Patty Murray

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. I would be happy to yield the floor to the Senator at 4:55.

Mrs. MURRAY. Will the Senator from Vermont yield for a question?

Mrs. MURRAY. I thank the Presiding Officer and thank my colleague for yielding me time. Mr. President, I was out here earlier today to talk about the issue of class size. And we are currently discussing the Ed-Flex bill which is a bill that simply means the Federal Government transfers its paperwork to the State governments in terms of flexibility in allowing the school districts to have waivers for different requirements, which I do not oppose, and I think a number of our colleagues will support that. But what is really expected of us in today's world, where parents and students and teachers and business leaders and community leaders are asking us to deal with education, is to deal with issues that really make a difference in the classroom and in learning. I will be offering my amendment, as a 6-year effort, to help school districts hire 100,000 new, well-trained teachers in grades 1 through 3. I talked a little bit about that this morning. I wanted to come to the floor this afternoon because one of the questions surrounding reducing class size is whether it is really connected to learning. When I offer my amendment, I will be talking about four different issues which I think are important reasons that we do this: First, that it is a bipartisan effort. This is an effort that we began last October. It was supported by Democrats and Republicans. It was supported in both Houses, and it was supported by the administration. We all told our school districts across this country we were going to help them reduce class size. They are now putting their budgets together, and we need to show them that in a bipartisan way we are going to continue this partnership and reduce class size. Second, I will be talking about research. I will be talking more about that in just a minute. So I will come back to that. The third reason to do this is that there is broad public support. I hear from law enforcement officers, I hear from business leaders, I hear from teachers, I hear from school board members, I hear from parents, in particular, and I hear from young people that reducing class size is critical and that we need to be a part of the solution on this. Finally, I will next week talk about the fact that there is a compelling policy reason to pass this amendment now. That is because school districts across this country, school board members, are making their decisions about their budgets right now. They need to know whether last October was just a fluke. Was last October just a political message because of the election or are we really committed to class size reduction? I will be talking about all of those arguments next week. But this afternoon I really want to focus on the research because I think it is very important that we show why class size reduction really works. Mr. President, I have behind me a chart which shows that K-12 enrollments are at record levels. That is why we need to deal with this issue. If you will look, we have gone from 45,000 in 1985 and will go all the way up to just under 55,000 in the year 2005. Our school districts are dealing with jammed class sizes, and they are going to get worse if we do not begin to deal with this issue. All last year, when I talked about my amendment on class size reduction, I talked about research and what it shows. I referenced a 1989 study that was done of the Tennessee STAR Program, which compared the performance of students in grades K through 3 in small and regular- sized classes. They found that students in small classes significantly outperformed other students in math and reading; every year, at all grade levels, across all geographic areas, students performed better in math and reading. Ask any businessman out there, ask anybody who is hiring a student, ask any teacher, ask any professional, and they will tell you, we need to focus on math and reading in our young students. Reducing class size makes a difference. We knew that from the 1989 study. A followup study of that STAR Program in 1995 found that students in small classes in grades K through 3 continued to outperform their peers at least through grade 8. They followed these kids, if they started in 1989, and they continued into 1995 outperforming their peers, with achievement advantages especially large for minority students. Other State and local studies have since found that students in smaller classes outperform their peers in reading and math, perform as well or better than students in magnet or voucher schools, and that gains are especially significant among African American males. Mr. President, many of our colleagues have come to the floor decrying the state of education and talking about the performance of our students in math and in reading. Small class sizes make a difference; students perform better. A 1997 national study by Educational Testing Service found that smaller class sizes raise average achievement for students in fourth- and eighth-grade math, especially for low-income students in ``high-cost'' regions. Particularly of note in the 1997 ETS study was the finding that in eighth grade the achievement effect comes about through the better discipline and learning environment that the smaller class size produces. As policymakers try to make decisions that will affect students in the critical years of middle school, class size makes a difference in terms of behavior and academic achievement. Class size in those early grades transfers to better achievement in the middle grades. Mr. President, there is good news. These students who were followed in 1985 have continued to be followed, and many of them have now graduated or are just graduating. And last week--just last week--on February 25, I received letters from the head researchers who have been studying the success of the STAR project. As of June of 1998, most of the students from STAR have graduated. A pilot study showed that ``more [of these] students from small classes [in the early grades] had enrolled in college-bound courses (foreign languages, advanced math and science), and had higher grade point averages than students who attended regular or regular-aide classrooms. ``The findings also suggested that small-class students''--students who have been in small class sizes in the early grades --``progress through school with fewer special education classes, fewer discipline problems, lower school dropout rates, and lower retention rates than their peers who had attended regular-size and regular-size classrooms with teacher aides.'' Mr. President, they are now showing us that not only did it make a difference when they were in kindergarten, first, second, and third grades because they were in a small class size, but it made a difference when they graduated. It made a difference on whether or not they went on to college. It made a difference with