Patty Murray

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I commend our colleagues who are concerned about bureaucracy. That is one of the great things about the class size initiative. It was passed in a bipartisan manner last year. One form, one page takes one administrator a few minutes to fill out, and the class size money goes directly to hire teachers. Our Federal tax dollars go to pay for the teacher in the classroom--no bureaucracy, no big charts. The money goes to make a difference. That is why we believe it is the right way to go. I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from New York.

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Dodd and Senator Harkin be added as cosponsors.

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

Mrs. MURRAY. I ask unanimous consent Senators Landrieu and Reed from Rhode Island be added as cosponsors.

Mrs. MURRAY. The Senator from North Dakota is absolutely correct. What the other side wants to do is offer a second-degree amendment that offers Senators a false choice. We want to make sure we keep those teachers in place and continue our commitment to reduce class size. I say to my colleagues, if they want to create a block grant program that provides additional funds, go ahead and tell us what their goals are, tell us what the program is, tell us what the achievements are. But right now we have in place a program we know works, we know what the goals are, and we know it achieves what we want to see achieved in this country, which is increasing the basic skills of our young students and giving them a chance at the economy when they graduate one day.

Mrs. MURRAY. The Senator is correct.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, what is most appalling to me is that we have left the Labor, Health, and Human Services bill to the very last. This bill is extremely important to every family in this country. It funds everything from health care to NIH research to education, key programs that we are responsible for at the Federal level, being a partner in making sure every child in this country gets an education so they can be successful. Last night, we referenced the Subcommittee on Labor, Health, and Human Services. We were unable to offer any amendments, and I was disappointed in that. I was pleased that the Republicans put forward a budget that does appear--and I use the word ``appear''--to fund education at much better levels than the House, and we are grateful for that. We have been out here on the floor innumerable times saying education is a top priority and in this budget we want to make sure that happens. Surely our colleagues have listened to this, and the numbers on the paper show they have. However, what is underneath those numbers is very disconcerting to me, and it should be very disconcerting to every parent and every family across this country. Let me talk for a minute about a very important initiative we passed last year to reduce class size in the first, second, and third grades. It was a bipartisan effort. We negotiated with our Republican colleagues. Every Member in the Senate and House voted for it and agreed with us that reducing class size would make tremendous gains in education across this country. In the budget that is put forward that the Labor Committee will be hearing this afternoon, I do not see any class-size money. This money has been taken away. The 30,000 new teachers who have been hired this year who are in our classrooms looking our children in the eyes as we speak will be fired if we pass this Labor bill as it now appears before us. I do see $1.2 billion for something called teacher assistance initiative. We have no idea what that is. Clearly, it is not class-size reduction. We do not have any idea what it is, and it is subject to authorization, meaning essentially those dollars will never come forward. If that is the case, this bill is terribly underfunded when it comes to education and the needs of families across our country. But I am very concerned that the class-size money has been taken out of this budget. I simply cannot support going out and firing 5,000 teachers across this country. These teachers are in place today. This was a commitment we made in the Senate 1 year ago when we told them we were going to work with them to reduce class size. Why did we say we wanted to reduce class size? Because we know that students from small classes enroll in more college-bound courses such as foreign languages, advanced math, and science. This has been proven. We know students in small class sizes in first, second, and third grades have higher grade point averages. We know they have fewer discipline problems. And we know they have lower drop-out rates. We knew that last year so we said as a Federal Government we were going to begin a process of hiring 100,000 new teachers across this country so students in the first, second, and third grade can have the attention they need and the teacher time they need to learn the basic skills of English, math, and science. We know those kids who come from those classes will do better. Smaller class sizes mean higher grades, more kids will be able to compete when they graduate from high school, more kids will be successful, and more students will less likely have discipline problems and, as we all know, turn to violence as a means of making their voices heard. We are going to fight for class size on this side of the aisle. We want those teachers who have been hired and those children in those classrooms to know what we said a year ago will not be taken away because it is a new year. We want them to know we are committed to education, we are committed to being the partner we are supposed to be, and it is not just for today, it is for tomorrow. Numbers and rhetoric on a piece of paper do not educate a child. Making sure our kids are in classes that are small enough and that we have the dollars and commitment is critical, and making sure school construction is part of what we do--and there is no money in this bill for school construction--and making sure each child knows we care about them is critical. The Senator from California has been out on the floor many times to talk about afterschool programs, which are funded in this bill but less than what the President requested. We are pleased the Republicans have brought us a budget with the numbers on a piece of paper, but we want to know that those commitments are real, that those teachers are not going to lose their jobs because of some rhetoric on the floor this year and smoke and mirrors and no funding, and we do not know how it is all going to happen in the end and, gee, 6 months from now, gosh, the program is gone. We want it real, we want language now, we want numbers now, and we want to tell our kids we care about them in a manner that is true. That is for what the Democrats are going to be fighting. I thank my colleagues on this side of the aisle.

