Patty Murray

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. I thank my colleague from New Jersey, the ranking member on the Budget Committee, who has worked with us for a number of years in putting together these budgets. I join my colleagues in wishing him well on his retirement and thank him for the work he has done for so many people throughout his career. Mr. President, I rise today to express my strong opposition to the pending fiscal year 2000 budget resolution that is before us here today and my deep concern and disappointment with the priorities that have been laid out in this budget. I remind my colleagues that budgets are not about today; they are about tomorrow. Failure to establish a framework for Federal spending that focuses on the future is a serious mistake. Last week during the consideration of the resolution in the Budget Committee, I was really amazed at our lack of focus on investing in our future and our complete disregard for the impact of the decisions we were making on hard-working families. The mistake that we all made during committee consideration was our failure to put a human face on our discussions. We simply lost sight of the human and social costs of our decisions. The focus of this budget that is before us and the focus of the debate in committee seemed to be based solely on politically expedient tax cuts. There was no discussion on extending the solvency of Social Security or Medicare and what our failure to address these issues will mean for working families. There was no attempt to address the shortfalls in our investment in public education, our public health, environment, veterans health care, child care, food safety, Older Americans Act, Medicare, Medicaid. These are not just spending programs, these are investments in our quality of life and in our future economic security. When we talk about education, a lot of the talk we hear on the floor is jargon--jargon--about flexibility and block grants and Federal mandates. No one talks about walking into a classroom of 40 young children and looking into their faces as they struggle to learn. I cannot say strongly enough, there are human costs to the decisions that we are making in this budget. I have talked to children our decisions affect. I have talked to their teachers and their parents. I know they are not interested in political double-talk. What they want to know is, What are we doing to prepare them for the challenges of the next century? What are we doing to invest in our young children so that they have the ability to get a job when they graduate? Are we addressing the huge class sizes that our children face every day and their inability to learn math and reading and science? Are we addressing the issue of the crumbling schools that many of our children go to every day? Are we addressing the fact that our teachers need to be educated and trained to be able to teach the skills that we require of them today? That is what parents and students and communities and business leaders are looking for in this budget. That is what we have failed to address. I see the same lack of focus in dealing with Medicare. I am glad there is a bipartisan agreement to protect the Social Security trust fund. That one step alone will do a lot to restore integrity to the program and return confidence to the Social Security system. However, I am very troubled by the lack of commitment to Medicare. In reviewing the committee's report to accommodate the resolution, the priority appears to be one thing, and that is tax cuts. The resolution assumes tax cuts totaling almost $700 billion over 10 years but very little mention of how we are going to invest the surplus in providing equal, affordable health care for our Nation's senior citizens. Again, this resolution places a higher priority on compensation as opposed to investment. I want to know how we are going to explain to an 83-year-old widow that Congress has decided that a tax cut is more important than providing her with quality, affordable health care. The fastest growing segment of our population living in poverty is those over the age of 65. All of the investments we have made, from Social Security to Medicare to the Older Americans Act, that have ensured a quality standard of living for those over 65, are jeopardized by a simple fact, and that simple fact is that the population over 65 is increasing faster than we are ready for. We have an opportunity, with the surplus in front of us, to invest a portion of that into Medicare in order to extend the solvency without making devastating and dangerous cuts. Reform of Medicare must be carefully considered and executed. We cannot change the program overnight without harmful implications. The budget resolution we are dealing with here today fails to address the immediate and long-term problems of Medicare, and, once again, there is no discussion of the human cost of the decisions we are making. I have spoken with that 83-year-old widow who sometimes has to choose between hundreds of dollars a year in prescription drugs and food. How do I explain that, under this, she could face an additional $2,498 a year in Medicare premiums? How do you justify increasing the burden on individuals whose average income is slightly less than $13,000 a year? I ask my colleagues to stop and reconsider their priorities. I have heard some of my colleagues