their grades. It made a difference with their learning. I have behind me a quote from a letter by Helen Pate-Bain and Jayne Boyd-Zaharias, who were part of the STAR research. They said, ``We can say with full confidence that the findings of this landmark study fully support class size reduction.'' These are the researchers who have been following these young kids who are now graduating. And they began in early grades some years ago. They said students from small classes--this is what their research shows--enrolled in more college-bound courses, such as foreign languages and advanced math and science. These were kids who came from small classes. They were confident when they graduated. They knew these tough subjects. And they felt qualified to go on and enroll in tougher courses as they went on, because they had a smaller class size when they were younger. They learned the skills they needed. They got the confidence they needed. They had the one-on-one with an adult that allowed them to go on to these kinds of courses. Students from small classes had a higher grade point average. They did better in school. Learning, small classes: Completely connected. They had fewer discipline problems. You can ask why. I can tell you as a former teacher and a parent of kids in public schools and having been out there many, many times with young kids, when you pay attention to a child when they are having a discipline problem, and you deal with it directly, then you can move on and not continue to have a child with a discipline problem. If you are in a large class with 30 kids, you can't pay attention enough to those kids who have learning difficulties or who are just needing attention, and they tend to be discipline problems later. And this study backs this up. Students from small classes have fewer discipline problems. Finally, they had a lower dropout rate. These students from small classes stayed in school. Students in smaller classes, especially minorities and low-income students, are more likely to take college admission tests. The chart shows this. The graph on the left is large classes; on the right is small classes. Looking at all students, if you were in a small class, you are much more likely to take college admission tests. Students in smaller classes had significantly higher grades in English, math and science. Again, how many times have we heard from our colleagues on the floor that we need to make significant gains in learning, particularly in English, math and science. Talk to any business leader today. They will tell you they are looking to hire students who come out of our K-12 programs who have a good, solid background in English, math and science. Smaller classes meant higher grades in every part of the study. Dr. Krueger said: These results suggest that reducing class size in the early grades for at least one year--especially for minority or low- income students--generates the most bang for the buck. No surprise. I will be offering an amendment to make our commitment to reduce class size continue over the next 6 years. This is a commitment we made last October. We need to continue to stand behind it. We have teachers, we have school boards, we have communities, we have businesses, we have young students out there today who know what these studies show--that it will make a difference if we reduce class size. We need to do this now. We need to keep our commitment. It is going to be bipartisan. If we don't get it done today, I will keep doing it until we get it done, because it is the right thing to do. We hear a lot of rhetoric on the floor about education. We hear that we need to make a difference. My amendment will make a difference. Ask any parent, ask any teacher, ask any student. I thank my colleague from Vermont for yielding me the time, and I look forward to the debate we will have next week on this amendment.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I commend my colleague from Montana, Senator Baucus, for his work on education and his understanding that this is a key issue we need to address from the Federal level. Too often today we hear from people who say, ``No, this is a local issue, this is just a State issue.'' Of course it is; it is absolutely a local issue; it is absolutely a State issue. But we have to do our part, too, whether it is passing the Ed-Flex bill so we can reduce some of the bureaucratic regulations or whether it is providing additional resources for those districts to shrink class size or working with teacher-training and technology. These are things we have to address, and I thank my colleague from Montana for his work on this. Mr. President, I rise today to talk about an amendment I will be offering shortly on the Ed-Flex bill, which is going to be on the floor probably in the next several minutes. The amendment I offer is one that many of my colleagues have come to the floor to talk about and to support, because it is an issue that parents and teachers and community leaders and business leaders truly understand when it comes to the issue of education. That is the fact that too many of our classrooms are overcrowded; too many of our teachers are trying to teach to classes with 30 or 35 students. They are not giving students the individual attention they need in order for them to learn the skills that we need them to learn, whether it is reading or writing or math or science. The Murray-Kennedy amendment which I will be offering will simply authorize a 6-year effort to help our school districts hire 100,000 new, well-trained teachers in grades 1 through 3. School districts will be able to use up to 15 percent of those funds for professional development activities so they can improve the quality of their teaching pool--something that all schools tell us they need. And, after meeting the target ratio of 1-to-18 in grades 1 through 3, school districts will be able to use the funds for professional development activities. This is an amendment, again, that parents and teachers and community leaders support. We have heard from law enforcement, we have heard from businesses, that we need to help address this from the national level. When parents send their children to school next fall--next fall, 6 months from now--they are going to do what they do every fall when their child comes home from school on the first day. They are going to sit them down and they are going to ask them: Who is your teacher and how many children are in your class? They ask those questions because they know the number of students in the child's classroom will make a difference in their child's ability to learn that year and they know who their teacher is. If it is the best qualified teacher, their child will have a successful year. Next year, next fall when they ask that question, those schools that those children attend will have a new tool for helping students to learn. That is because of the budget bill we passed last year. Because of our actions, approximately 30,000 new, well-prepared teachers