Mrs. MURRAY. I thank the Senator from California and urge all of our colleagues to look at this and past rhetoric and put the numbers in reality for our children in our country. I yield my time back to the Senator from Illinois.

Mrs. MURRAY. The Senator from California is correct. There is zero for school construction. What kind of message is that for our young kids, who are sitting in public schools, to show that we care about them, and that we are paying attention to them, and that we believe their education is important. It is hard to pass that message along when you are sitting in classrooms with a leaky roof, with no new desks, with materials that are inappropriate, that are not good for education. A child goes home and says: The adults in my world don't care about me. We all know the results of that. There is not a dime in this bill for school construction.

Mrs. MURRAY. Because the investments we make in our children, as the Senator from California knows, pay dividends far into the future. Putting down numbers on a piece of paper--that is not reality, that does not provide teachers, that does not provide classroom space, that does not provide afterschool care--does not mean anything to anybody. We want to make sure the budgets we pass are real, that they are funded in reality, that those programs are there, and that this country makes sure that our kids get the education we ought to be providing in our schools.

Mrs. MURRAY. The Senator from California is correct. We did not even vote. We are moving to full committee this afternoon, and I intend to offer my amendments. I hope my colleagues will support us. If they don't, we are going to be debating this again and again and again.

Mrs. MURRAY. That will take away the promise we have given to students across this country, and their families, that we are going to invest in education. Essentially, this $1.2 billion put in there as a teacher assistance initiative will never go out to districts, never be seen, and everyone will lose.

Mrs. MURRAY. The Senator from California is correct. I was out in one of my school buildings last Monday, a school in Tacoma, where they have taken their class-size money for first, second, and third grades and put it all into the first grade, and the first grade teachers have 15 students. Each one of those kids in those 57 classrooms will read at the end of this year. You can see it in 10 days of classroom instruction. These kids were moving ahead rapidly, and they were going to be reading. Contrast that with a class of 30 kids where maybe part will be able to read at the end of the year and, obviously, some will not. They move on to second grade, and the second grade teacher starts all the way back at the beginning with the kids who are at the bottom. These 57 classrooms and those 15 kids in each of those classrooms will know how to read, and that second grade teacher next year can move them on from there. It is going to make a tremendous difference. Those teachers pleaded with me not to lose funds so they can continue to do the job they have been trained to do.

Mrs. MURRAY. The Senator is correct. If this bill passes as written and we go home, what will happen is next year, beginning in September, those 30,000--it is actually 29,000--teachers who have been hired will no longer be there.

Mrs. MURRAY. The Senator from California is absolutely correct. They took the number of $1.2 billion, which we passed last year and were supposed to continue this year, to reduce class size, only our commitment was to increase that to $1.4 billion so we would add on to those 30,000 teachers until we reached our verbal commitment of having 100,000 new teachers. On paper, they took the $1.2 billion and put it into something called teacher assistance initiative. I have never heard of that. I do not know what it is. I have seen no language about it. I can tell my colleague one thing: sitting on the education committee in the Senate, it is not a program anyone knows about, and the language in the bill says it is authorized, meaning we are going to have to go through hearings, pass a bill through the Senate and the House, and have it signed by the President before we leave in a few short weeks, and I just do not see that happening. Really it is smoke and mirrors.

Mrs. MURRAY. That is correct. If one looks at the numbers, that is what it looks like.