talking about the need to return the ``people's money'' to the people. Well, I agree. Families have worked hard and paid their taxes with the belief that Medicare would provide for their parents as well as themselves when they retire. Medicare allows the elderly independence and dignity in the final years of their lives. I believe investing the surplus into Medicare is returning the people's money to the people. As I stated earlier, I am pleased that there is a bipartisan commitment to save the Social Security trust fund surplus. This will allow greater flexibility in reforming the system and improving current benefits. And I was pleased with the bipartisan support for the amendment I offered in committee regarding the impact of Social Security reform on women. Up until now, the only discussion about women and Social Security reform has been very vague statements about ``taking care'' of them. I believe that very few understand the unique circumstances of women who, throughout their working life and in retirement, face very different decisions and circumstances, where women tend to be out of the workforce to raise their children, or later on in life to take care of elderly parents, where women earn, on the average, 75 cents on the dollar of what men do; when we look at Social Security reform and realize right now that Social Security is based on the top 35 years of income, and for many women who do not work 35 years, their income is averaged by adding a number of zeros into that calculation because they have not worked those years. We have to use this opportunity to make sure that how these decisions are made does not negatively impact women. It is actually this lack of understanding of women in the workforce that has resulted in many more women who are living in poverty today after the age of 65. Single older women are more than twice as likely as men to face poverty today. The bipartisan support of my amendment in committee has encouraged me to offer an amendment to the pending resolution which I hope my colleagues will again support. We have to use reform and this added financial flexibility to address the specific shortfalls in the current structure that penalize women and oftentimes leave them in poverty following the death of their spouse. My amendment would simply illustrate the support of the Senate for using reform as a mechanism, not just at protecting the status quo but actually improving the economic security of older women. I hope that the same commitment to address the needs of women in reform prevails when I offer this amendment in the next several days. Finally, Mr. President, I want to caution my colleagues about the dangers we face when fiscal policy development breaks down into partisan politics. We will not be successful unless we have a bipartisan effort. I urge my colleagues to think carefully about the constituents they have met and the people who have come to them asking them for help and support. We need to stay focused on these faces and remember that the budget is not just about economic or policy decisions but about decisions with real consequences and real human costs. I am hopeful that as this budget process continues we can redirect our efforts and shift our priorities from short-term diversions to savings and investing in the future. We have made the tough decisions that have given us a budget surplus today. Like every family, we cut back and for several years maintained strict fiscal discipline. Let's follow the example of many families and use our surplus to invest and save--not to rush out to spend on lavish vacations or luxury items. Let's use basic common sense in deciding on the priorities of the first budget of the millennium.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, we have a difficult decision before us. I believe most, if not all of us, hope the states will do the right thing and spend the tobacco litigation money to stop underage smoking, reduce adult smoking, and provide critical public health services. I know I am unequivocally committed to those objectives and will therefore support the Specter-Harkin amendment to ensure they do so. That said, I want the states to have the greatest degree of flexibility and discretion in allocating these settlement funds to the health needs of their residents as possible. This amendment does just that. It broadly requires states to spend 20 percent of the settlement on programs to reduce the use of tobacco products, including enforcement, school education programs, and advertising campaigns. It also requires 30 percent to be spent on public health. If we do not reduce smoking and stop at least some of the 3,000 new kids per day from smoking, the federal taxpayer will end up the loser. That is why we should have a voice in directing use of these funds. The Medicare Trust Fund is financially solvent only until 2009, so we need to do everything possible to reduce overall health care costs. If one state does not reduce the deadly impact of smoking, the federal taxpayers will foot the bill. So, all American taxpayers have a big stake in reducing smoking. They have the right to push all states to save their tax dollars by reducing health care costs. Still, the Specter-Harkin amendment targets only a portion of settlement dollars; just that portion that could be attributed to the federal share of Medicaid. Because