will go into classrooms across this country and we will be able to say we have made progress. Last year, as all of you will remember, I came to the Senate Chamber many times to fight to pass my bill, S. 2209, which was the Class Size Reduction and Teacher Quality Act of 1998. You will also recall that I finally got my language into the appropriations negotiations and then worked closely with the administration and with leaders here on Capitol Hill to get it passed, and it did pass, after a bipartisan discussion and in a bipartisan way. Last fall, last October, Republicans and Democrats alike touted their success at providing local school communities with much-needed help to improve learning for every child by reducing class size in grades 1 through 3. The American people are watching this week as we talk about education. They fully expect this Congress to continue to support education efforts that really work, such as reducing class size and hiring quality teachers. They want to know whether what we did last October was just for a political moment or whether we really are committed to reducing class size so our children across this country will get the kind of education they need. We started the job last fall and now we need to finish it. We have to provide the schools the remainder of the funding necessary to hire 100,000 new and better prepared teachers over the next 6 years. Our first and best opportunity for a bipartisan solution is this debate on S. 280, which is the Ed-Flex bill that we are going to be discussing shortly. This is a perfect opportunity for early positive success, and people are watching to see if we are going to work together on this critical issue this year. This week Americans are telling Congress they want to see passage of the Murray-Kennedy amendment to reduce class size and improve teacher quality. Mr. President, my class size reduction proposal honors the bipartisan agreement we achieved last year. It requires no new forms and no redtape. It focuses on hiring new teachers, but it also makes investments in teacher quality from the outset. It allows districts that meet their goals of getting to 18 or fewer students in classes in grades 1 through 3, to be able to use that money to improve class size in other grades, or to take steps to improve the quality of their teaching pool. Class size reduction isn't some new national idea. Local students, parents, teachers, State and local policymakers have asked for this kind of national investment in class size reduction for years. My proposal emphasizes local flexibility in making improvements. Mr. President, let me talk for a minute about the Ed-Flex bill. Both last year and this year I have been very supportive of the Education Flexibility Partnership Act. That is because I think to change thinking among local and State policymakers is a good thing. It frees them from some of the restrictions that may keep them and our public schools from becoming the best that they can be. But a change in thinking alone is not enough. Local schools need action. They need investment. They need resources in order to show measurable improvement for all children. With class size reduction funds, we will have new, well-trained teachers so every child, every child in this country, grades 1 through 3, can get the attention they need and that they must have in order to improve the quality of their learning. Once local educators have a plan for improving student achievement, we must make key investments at the national level to help them get the job done. This means funding class size reduction, teacher quality improvement, and school construction. It also means passing Ed-Flex, which we all want to do. Today is our best chance to pass both Ed-Flex and class size reduction and send a strong message to local educators that we have heard their concerns and we are responding. Congress does need to pass Ed-Flex, but, more importantly, it must pass the Murray- Kennedy amendment to reduce class size and improve teacher quality. Mr. President, we have to continue to improve the effort that we began last year, right here, in a bipartisan effort to help local schools, local teachers, and local communities get the results they need. Schools across this Nation are fully engaged in this debate right now over quality in learning and in identifying what works to improve learning for students. Local education leaders know that class size reduction is effective. They know as they reduce class size they can also improve the quality of their local teaching pool by improving professional development, training certification and recruitment. Local communities are using the Federal class size and teacher quality effort as a way to beef up their own investment in the future of young people. Governors and State legislators across this country are proposing class size investments this year based on our successful efforts of last year. They are watching to see whether or not we really mean that we are committed to class size reduction or it was just a political move from last year. In Washington State, my home State, Governor Gary Locke and key State legislators are debating these investments right now in Olympia and watching what we are doing so there is an important reason right now to pass the class size amendment today. Local school districts, school boards across this country--and I was a former school board member so I know what they do in February and March; they put their budgets together for the following years--are looking to us to see if we are going to continue this investment so that they can begin to put their budgets together and hire the staffs they need to make a commitment to now, so when those first hires are made in July, they know that this just wasn't a one-time bill, but this bipartisan Senate and Congress, this administration meant what they said last fall when they said class size reduction is a national priority. We cannot wait to pass this amendment. We need to do it now so that those school boards and those local communities know that we say what we mean and we follow up on it right here in Washington, DC. I will be offering this amendment later. I hope to be talking again about it today. This is clearly an issue for which parents and communities are looking to us, to trust the Federal Government. Will they follow up on their word? Will they make an investment that actually makes a difference? As we go through this debate, I will show you, all of my colleagues, and the country, studies that show that class size reduction makes a difference in student learning. We have a responsibility as the Federal Government. We have to live up to our commitment and not just make promises about education but truly make investments that work. I thank my colleagues for the time this morning. I look forward to their support in a bipartisan way for the class size amendment. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Will the Senator from Illinois yield on that point.

