off, and they will return their class sizes back to 22 students. And, more importantly, if it ends next year, little will have been gained. According to Bruce Johnson, Deputy Commissioner of the State Department of Education and Early Development in Anchorage, a 1-year project, he said, generally doesn't yield dramatic results. In Mesa, AR, the Mesa public schools serving 70,000 students received $1.1 million in class size reduction funds. Half of it was used to hire new full-time teachers to reduce their class sizes, and the other half was used to provide reading instruction, an important goal for small groups of children. Without these continued funds, we are facing a real dilemma. Superintendents are under the gun to get their class sizes down. But at the same time they have this concern about what will happen if they hire new teachers and the Federal money runs out. That is a quota, according to the executive director of the Arizona school administrator. San Francisco, CA, has been working very hard to reduce class size in the early grades for many years, and they requested a waiver. I say that all the school districts that have requested a waiver have received one. Because they already focused their money on the early grades, they were allowed the flexibility under the dollars we spent last year, and want to continue to spend this year, to reduce class sizes up to the eighth grade. With these funds, San Francisco hired 37 teachers and reduced their class sizes from 33 to 22. In English and in math, they reduced their class sizes to 20, and they used the funds to provide training for teachers on how to work effectively in smaller classes. Whenever I talk to young students who are in a high school math class, they tell me the most frustrating thing they do in a day is have their hand raised for an entire 50-minute period and never get their question answered. California has already focused their class size reduction money on the early grades. They had the flexibility under our language to reduce class sizes to make gains in K through eighth. Now kids don't sit through a 50-minute period raising their hand, with no answer given, and they don't go home at the end of the day not understanding what happened that day. That is progress because of the work we did, because of the flexibility we offered in this bill, and because we said our national goal is to reduce class size because we know it works. In Boise, ID, they received $547,000 to hire 11 teachers as a result of the Class Size Reduction Program. Some of the teachers will circulate through 10 schools giving students extra help. We have heard from districts that it is a problem because they don't have the classes available to reduce class size. We have allowed them the flexibility, as in Boise, ID, having teachers circulate through the schools so the students get more one-on-one with an adult. Other teachers in Boise were placed in schools with high numbers of low-income students to reduce class size. Boise school administrators will have to lay off the newly hired teachers if they do not receive targeted funding next year. Idaho superintendent Marilyn Howard said this returning of some of our Federal tax dollars to our schools will help support districts' efforts to create smaller classes in the critical early grades. It is our hope this commitment will continue beyond the current year. These teachers are in place. They are working. They are looking to Congress to see whether what we did a year ago was just an empty promise or whether we really meant it when we said that in the United States of America we want our kids to get a better education and we believe an important role of the Federal Government is to provide the partnership and the dollars to reduce class size. It is a very important goal, one that is achievable, one in which we can help to make the commitment, and one to which we can be held accountable at the end of the day. We know where those funds go. We know they don't go to administration. We know they don't go to expensive bureaucratic work. We know they don't go to a lot of paperwork. We know they go to hire teachers to go directly into the classrooms. This money is helping. But in the bill before the Senate today, there is no money for class size reduction, no money whatever. Mr. President, 30,000 teachers will be fired as a direct result of this bill now before the Senate. I cannot stand by and let that happen. I know a number of my colleagues will not stand by and let that happen. In Boston, MA, home of Senator Kennedy, the Boston public school district received $3.5 million in funding to reduce class size. In the first year, the school district has reduced class sizes in the first and second grades from 28 students to 25 by hiring 40 new teachers. If the Boston public schools were to lose funding targeted to class size reductions, they would not be able to further reduce class sizes to 18 in the first and second grades and they would not be able to reduce class sizes in third and fourth grades, their objective. They would have to lay off all 40 teachers or make deep cuts in other areas of education. That is not a choice we ought to be giving them. We ought to fulfill the commitment we made 1 year ago: Put the money in class size reduction, make the commitment to continue to work to hire 100,000 teachers across the country, and keep the promise everyone made that education is a No. 1 priority and we are not going to underfund it. I know there are other colleagues who want to do block grants. I commend them for their ideas, their passion, and their commitment. If there is a need for additional funds for schools in the form of block grants, I am happy to hear those proposals. Yes, let's provide that additional funding. However, let's not take away the commitment we have made to reduce class size in the first, second, and third grades. It is a national commitment on which we need to follow through. I think what we should recognize is that only 1.6 percent of the entire Federal budget goes to fund education. To take away this $1.2 billion is not the right way to go. I know that my colleagues several years ago passed a sense of the Senate which said we would increase by 1 percent a year the amount of money going to fund education. We have not done that. If some of my colleagues want to offer a block grant, offer additional funds to schools, that is great. However, let's not take away the commitment, let's not take away the promise, let's not take away the investment that is in place right now with teachers hired, with classes being reduced, with young students in early grades across our country now knowing they will be able to learn to read, write, and do math by the end of first and second grades because this Senate, this Congress, in a bipartisan manner, 1 year ago said: We are going to make this happen. Let's not renege on that promise.

Mrs. MURRAY. I am happy to yield to the Senator.

Mrs. MURRAY. The Senator from Illinois is asking the question that every Member ought to be asking. Are we, by our votes on the floor of the Senate today, going to lay off nearly 30,000 teachers nationwide to whom we made a commitment 1 year ago to put into our classrooms, who are working today, who are making a difference today, who are connecting with young children one on one today? Are we going to turn around and say to them: Sorry, you no longer have a job?

Mrs. MURRAY. I yield.

Mrs. MURRAY. To the contrary, in answer to the Senator from Illinois. In fact, projections say we will have 500,000 new students in our schools in the next year--500,000 new students. By firing 30,000 teachers, we will increase the classes most dramatically.

Mrs. MURRAY. I think the Senator from Illinois raises a valid point. We have a lot of young students today who would make outstanding teachers, who would be able to contribute to the future of this country in a very positive way by getting a teaching degree and being a teacher in one of our schools. However, if we send the message today that teachers will be in an overcrowded classroom, they are not going to have the support, the backing of Congress and legislatures, and teachers will be sitting in overcrowded classrooms, my guess is, we will have a decreasing number of students willing to work in the public education system.