Medicaid is a federal-state partnership and the settlement includes claims arising out of this program, federal taxpayers have a valid claim to make in how those settlement dollars are spent. I am proud of my home state of Washington. It has already made a commitment to public health and smoking reduction. The Specter-Harkin amendment only reinforces what my state has done. Once again Washington state is a leader on protecting public health and saving the premature death of five million of today's children. I have attached a letter I received from the Western Pacific Division of the American Cancer Society urging me to support this amendment for these very reasons, to support the ``health of our kids and our families.'' I also continue to support Senator Hutchinson's work to ensure the states receive the credit they deserve. They have scored a major victory for public health. The success of the Attorney's General in their settlement with the tobacco companies is unprecedented. I applaud them and especially Washington's Attorney General, Chris Gregoire, who has been a champion in this cause. The federal government must not rely on the states to do all of its work for them. It is the responsibility of the federal government to recover Medicaid funds and I will urge the Administration to move forward with necessary litigation. The federal government must seek restitution from the tobacco companies for the years of lies and deception that have resulted in the premature deaths of millions of Americans. Smoking-related illnesses are still the number-one killer of Americans. I am pleased Senators Specter and Harkin could find the appropriate balance between the rights of the states to enjoy their well-deserved settlement funds and the rights of federal taxpayers to ensure those funds are spent to protect the public health and reduce their future tax obligations under Medicare and Medicaid by reducing the cost of tobacco-related illnesses.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, it is my pleasure to rise today to congratulate Ms. Nora Hill of Yakima, Washington, who celebrated her 108th birthday on February 1, 1999. Nora Maddie Wilson was born on February 1, 1891 in Benton County, Arkansas and is the youngest of twelve children. Nora never had a formal education, but was educated by her older brothers and sisters. She loved to read and had beautiful penmanship. Nora was also an avid quilter, making extra money by making quilts for other people. In 1911, Nora married John Bunyon Hill and had four children. In 1940 her family moved to the Yakima Valley in Washington state. Nora could handle a team of horses and a wagon with the best of them, however, she never wanted to learn how to drive an automobile, as it made her too nervous. Nora is a survivor of cancer at the age of 99 and a broken hip at the age of 104. Both of Nora's sons, who served in World War II, have since passed away. Her daughters are still living. Nora has over sixty grand, great grand, great-great grand and great-great-great grand children. Please all join me in wishing Ms. Nora Hill of Yakima, Washington a very happy 108th year.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, it is my great pleasure to recognize Ms. Hazel Wolf of Seattle, Washington, in honor of her 101st birthday on Wednesday, March 10, 1999. Ms. Wolf, a great, great grand- mother, is a tireless advocate for conservation, environmental protection and social justice throughout the Pacific Northwest. A dedicated volunteer, community activist and leader, Ms. Wolf serves as an outstanding example for all Americans. Ms. Wolf became involved in the Audubon Society in the early-1960s and had a hand in starting 21 of the 26 Audubon Society chapters in Washington State, plus one in her birthplace of Victoria, British Columbia. In 1979, she worked to organize the first statewide conference to bring together environmentalists and Native American tribes. For three decades she has served as Secretary of the Seattle Audubon Society chapter, and for 17 years she has edited an environmental newsletter, ``Outdoors West''. In addition, she is among the founders of Seattle's Community Coalition for Environmental Justice. She is a frequent speaker at schools and environmental conferences throughout the Northwest. In 1997, the National Audubon Society awarded her the prestigious Medal of Excellence. The Seattle Audubon chapter has created the Hazel Wolf ``Kids for the Environment'' endowment, which will help educate youth about conservation. Ms. Wolf is also the recipient of the 1997 Chevron Conservation Award, the $2,000 prize from which she contributed to the Seattle Audubon Society. In Issaquah, Washington, there is a 116-acre wetland named after her and on the other side of the Cascade Mountains near Yakima, a bird sanctuary bears her name. Hazel Wolf retired from her career as a legal secretary in 1965. She has proven repeatedly that significant and lasting contributions to society are a function neither of career nor of age, but of hard work, perseverance and vision. As her family and friends gather to celebrate her 101st birthday, I want to wish Ms. Wolf continued success and good health, and to thank her for being an inspiration to me and countless others. Happy Birthday, Hazel.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from Rhode Island from the Democratic side.

Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, I send a cloture motion to the desk.

Mrs. MURRAY. Thank you. Madam President, let me just commend the Senator from Massachusetts for his tremendous work on the education issue and for his repeated help with those of us who would like to offer amendments that would make a difference for young children in this country--in their education and in our responsibilities to live up to promises we made to our voters to deal with the issues of education, whether it is reducing class size; training our teachers; dropout prevention, as Senator Bingaman has brought to us; afterschool care, as Senator Boxer has talked about; and numerous other issues that will affect children's education. I listened to the chairman this morning as he talked about my amendment, which has yet to be offered, on class size. I agree with him that the best thing we can do for our kids in our classes is to have a quality teacher. That is exactly what this amendment that we would like to offer does. Reducing class size allows 15 percent of the funds to go to recruiting, hiring, and training certified, regular, and special education teachers, and teachers of special needs children, including teachers certified with State and local governments. I am reading from my amendment, Madam President. This amendment makes sure that the teachers who are put into our classrooms are well qualified. In fact, I worked with Senator Jeffords, chairman of the committee, last year, along with our ranking member, in order to deal with the issue of quality teachers. We passed an agreement last year that began to make sure that our young people out in the colleges today who are learning to be teachers are given skills in technology, a very important issue, making sure that every new teacher who is certified from here on out has training in technology. We intend to work with the chairman of the committee when we reauthorize the ESEA, to make sure that our teachers who are out there are already getting the training and help they need so they can be the best teachers possible. But it isn't good enough to just have a teacher in the classroom. We need to make sure that those teachers have enough time with individual students to help them with their reading skills, to help them with their math skills, to help them with their introduction to science, to help them with their writing skills. There is nothing more frustrating to a first-grade teacher who is trying to help the young student in her classroom learn to read, and one young student can't get the time and individual attention he or she needs so that they can break through the barrier and learn to read. And there is nothing worse than for a teacher to go home at night and be completely frustrated because they had 30, 35 kids in their classroom and they weren't able to help one child. There is nothing more difficult for a teacher than to recognize that they left the child behind that day or that night or that year because they didn't have the individual attention they needed. We go out to our communities--all of us--and we talk to business leaders in our communities. Every one of them tells us that they want to hire kids from their local schools to go into their businesses. They look directly at us, and they say, ``We want to know when those kids graduate from high school that they know how to read, write, that they have the basics in science and math.'' What we have found from all of the studies we have seen is that when class sizes are reduced in the first through third grades, those students go on through high school and they graduate with competency in those requirements. It does make a difference. Madam President, last year I introduced legislation on reducing class size. It was turned down on a partisan vote in the beginning of the year. But we did have a bipartisan agreement. We changed the language of my original bill to add training for teachers, because that is what my Republican colleagues wanted. We added language that included local alternative routes. That was directly in relation to the Republicans asking us to put this in the amendment. We worked the wording back and forth and, last October, agreed with Congressman Goodling, Senator Gorton, Senator Kennedy, and others who were in the negotiations, who were representing all of us in those negotiations, to come up with a bipartisan agreement. And it was passed in a bipartisan fashion. It is now not only extremely timely but necessarily timely that we go back to those districts and tell them that this wasn't just a commitment from October; we are firmly committed to making sure that young children in our schools get the class size reduction that they need to have the ability to learn the skills they need so that we can make a real commitment to education. Don't just look at me for this. I am a former teacher. I am a former school board member. I am a parent of two students who went through our public schools. I have been out there as a PTA member. I have been a State legislator dealing with education. And I have been on the committee here that deals with education. I have seen education from every angle--from being a teacher, a parent, a school board member, a legislator--and I can tell you that all of those groups, every one of them, know that when you reduce class size you make a difference in a child's learning. We all agreed on that last October. We all agreed on that language. We said yes, this is a commitment that we need to make as a Federal Government. We looked at the bill and did everything we could, and brought our Republican colleagues into the discussions, so that there were no new reports, there was no additional paperwork, that the money went directly to our school districts so they could hire qualified teachers. We worked this through in a bipartisan fashion. Today school boards are out there and they are calling my office--I am sure they are calling every office here--saying, ``We are putting our budget together for next year. We are beginning the hiring process to hire our teachers. Is this a commitment that is just a hollow promise, or are you going to follow through?'' Our amendment, a 6-year authorization, says we are going to follow through, that we didn't just do it last October, that we meant it as a commitment, that we as a Congress know that class size reduction is absolutely critical. Madam President, the