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, the Senator from Illinois brought up an extremely important point, and that is that hiring new teachers is one part, hiring well trained teachers is the second part, and providing classrooms for them clearly is a critical part. That is one of the reasons why in my amendment we make sure that it is very flexible language, so that local school districts that do have a school construction, a very real school construction crunch can use those dollars in a very flexible way so the teachers can work jointly in classrooms, that it isn't just one teacher per classroom, that we can do some local ways of providing extra one-on-one help with youngsters who need it the most. We also must address the school construction problem. It is a real challenge to crumbling schools that exist across our country where our kids are in unsafe classrooms, where they are crowded simply because there is no space to put them. It is an area we have to address, and I am delighted the Senator from Illinois recognizes that.

Mrs. MURRAY

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

Mrs. MURRAY. I thank the Senator from Nevada. I wanted to ask a question and share a story with him, because I think what we are talking about in terms of the dropout prevention is so important today. I am sure the question that the Senator from Nevada hears so often, and the Senator from Illinois hears so often in these debates today is, What role does the Federal Government have in this? Should this be a local decision? Should we just hand the dollars down to our local districts? What I want to share with you is that I met with a number of students last week in Washington State who had fallen through the cracks. I come from a State where the constitution says it is the paramount duty of the State to provide funding for education, and we do a good job. But we are struggling like everyone else with our budgets at home. This school happened to be in a district that has well-founded schools. This was a young student who had fallen through every single crack and dropped out of school. What brought him back was the Federally funded School-to-Work Program. When I asked the student if the Federal Government had a role, he said, ``Absolutely yes. You need to be there when everybody else fails.'' I am wondering if the Senator from Nevada has heard that as well.

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Illinois. I thank the Senator from Nevada for his work on this extremely important issue and wish him well as he offers this amendment next week on this important bill. I thank my colleagues for allowing us today to talk about issues that are really going to make a difference in our classrooms across the country. Mr. President, across this country families are having conversations at their breakfast tables about how we can improve education. They are talking about reducing class size. They are talking about afterschool programs. They are talking about dropout prevention. They are talking about teacher training, because parents know that is what is going to make a difference for their own child, for their family, for their neighborhood, and for their community. That is the type of conversation we need to be having on this floor in this Senate in this Congress, as well. I am delighted that we are finally going to have the opportunity to do that. Mr. President, I am pleased that one of the first bills that is going to be considered is S. 280, which is the Ed-Flex bill. It is a bill that will help States develop new and innovative programs, and it is an important issue and one that I am glad we are going to address and that I am happy to support. I think it is really important to note that merely improving the process is not enough. We also have to make an immediate and a direct impact on the overcrowded classrooms that our children across this country find themselves in every single day in this country. That is why I am going to be introducing an amendment that will authorize a 6-year effort to continue to help local school districts hire 100,000 new, well-trained teachers nationally to begin to reduce class size in first through third grade where it will have the most impact. My amendment builds on the bipartisan success of last year's agreement. It is based on local control and flexibility, and it focuses on improving teacher quality, which is so important. Local school districts will make all the decisions about hiring and training their new teachers. Any school district that has already reduced class size in those early grades to 18 or fewer students will be able to use the funds to either further reduce class size in the early grades or to reduce class size in other grades or carry out activities to help improve teacher quality. My amendment will also provide accountability and ensure that schools communicate with parents which is so essential today. These funds are supplementary, and they cannot replace current spending on teachers or teachers' salaries. School districts will be required to send a report card in easily understood language to their local community including information about how achievement has improved as a result of reducing class size, and they won't have to fill out any new forms. Reducing red tape and improving local decisionmaking in education programs is a bipartisan effort, and both Ed-Flex and my class size reduction amendment accomplish both. Last year's bipartisan agreement that we reached included my legislation to provide $1.2 billion as a downpayment on the goal of hiring 100,000 new teachers, and it did it without requiring any new reports or any new forms. Governors and legislators across this country are now responding to our budget agreement last year and addressing this at their local levels. Local school districts are putting together their budgets right now as we speak and teachers are writing their lesson plans for next year with the expectation that we will deliver on the promise that we made to them last year. They are all counting on us. We must take this opportunity to now fulfill our commitment to reduce class size. Mr. President, smaller classes mean a better education for children. Studies have shown it. Teachers know it. Parents know it. And they know