Mrs. MURRAY. I will be happy to yield.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. I thank the Chair and my colleague from Illinois for defining for us what our challenge is in this week as we reach the October 1 deadline and our commitment to make sure the budget is enacted and appropriations bills are passed. Clearly, we are going to be unable to do that.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, I thank the Democratic leader for an excellent statement and for reminding all Members why we are here on a Monday evening debating this issue: The American public has said education is its No. 1 priority. It ought to be the No. 1 priority of the Senate. I have been delighted to hear the rhetoric from both sides throughout this year that education is the No. 1 priority. That is why I am so disappointed tonight. Clearly, the budget priorities we now see show education has dropped to last. It is the last appropriations bill to be considered. It is the appropriations bill we have been using from which to steal the funds throughout this entire process. Who gets hurt in the end? It is our children. I listened to a Senator a few minutes ago saying this is a debate about philosophy. I agree. It is a philosophy about whether or not just a few kids in our country get a good education or whether we are going to make sure every child, no matter who they are or where they come from, gets a good education and how we do that. In talking to parents across this country, they are not saying eliminate bureaucracy; they are not saying block grant the programs. They are saying: Make sure my child can learn to read and write. They are saying: If my child is in a smaller classroom in first, second, and third grade and gets the attention they need, they will get a good education. They will learn how to read and write; they will be a success. They are asking Congress to partner with their State and local governments to reduce class size. They are asking Congress to make sure our teachers are given the skills they need to teach the young kids in our classrooms. They are asking Congress to put the resources behind the rhetoric. When I tell people in my State and across this country that 1.6 percent of the Federal budget goes to education, something they believe is a priority, they are appalled. Education needs to be funded at a level where every child can learn to read and write and be a success in this world. This Congress is failing. I was extremely disappointed with the House appropriations bill that passed out of committee last week; it eliminated the Eisenhower Teacher Professional Development Program. That is a program that is geared to helping our teachers teach the basics of math and science. Talk to the new startup businesses and the businesses that are succeeding. They say our kids need to learn math and science. That is what the Eisenhower Grant Program is all about. I met with some scientists in my home State just a few months ago, leaders in the biotech industry, leaders in the technology industry. They spent an evening with me, of their own time, because they wanted to tell me how great the Eisenhower teacher professional development grants were, what they have done for students in our local high schools, invigorated them and got them to go on to science and math in college. They wanted to make sure we continued this program. What did the House do last week? They took the money out. It is gone. No longer are we saying to schools across this country that making sure we have math and science students who succeed is important. That is wrong. What else did they do? They eliminated the Goals 2000 Program. This is a program that helps school districts fund their own locally- designed programs to help student achievement by improving the quality of teacher training. Every one of us knows, if you want your company to succeed, you make sure your employees have the best skills they can to work for you. That is what we need to be doing with our teachers. We need to be training them. We need to be making sure they have the skills they need to pass on to our young students today. That is what Goals 2000 is about. The House eliminated it. The Class Size Reduction Initiative? Eliminated in the House budget. When I went out to my State just a few weeks ago, I went to a school in Tacoma, WA, where they had taken the Class Size Reduction Initiative money we had given them and focused it entirely on the first grade classrooms in the Tacoma school districts. Today, this year, 57 schools in Tacoma, WA, have 15 students in their first grade classrooms. They then used their title I money to help train those teachers in literacy efforts. Their focus this year is to make sure every first grade student can read at the end of the year. That is an amazing program. We are making it happen with the class size reduction money that was passed with bipartisan support a year ago. We are going to now take that away and tell those students and tell those teachers we no longer are going to help them do what they told me was absolutely critical? As you can see behind me on this chart, K-12 enrollments are increasing dramatically right now. Why are we, then, reducing the levels of support for these students? We have to make sure every child gets the resources he or she needs. We have to make sure the local communities have the resources behind them. We at the Federal level are a partner with our State and our local governments to make sure our kids learn. We want to know their classes are small enough that kids can learn to read and write and do math. We want to know those teachers are trained. We want to know there are afterschool programs so our students do not go home alone, to their neighborhoods, alone where they are not learning or where they are unproductive or can get in trouble. That is what the Democrats have been fighting for. That is what we will continue to fight for. We know the rhetoric is not going to educate one child. We know all of the bills with big names are not going to educate one child. We do know the dollars--behind reducing class size, training our teachers, Eisenhower grants--make a difference. School districts are held accountable for making sure our kids learn, and we are making sure we have the resources behind those efforts to make sure it happens. This debate is important. The debate tonight in the Appropriations Committee is even more important--whether we are willing to put those dollars behind those students. I think it is appalling that our kids have been left to last in the budget process, that they are going to be funded by smoke and mirrors. We will not see the reality of this for probably several months, but it will happen. When this is all said and done, if we do not put the dollars behind our students and our teachers and our schools, our kids will get the message. They will get the message that we do not care. I do not want to be sending that message; I do not think anybody here does. I have listened to the rhetoric. I have heard every Senator come out and say education is critical. If that is the truth, let's pass the Daschle amendment, go to work and make sure our kids have the resources they need to be productive in the next century. I yield the floor. Mr. VOINOVICH addressed the Chair.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I am very concerned about the provisions in this bill reorganizing the Department of Energy. In particular, I fear we are returning to the days of DOE ``self regulation'', which has historically translated into ``no regulation'' for environment, health and safety laws. Senator Warner and I will enter into a colloquy later that I hope will clarify the intent of this legislation regarding provisions critical to the safety of our workers and communities. We are particularly concerned about the autonomy of the newly-created, largely independent ``National Nuclear Security Administration.'' We fear the creation of NNSA will recreate the institutional conditions that resulted in 50 years of environmental, safety, and health mismanagement at DOE facilities-- estimated to cost up to $200 billion to clean up. Hanford alone now receives appropriations of about $1 billion/year to clean up the legacy left from decades of the Atomic Energy Commission and/or Department of Energy self-regulation. I am heartened by Senator Domenici's statements in the press that we have little to fear in this regard. He is quoted in USA Today (9/16/99) as saying: ``Nowhere does the legislation waive the application of environment or safety laws. What this legislation changes is not the statutory requirements, just the management structure responsible for complying with them.'' I will take him at his word that that is the intent. I ask unanimous consent to have the USA Today article printed in the Record.