President has made this a top priority. The Vice President issued a statement in support of it today. The administration is going to be there with us. We will get class size reduction. We all know that. We know we are debating an amendment now. But the school boards don't know that. They need a commitment now so they can put their budgets together and hire those teachers. I was a school board member. I can tell you, we didn't deal with promises when I was a school board member. When you are putting the budgets together to hire these teachers, everybody loves you. But you don't want to be the school board member a year from now or 6 months from now who tells those teachers, ``We are going to fire you, let you go.'' They do not care if it was the Federal Government or not. They will come to your school board meeting saying, ``How can you fire our teachers?'' School board members can say, ``Well, the Federal Government didn't follow through on their promise.'' But that doesn't make a difference when you are a school board member and you have to go to the grocery store the next day with all the parents who are going to be affected by a decision we made. Madam President, we made a good, solid commitment. We worked a year, along with our Republican colleagues, to add their language to our proposal. That is what was agreed on last October. That is what we have in front of us today, if we are allowed to offer it. And that is a commitment that we ought to make to parents, to students, and to school boards who are doing their budgets, and to our Government, which is also counting on us to make sure that we have our commitments in order to our young children across this country. Madam President, I have worked long and hard with my Republican colleagues on this issue. It is an extremely timely and necessary issue. We agree that the Ed-Flex bill is one that we can all agree on. But why not do what is really important in this country on this bill? Why should we be precluded from offering these amendments? If our Republican colleagues now don't agree with those on class size, fine; vote no. But let's let our school board members know. They have a right to know. We have an obligation to tell them. That is why we feel so strongly about offering this amendment. Again, I offer to my Republican colleagues, we would like to work with you on this. We believe this is a commitment that was made last year that we should stand up to. The administration stands with us. Let's put the words in writing, and then we can go on to other issues. I heard the chairman of the committee say, ``Well, let's wait until the ESEA is reauthorized.'' I have been here in the Senate for 6 and a half years. I know that reauthorizing a bill, bringing it here to the floor, and having it move forward is no guarantee. I know it could be a year from now. It may not happen. I have seen reauthorizations not agreed to. I want to make sure that our class size allocations don't get lost because we can't get a bill through the floor 6 months from now or 8 months from now. Again, our school boards are hiring teachers. They need to know now. They cannot wait. I have studies, which I will go through when we get our amendment to the floor, which show that reducing class size makes a difference. I have many, many letters, and I have had phone calls from parents. I have heard from students. I have teachers who would like to have their words be put on the floor of the Senate in support of this proposal. I am hearing from them. I am sure many of our colleagues are as well. This is an important and timely issue. I sincerely hope that our Republican colleagues will allow us to vote on it. I heard the chairman of the committee, the manager on the floor, talk about the fact that perhaps it would be agreed on now. I again urge you to allow us to vote on it. Let's have the debate. I heard the chairman talk about the fact that he would second-degree my amendment with legislation to take all of the class size money that was allocated last year and give it to IDEA funding for special education children. Madam President, I agree with the chairman of the committee, funding for IDEA is absolutely essential. I offered this amendment on the floor during the budget process last year to fund IDEA. I believe in that commitment. But let's not rob those schools of money that we promised them last October for this year to reduce class sizes in first through third grade and give it to IDEA. We can't pit student against student. What an empty promise, to anybody who depends on the future of education, if we come back 6 months later, after a bipartisan agreement has been reached, and say, ``Well, gee, sorry. Politics have changed. We are taking the money that we promised you and giving it to another group.'' Madam President, kids in the first through third grade in school districts, whether they are in Shoreline, or Seattle, or Wanaque, Kentucky, Florida, or any other community, know that reducing class size makes a difference. Ask any parent how many times, when their child comes home on the first day of school--every parent--the first question is, ``How many kids are in your classroom?'' Every parent knows that if the class size is small enough--we are asking for 18 in first through third grade--their child is going to get a good education. If the answer is 32, as it was for a friend of mine just a few days ago in enrolling her child in kindergarten, you know your child is not going to get the help they need and deserve in this country today to get a good education. Madam President, I will retain the remainder of our time. I am happy to hear what our Republican colleagues say. But I again offer to them that I am more than willing to have a time agreement on my amendment and an up-or-down vote. I am more than willing to do it in an expeditious fashion. I am positive we could finish the bill in the next 24 hours. With a time agreement on my amendment and the other amendments that I am sure our leader, along with yours, can work out on the floor, we can finish this bill by tomorrow and have the whole bill done in a week. But it will allow us to let people in this country know that this is a commitment we have an obligation to keep. Madam President, I retain the remainder of my time, and I look forward to the debate, and I again plead with our colleagues to allow us to offer these amendments. Mr. GREGG addressed the Chair.

Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, how much time is remaining?

Mrs. MURRAY. And how much on the other side?

Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, if I could take just a few minutes, the vote is going to occur here on cloture in a few short minutes. I have to say, I have listened to the debate over the past week, and we are coming to the last several minutes. We are going to be voting at 5 o'clock whether or not to have cloture on the Ed-Flex bill that is before us. If cloture is invoked, essentially what will happen is, all of the education amendments we have been talking about--class size reduction, dropout prevention, parent accountability that Senator Reed of Rhode Island just talked about, afterschool care--we will be precluded from offering these amendments. I have been out here for the last week ready to offer my amendment on reducing class size, willing to work with my Republican colleagues on a time agreement, willing to do what we needed to do in terms of any language that they would like to be amended or changed, but knowing that school boards across this country are waiting for us to make a decision on whether or not we are actually going to authorize reducing class size and make a firm commitment to putting 100,000 new, well- trained teachers in classrooms. Madam President, I have to say that I am baffled as we come into the last several minutes before we vote on cloture. We worked very hard last year, last fall, as we put the budget agreement together, to put together a bipartisan agreement on class size, and we got that. Republicans and Democrats alike said yes, we are going to make a commitment to reduce class size in the first through third grade. We agree with what the studies show. We agree with what parents are asking us to do. We understand that it makes a difference in the learning of a child in the first, second, and third grade if they are in a class size that is reduced. We understand that their grades will be better as they get into high school. We understand that discipline problems will be reduced. We understand they will have a better and higher likelihood of going on to college. We understand that as the Federal Government we need to reach out and be a part of the solution and give a commitment of dollars to those school districts to hire teachers. It was a bipartisan agreement. I am baffled today by my Republican colleagues who now no longer are supporting this. Last fall I watched the campaign and elections, and, as did many in my State, I am sure, I watched the ads from the Republicans saying they support reduced class size. Madam President, this is our opportunity to vote to authorize this program and really say we are committed to doing this. It will make a difference. It is absolutely essential. It is important that we be a part of this. Over the last 6\1/2\ years that I have been here, I have listened to a number of my colleagues come to the floor to speak as ``a businessperson who has run a major million-dollar business.'' I have listened to my colleagues, who come here as former Governors or former attorneys general or former State legislators, talk about their experience in their fields. Madam President, I stand before you today as a former teacher. I can tell you that it makes a difference whether you have 18 students in your class or you have 24 or you have 30. It makes a difference whether or not you have the ability to take that one young boy or girl and help that child really get his or her alphabet down so that child can read later, or if you ignore that child and say, ``Gosh, I really would like to help, but I have 30 kids here and there are winners and losers.'' Those young children you cannot help because your class size is too large still grow up. They go on to high school. They probably don't go on to college. They become failures at an early grade. We have a responsibility. We actually have an ability right now to send a message to those little boys and girls, to young students, to teachers, that we are going to give them the attention they need in first, second and third grade. Our amendment authorizes a 6-year investment in helping school districts hire 100,000 well-trained teachers. If we follow through on this commitment I guarantee, as a former teacher, as a parent, as a school board member, that 12 years from now we will have young boys and girls, young students, graduating from high school who will be competent in reading, writing and math, because they were in a class with a size we helped reduce today. If we do not make that commitment, there will be kids who may not graduate from high school, may have discipline problems, will not go on to college. They will become a burden to all of us. They will not be able to get a job in the high-tech industries that are saying, we need highly skilled students who graduate. They will not be able to compete and go on to college. They will become economically disadvantaged, and the Senate will be here, 12 years from now, wondering how we, as a nation, are going to be able to afford to continue to help kids who we didn't help 12 years ago. Madam President, we have an opportunity to vote on this amendment and on the amendments of several of my colleagues who have made very good, strong arguments about what we can do to make education better in this country; reducing class size, training teachers, school construction, afterschool programs--real issues that will help young students. We will have the opportunity to do that if the majority leader will only allow us to offer our amendments. We should not be precluded on the floor of the U.S. Senate from offering our amendments. If our colleagues want to vote no, they can vote no. If they want to vote with us, they can vote with us. But no one should come to this floor and be told that you cannot present your amendment. I am ready to go. I am ready to have a time agreement. I ask my colleagues to support us in opposing cloture, and I will be back again and again until I can make a difference with class size reduction. I yield the floor.