it from experience. I have seen it with my own eyes. Controlling a room of 30 children is not teaching. It's crowd control. We need to return to teaching. Just yesterday, I heard from Christi Rennebohn-Franz, who is a first and second grade teacher in Pullman, WA, and she wrote and told me that ``without small class sizes, we cannot reach all children and give them the time that they deserve. If you have too many students in your class, you go home every day knowing that you came up short giving them the attention they need.'' Another teacher from Fircrest, WA, wrote to me to say that ``since I teach at an at-risk school, lower class size means that I can more effectively work with students on a variety of problems they bring to my classroom every day.'' Mr. President, I am looking forward to working with Senators from both sides of the aisle to ensure that we meet our promise to these teachers and all the other parents and students across America to reduce class size and truly make a difference in the education of our children and our country's future. Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I come to the floor to urge my Colleagues to support the pending Wellstone amendment. I want to thank Senator Wellstone for his efforts on behalf of battered spouses in the military and commend him for his diligence on this issue. As many of you know, both Senator Wellstone and I have worked hard to address the needs of victims of domestic violence. Stopping domestic violence should be a priority regardless of whether or not the batterer is a civilian or member of the military. Unfortunately, we have not yet done enough to protect military dependants who are victims of abuse. The Wellstone amendment would protect the privacy of military dependent's medical and counseling records. Currently, dependents of the military are not afforded the same assumption of privacy as civilian are for their medical records. If a spouse of a member of the military is battered and she seeks health care services for the treatment of the abuse, her records should not become public where they could later be used against her. We know one of the most important factors for domestic violence victims is privacy. If a battered woman seeks help in an emergency room or through a counselor, her medical records remain private. The records cannot be released without her consent. This assumption of privacy is crucial for women to come forward and ask for help. Because there is no assumption of privacy for military dependents, the chances that these women to will seek medical help and counseling is severely reduced. We have heard from advocates that work with battered military dependents. They have seen how this lack of privacy protection affects their ability to help victims of domestic violence and their children. They have told us that this change is necessary and important. I urge my Colleagues to listen to the recommendations of those who are truly on the front lines in preventing domestic violence. They know this is the right thing to do. This amendment has been adopted in the past by the Senate and I urge my Colleagues to again send the message to battered military dependents that they should never fear seeking medical help or counseling and that they do not have to remain in violent, abusive relationships. I urge my Colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this amendment. Mr. WARNER addressed the Chair.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. Chief Justice, this past year certainly has been a difficult time for America. I have to say, as a citizen, as a woman, and as a parent, I cannot begin to describe how deeply disappointed and angry I am with the President. I came to Washington, D.C. in 1992. Over the last 6 years I have worked with Bill Clinton. I trusted him. I thought I knew him. I refused to believe he would demean the presidency in the way that he has. His behavior was appalling and has hurt us all. But as a Senator, I have an obligation under the Constitution that transcends any sense of personal betrayal I might have. I am sworn to render my judgment based on the evidence presented and the larger question of what the framers of the Constitution meant when they wrote the impeachment clause. I have listened carefully throughout this debate. I have read and listened to every available article and argument. Like all of you, I have spent more hours on this case that I ever wanted to and have felt the tremendous weight of this decision. I believe that perjury and obstruction of justice can be considered high crimes. The question is whether the facts in this case support the allegations that the President committed these crimes. The Republican House managers presented a theory. But after listening carefully to both sides and, most importantly, reviewing the words of the witnesses themselves, they did not prove their theory of perjury and obstruction of justice beyond a reasonable doubt to me. If we are to remove a President for the first time in our Nation's history, none of us should have any doubts. We must also ask ourselves how it would affect the country to remove this President after such a partisan process. A conversation I had with a constituent not long ago really struck a chord with me. He said to me, I am old enough to remember President Nixon's resignation. I know how deeply it affected the psyche of an entire generation. I know it made many of us cynical of politics for a long, long time. Please don't put us all through that turmoil again. This country would be punished and hurt by a presidential removal. This country doesn't deserve to be punished for this President's behavior. So despite my personal disgust with the President's actions, I intend to vote ``not guilty'' on both articles of impeachment. Our founders were wise. They knew the President would be imperfect. They knew he would stumble and fall. While it would be wrong to suggest they approved of such behavior, they were not interested in the individual and his flaws. They sought to protect the nation. They set a very high standard for the legislative body to meet before overturning the results of an election--the very basis of our democracy. They declared it would only be for the crimes most threatening to our nation. They did not