Mrs. MURRAY. First, Title XXXII of the Defense Authorization bill has not been drafted to impair state regulatory authority or to eliminate DOE's internal oversight of environment, safety and health. Correct?

Mrs. MURRAY. It is clear then that this provision does not affect the obligation of the Administrator of the NNSA and the Secretary of Energy, to comply with existing environmental laws and DOE environmental orders. Indeed, it makes explicit NNSA's legal obligation to comply with all applicable environmental laws and regulations, and provides that the Administrator of the NNSA has primary responsibility and accountability for environmental compliance programs at NNSA facilities. Furthermore, Section 3261 does not affect or abrogate existing waivers of sovereign immunity in environmental laws. Finally, Section 3261 retains the Secretary of Energy's existing authority over environmental compliance issues at the nine sites that will be incorporated into the NNSA. If compliance problems arise, the Secretary may investigate them, which can include requesting the assistance of staff from DOE's Environmental Management or Environmental, Health & Safety programs, and impose corrective actions when the Secretary identifies deficiencies. Is this a correct interpretation?

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I would like to enter into a colloquy regarding Title XXXII of the bill regarding Department of Energy restructuring. I understand the intent of this title was to improve security at Department facilities. Unfortunately, I am concerned that some of the language might cause confusion with regard to the obligation of the National Nuclear Security Administration to comply with environmental laws. From remarks I have seen in the popular press, I understand this was not the author's intent and I would like to clarify several provisions.

Mrs. MURRAY. Unfortunately, 46 State Attorneys General have written voicing their ``serious concerns'' with many of this bill's provisions. They fear title XXXII of the bill would ``weaken the existing internal and external oversight structure for DOE's environmental, safety and health operations.'' I am very concerned about the DOE restricting provisions of this bill and so am tempted to vote against it. However, there are many provisions in the DOD authorization bill that will strengthen our country, our national defense, and our cleanup programs at DOE sites. I am particularly proud to support our belated efforts to increase the pay of our military personnel. In addition, I very much appreciate Chairman Warner's agreement to enter into the colloquy that follows. Therefore, I will support this bill in the hopes that this colloquy and the public comments made by drafters of title XXXII will ensure continuing compliance with environment, safety, and health laws and orders by the NNSA. I hope we can go back to the drawing board on the DOE restructuring provisions either through a veto of the bill this year or a new attempt to craft a better solution next year. Thank you, again, Chairman Warner for your work on the overall bill and your colloquy with me on the important subject of protecting our communities and environment at DOE facilities. Title XXXII

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Thank you. lewis and clark bicentennial celebration