Mrs. MURRAY

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

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, in a short while we will begin the debate again on the Ed-Flex bill that has been on the floor for the last several weeks. It is a bipartisan bill. Democrats and Republicans alike are supporting this bill. It is a simple bill, essentially, that will allow some of our school districts to be more flexible with their education dollars; for the liability for some of the waivers to be transferred from the Department of Education directly to the Governors, so the Governors in our States can provide some of the waivers based on some specific clauses that are in the bill. Essentially, it is a matter of paperwork being moved from the Nation's Capital to the Governors' desks. It is a bill, again, that is supported broadly. I have come to the floor numerous times over the last week to talk about an amendment which I hope to offer today regarding class size reduction. A year ago, the President talked about the most important goal in education, one of the most important goals we have--that of reducing class size in grades 1 through 3. Studies have shown us consistently that reducing class size in those grades makes a tremendous difference in the learning of young children--in their math, reading, language scores, and in their ability to go on to college. It improves discipline problems, as shown by numerous studies that I, again, hope to be able to talk about once my amendment comes to the floor. We talked about this amendment all last year during the session. Then, in a bipartisan bill last October, in the budget process we passed the beginning phase of reducing class size and began a commitment to this country that we would help our schools across this country begin to reduce class sizes in grades 1 through 3, where it makes a difference. It was a bipartisan effort last year. It should be a bipartisan effort this year. This is a critical issue right now in this country, today, where school boards across our country are looking for whether or not we just made some kind of political offering last October, right before the elections, or whether we really meant it when we said we were going to join with our schools across this country in this commitment to reduce class size. It is extremely timely that this Senate go on record right now with a commitment to our school districts, to let them know that we are there for them, that this wasn't just a fly-by-night political operation in October, it was a commitment from us at the Federal level to work hand in hand with schools across this country to begin to reduce class size. My amendment will authorize this program for the next 6 years. It is extremely important, because our school boards right now are putting their budgets together. They are determining what kind of money they will have. They want to know, is this real or is this not, because they begin right now the process of hiring teachers to begin next fall. They do not want to hire a teacher, find out we did not really mean it last October, and make that commitment. They want to know whether we stand there ready, confirmed, and committed to this process. That is why it is so critical that we go on the record now with the class size authorization bill. I hope to offer that today. I am looking forward to working with my Republican colleagues, again, in a bipartisan effort to let our school boards know we are with them in this critical process. We will obviously have other times to talk about this, certainly in the appropriations committees, as we did last year. I know we will have a big discussion on it in the budget. It is extremely important that we make this kind of commitment now. I have heard my colleagues from the Republican side say that Ed-Flex needs to go cleanly right now, because it is bipartisan and because it is timely. The same goes for class size reduction. It is timely, so school boards can make those commitments, and it is bipartisan, if we all believed what we said and how we voted last October. I really hope I can work with my Republican colleagues to, again, put this amendment up this afternoon or whenever the majority leader agrees, have a time commitment to it. I am willing to negotiate that. If it can be done quickly, that is fine by me. We need to have an up- or-down vote on this amendment, and we need to do it as quickly as possible. I, too, want the Ed-Flex bill to pass. This is an amendment I think is critical and important and timely, and I hope to work with my Republican colleagues to make sure it happens today. I am looking forward to our discussion, which will begin in about a half hour. I hope to offer my amendment and to work with all of our colleagues on the floor to send a message that we do believe in this U.S. Senate that reducing class size in 1 through 3 is a commitment we can and should make.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Thank you, Mr. President. Let me thank the Senator from Massachusetts for his statement. He has been a strong supporter of education. He understands that on this issue of class size reduction, parents, families, community members, police, mayors, school board members have all stood behind us and said this will make a difference for young children's learning. I remain baffled by the majority leader not allowing us to simply offer the amendment with an up-or-down vote. We are more than willing to have a time agreement, a short time agreement, and move this bill along. We all know that Ed-Flex has been asked for by 50 Governors. Well, reducing class size has been asked for by thousands of parents. It has been bipartisan--maybe it is not anymore; it certainly was last fall--a bipartisan initiative to reduce class size. I still believe that is true. It is timely, again, as school boards are looking at those budgets. If we can come to an agreement that will allow us to have an up-or-down vote, I am happy to offer my amendment. I will stay tonight; I can be here tomorrow morning. Let me conclude by saying it is frustrating to be told no and no and no time and time again when we want to offer an amendment. I am beginning to feel like one of those kids in one of those large classes who has been told by the teacher time and again, ``You have to wait.'' When that happens, you get frustrated, you start to think of other things to do. You can become a discipline problem. I don't want to be, but I will tell my colleagues that we want to offer this amendment, we want an up-or-down vote, and as long as we are told we can't move ahead with it, we will think of other things to do. I yield the floor.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. I would have been delighted.

Mrs. MURRAY. We could have.

Mrs. MURRAY. The Senator from Massachusetts is absolutely correct. I am more than ready to do a time agreement, to do this quickly. The reason it is so important to do it now is it is bipartisan. It is absolutely timely in terms of school boards and school districts putting their budgets together. I actually heard the chairman of the committee this morning talk about the fact that the reason we should move Ed-Flex forward is that it is bipartisan and it is timely, not to wait for ESEA.