establish the impeachment process to punish a wrongdoer; they established it to protect America. This President's behavior was reprehensible, but it does not threaten our nation. In the past year, despite the scandal that ran on the front page nearly every day, our country has prospered. Our economy is growing. Our waters and air are cleaner. Our communities are safer. Our education system is stronger. America is not poised on the brink of disaster. Our democracy is safe. But what of our legacy in this process? What will I tell my daughter, or tell a classroom of young students? Well, it doesn't take a lawyer or a constitutional scholar to tell them that no matter how difficult it is, tell the truth. The lie will hurt you much, much more. It can consume you, your friends, your family, your nation. It can destroy those you love and diminish you forever in their eyes. This President now knows that. His legacy will be tainted with the anguish he inflicted on the people and country he loves because of his selfish and disgraceful behavior. It is a weight that he alone will bear for the rest of his life. We have heard a lot of emotions and strong feelings on this floor from both sides. I respect the deep convictions of everyone in this room. I am saddened it has appeared partisan. But it is my hope that we can now turn the page on this sad part of America's history and put an end to the recriminations. Mr. Chief Justice, point of personal privilege. It is hard to stand before you without Scott Bates behind me. I knew him as all of you did as a loyal, excellent Senate employee. But I also knew him as a Dad. We stood together as parents on a soccer field cheering on our daughters in victory and hugging them in defeat. He will be missed. But his absence should serve as a reminder that although we have been totally engrossed in this issue for far too long, there is life outside of these doors. There are friends to be hugged, kids to be educated, parents to take care of. I hope when this day is over, we will set aside our differences and remember there are a lot more important things each of us needs to be concentrating on, both professionally and personally. It's time to move on.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, today I have introduced legislation designating the federal building located at West 920 Riverside Avenue, Spokane, Washington, as the ``Thomas S. Foley Federal Building and United States Courthouse.'' The bill also designates the plaza located immediately in front of the building as the ``Walter F. Horan Plaza.'' Speaker Tom Foley had a long and distinguished career in the United States House of Representatives. He served for 30 years, concluding his service as Speaker of the House in the 103rd Congress. He was also Speaker in the 102nd Congress, and held positions as Majority Leader, Majority Whip, and Chairman of the House Agriculture Committee. Speaker Foley now serves as our nation's Ambassador to Japan. Tom Foley is a native of Spokane, Washington, and earned his undergraduate and law degree from the University of Washington. His parents were highly respected citizens of Spokane. Mr. Foley personified the high ideal to which all of us aspire as public servants and Members of Congress. First and foremost he was a gentleman who sought consensus, recognizing the value of maintaining a good working relationship among colleagues. He loved Congress, and believed it to be the best forum for democracy in the world. Speaker Foley worked tirelessly to promote and strengthen the Northwest's economy. During my first two years as a Senator, I enjoyed working with him and I am proud of our joint efforts to help our constituents, especially in the successful promotion of Washington wheat and apples on both domestic and international markets. Without Mr. Foley, we would likely not be exporting our agricultural products to as many destinations across the globe as we do. Today, he continues to see that our goods are sold in places, such as Japan, that historically have had tightly controlled markets. Today I also honor another Washington native, Walter F. Horan. He served 22 years, from 1943 to 1965, as the Congressman from eastern Washington. Representative Horan was raised in Wenatchee, served in the Navy during the First World War, graduated from Washington State University in Pullman, and raised apples on his family farm. As a member of the Appropriations Committee, Representative Horan was an excellent advocate for western interests, especially those of his constituents in eastern Washington. As a farmer himself, he knew the needs of the people he served and urged the Congress to pass laws to ensure their economic prosperity. He died in 1966 and is buried in his beloved hometown of Wenatchee. It is my honor to sponsor legislation that permanently recognizes the contributions these two Washingtonians have made to my state and our nation. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, today I have introduced legislation designating the federal building located at West 920 Riverside Avenue, Spokane, Washington, as the ``Thomas S. Foley Federal Building and United States Courthouse.'' The bill also designates the plaza located immediately in front of the building as the ``Walter F. Horan Plaza.'' Speaker Tom Foley had a long and distinguished career in the United States House of Representatives. He served for 30 years, concluding his service as Speaker of the House in the 103rd Congress. He was also Speaker in the 102nd Congress, and held positions as Majority Leader, Majority Whip, and Chairman of the House Agriculture Committee. Speaker Foley now serves as our nation's Ambassador to Japan. Tom Foley is a native of Spokane, Washington, and earned his undergraduate and law degree from the University of Washington. His parents were highly respected citizens of Spokane. Mr. Foley personified the high ideal to which all of us aspire as public servants and Members of Congress. First and foremost he was a gentleman who sought consensus, recognizing the value of maintaining a good working relationship among colleagues. He loved Congress, and believed it to be the best forum for democracy in the world. Speaker Foley worked tirelessly to promote and strengthen the Northwest's economy. During my first two