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I commend my colleague for his work on the Ed-Flex bill as well as the other cosponsors of this initiative. I know he feels passionately about bureaucratic paperwork and has worked very hard to try to reduce some of that, as well as Education Secretary Riley, who has made a major effort in his tenure at the Department to reduce paperwork. We have heard some really good stories in the last year back from him. We agree with you on Ed-Flex and want to move that forward. I think the Democratic leader this morning, offering to come up with limited amendments and limited time agreements, made a very generous offer, because there are a number of Senators, I think on both sides of the aisle, who want to spend some time talking about education, talking about what is happening in our schools, talking about our responsibility as Senators to be in partnership with those local schools and teachers and school board members; making sure that our kids, no matter who they are or where they come from or how much money they have, have the best education possible. That is the debate we want to have on the floor of the Senate. I am extremely disappointed because I came over here this morning, hoping to offer my class size amendment. I have been precluded from doing that by the actions of the majority leader. I am ready to offer my amendment so we can send a message to those school board members who are meeting right now, today, trying to figure out their budgets, who last October listened to us tell them in a bipartisan way, Republicans and Democrats, Senate and House Members, that we are committed to helping them reduce class size so our kids can get the adequate learning they need to compete in today's global economy. But we are here today, once again precluded from being able to offer that amendment, to have a debate, to have an up-or-down vote, so those school board members can put their budgets together and begin to hire those teachers, as they must shortly do, so they can have a commitment that is real. Let's tell them this was not a political promise before the election by Republicans and Democrats. This was a real commitment on our part to make a difference, to reduce class size in grades 1 through 3. We began that process last year. We have an obligation, and this is our opportunity to make a real difference.

Mrs. MURRAY. I was saying that.

Mrs. MURRAY. The Senator from Massachusetts is absolutely correct. When we passed this last October, Republicans and Democrats stood up, stood together, and said: This is a commitment from the Federal Government. No additional redtape, no bureaucracy, the money is going to go out there to those local schools to hire teachers to reduce class size. We stood together, shoulder to shoulder. I am having a difficult time going home now, talking to school board members and my friends who are teachers--many of whom are Republicans-- and saying, well, gee, now maybe they might not support us. They don't understand that because they are putting together a budget right now. They need to hire those teachers. They need to make a commitment to that teacher, to that class, to those parents who are enrolling their kids, that they are going to continue to do this. They need us in that partnership. They don't want political maneuvers. They don't understand why Ed-Flex is a bill we can't do this on. We are talking about education. The time is right. It was bipartisan before. They want us to give that commitment now, and that is why I came to the floor today to offer this amendment.

Mrs. MURRAY. Let me just conclude, because I know the Senator from Maryland would also like to speak, education is an issue that is important to all of us. Education is an issue that is important to everyone at home as well. I will again plead with the chairman from the committee to allow us to offer our amendments, to get an up-or-down vote, to limit the number of amendments, but to let us move forward on issues like this, like class size, that are bipartisan, that have been agreed to before, that the American public wants and that makes a difference for all of our children. Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor.

Mrs. MURRAY. I am delighted to yield to the Senator from Massachusetts.

Mrs. MURRAY. I thank my colleague from California for her tremendous work on education, her passion, and in particular, her afterschool programs and appreciate her remarks this morning and agree with her. Education is absolutely the No. 1 priority for families across this country, but it is not just families. We go and talk to businesses, and business people tell us we need to be able to hire students out of our schools with math and science and reading and English skills. Studies show--and I will be delighted, when we get to the debate on this, to go through the studies again--that reducing class size makes a difference in a child's ability to learn to write and to read, to do math and to do science, just the skills our businesses are looking for. They are looking to us to make a commitment on this. I commend my colleague from Oregon, as well, for his work on this. I know he is committed to this issue and has pledged his support as well. He knows, too, how important class size is. Let me end by reminding my colleagues this is a bipartisan effort. It was passed in a bipartisan way last October. There is no reason not to do this now. In fact, a former Republican House Member said, on education, We should champion communities and parents, reduce class size, and increase accountability. I ask unanimous consent to have the letter printed in the Record.

Mrs. MURRAY. I thank the Senator from Massachusetts. Let me just finish my remarks. I know there are a number of other Senators present.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Thank you. Mr. President, I came to the floor to talk about education. I was a little surprised we were talking about banking since we haven't been able to talk about a lot of education issues that are critical to parents, students and teachers across the country. I ask my colleague from Texas what his intent is on this amendment. I know we are expected to go to a vote shortly. There are a number of us here who did want to talk about education before a vote occurred. Do you intend to vote in the next several minutes without yielding any Democratic time?

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question?