years as a Senator, I enjoyed working with him and I am proud of our joint efforts to help our constituents, especially in the successful promotion of Washington wheat and apples on both domestic and international markets. Without Mr. Foley, we would likely not be exporting our agricultural products to as many destinations across the globe as we do. Today, he continues to see that our goods are sold in places, such as Japan, that historically have had tightly controlled markets. Today I also honor another Washington native, Walter F. Horan. He served 22 years, from 1943 to 1965, as the Congressman from eastern Washington. Representative Horan was raised in Wenatchee, served in the Navy during the First World War, graduated from Washington State University in Pullman, and raised apples on his family farm. As a member of the Appropriations Committee, Representative Horan was an excellent advocate for western interests, especially those of his constituents in eastern Washington. As a farmer himself, he knew the needs of the people he served and urged the Congress to pass laws to ensure their economic prosperity. He died in 1966 and is buried in his beloved hometown of Wenatchee. It is my honor to sponsor legislation that permanently recognizes the contributions these two Washingtonians have made to my state and our nation. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. Chief Justice, I send a substitute for division III to the desk.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I come here today to talk about our Nation's first investment in the next century: the budget for the year 2000. I want to say how great it is that we are turning our attention to the issues that are important to America's families. When I first came to Washington, DC, the deficit was $290 billion. We had to make some very tough budget decisions to get the Nation's books back in balance. Now our economy is growing and it is strong. This year, the Office of Management and Budget projects a surplus to be $79 billion. That is the biggest surplus in American history. It hasn't been easy to get to this point and we still have a lot of work to do. Now we have to use this opportunity to make critical investments in our Nation's senior citizens and in our children. We have an obligation to ensure the dignity of the previous generation and to prepare the next generation for a successful future. The budget we have before the Senate will help us do that. This budget keeps our commitment to save Social Security first. It will set aside more than 60 percent of the surplus to extend the solvency of the Social Security trust fund until 2055. And it takes important steps to protect older women who depend on Social Security, but must continue to work to supplement their incomes. This budget will increase their survivor's benefits after the deaths of their husbands and eliminate the earnings limitation. This budget will strengthen Medicare and provide more stability. It also gives assistance to the elderly and disabled who need long-term care in their families by providing a $1,000 tax credit. We have to also make education a top priority. This budget provides desperately needed funds to fix our Nation's worn out schools and our overcrowded classrooms. It provides tax credits to help States and local school districts build and renovate public schools, and it continues our commitment to hiring 100,000 new and well-trained teachers. In addition, it provides flexibility at the local level for schools to ensure all children receive a quality education, and it calls for tough new accountability measures to hold schools and teachers to high standards. This budget is by no means perfect. The funding for educating children with special needs is inadequate, and I will work to address this inequity. The Federal Government has made a commitment to meet 40 percent of the cost of educating disabled children, but we have yet to come close. As we work to improve our schools and raise our academic standards, we must not leave disabled children behind. I know that as we go through the budget process we will have our disagreements, but I am looking forward to an open discussion of the issues and working together to accomplish a bipartisan agreement that serves the American people well. This budget provides a real framework for action. I applaud the President's pledge to save Social Security and prepare for the challenges of a new century. Now we must move forward. The clock is ticking. It is time for us to work on the issues and the priorities of America's families. Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor. Ms. COLLINS addressed the Chair.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, thank you.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, on January 13th, a Fairchild based KC-135 crashed near Geilenkirchen Air Base in Germany. Today, Team Fairchild and its many supporters gathered at the Spokane Opera House to grieve and to honor the memories of four members of the Washington Air National Guard who perished aboard the KC-135 in the service to our country. I have had the pleasure of traveling to Fairchild Air Force Base on numerous occasions and meeting with the fine men and women there. They provide an indispensable part of our nation's defense and serve with pride and professionalism. I know that this tragedy hits especially hard on that close-knit community, and so it is with a heavy heart that I join them in their grief. The four who died in the crash were members of the Washington Air National Guard 141st Air Refueling Wing, based at Fairchild Air Force Base near Spokane, Washington. Members of the 141st Air Refueling Wing were in Germany for training purposes and were participating in a routine NATO flight to refuel surveillance planes. The fallen men were all from Washington state, all family men, and all heroes. Major David W. Fite, the pilot of the KC-135, was a resident of Bellevue, Washington. He began his service in the Washington Air National Guard in 1991. He is survived by his wife, a brother and his parents. Captain Kenneth F. Thiele, co-pilot, was a resident of Spokane, Washington and served in the Washington Air National Guard since September 1998. He is survived by his wife. Major Matthew F. Laiho, navigator, was a resident of Spokane, Washington and served in the Washington Air National Guard since 1989. He is survived by his wife, two children and his parents. Technical Sergeant Richard D. Visintainer, boom operator, was also a resident of Spokane, Washington. His service in the Washington Air National Guard began in 1972. He is survived by his former wife and children. Colonel James Wynne, the Wing Commander, was quoted, ``The guard is such a close-knit extended family that this will certainly send a wave of grief throughout the unit. This is a tragic loss.'' Colonel Wynne is right. Fairchild grieves today, its spirit challenged by tragedy. I know Team Fairchild will serve as a comfort to grieving families and fellow Air Force personnel. My thoughts and prayers are with the families of Major Fite, Captain Thiele, Major Laiho and Sergeant Visintainer. Each will be missed. Each will be remembered.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Illinois for his work this morning, with our leader Senator Tom Daschle, in setting out the Democratic priorities that are so important to us and to the American people. Having just returned from a very short weekend in my State, 2,500 miles away, it is clear that the American people are waiting anxiously to hear what the 106th Congress is planning to do regarding the business of the people. At the top of the list of people's concerns is the education of our young people. Today, as you heard from our leader, we are presenting a comprehensive set of investments in America's public schools--school construction, before-and-after school care, improvements in teacher quality and class-size reduction. In the fall of 1998, the U.S. Senate took the first important step on the path to reducing class size. In the fall of 1999, just a few months from now, when parents send their children off to school, they will ask them on the first day, as they always do: ``Who is your teacher? And how many children are in your class?" But the schools those children attend next fall will have a new tool for helping students learn. Approximately 30,000 new, well-prepared teachers will go into classrooms across this country. Demonstrating that Capitol Hill can listen to the people and get things done, we got the 105th Congress to agree to starting on this important path. This year, we must finish the job we started last fall. We must provide schools the remainder of the funding necessary to hire 100,000 new and well-trained teachers over the next 6 years. This year, our work will include the reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, the major law that governs K-12 education in this country. As part of our work, we must authorize the class-size reduction effort we started last year in appropriations. We must finish the job for the people in local school communities who are relying on us to do our job. People in schools across this Nation are fully engaged in the debate over educational quality and in identifying what works to improve learning for students. Local education leaders know that reducing class size is an effective part of local school improvement. Research shows that it works and so does the experience of teachers and parents and students. Policymakers and educators know that as they reduce class size, they can also improve the quality of their local teacher pool by improving professional development, training, certification and recruitment. Local communities are using the Federal class size and teacher quality effort as a way to beef up their own investment in the future of their young people. School boards are taking action. Governors and State legislators are proposing class-size investments this year based on our successful effort last year. All of these people are moving ahead with class-size reduction, because last year their representatives in Washington, DC, finally heard the call for funding for more and better teachers. They are counting on continued funding, and we have come back this year to get it for them. I just want to take this opportunity to tell people directly--we intend to keep class-size reduction a national priority. The proposal in the bill that was outlined by our Democratic leader today, and in a bill I will be introducing separately, honors the agreement that we achieved last year. It requires no new forms and no red tape. It focuses on hiring new teachers, but it also makes investments in teacher quality from the onset, and it allows districts that meet their goals of getting to 18 or fewer students in classes in grades 1 through 3 to use the money to improve class size in other grades or to take other steps to improve the quality of their teaching pool. I can't tell you how many times I have heard from people since the end of last Congress, how thankful they were that their Congress started this important investment in class-size reduction. Students learn better when they get the help they need in their classroom. I have been hearing it from students themselves. They want to thank us for doing the right thing, and they want us to keep it up. Mr. President, education really matters. This year, we have the country behind us and several major opportunities to seriously improve American schools to meet American expectations. But it will take a lot of hard work and courage to get there. We need all our school laws to work better for local communities, for our teachers and staff, for parents and families, and most importantly, for our students. We must keep in mind that the students are our real clients and organize our work around their needs and not ours. We need better flexibility, better accountability, better efficiency and better funding. We need to make some important investments in the nuts and bolts of providing education, class-size reduction, better facilities, better training for teachers and more opportunities for students to be safe and to learn. These investments cost money, and we just need to make it happen. We also need better leadership and vision and articulation of why we are all working so hard--so that students learn better and faster and have more hope for the future. As a former school board member, I can tell you that sometimes the decisions are not about money, they are about finding the best way to do things so students can learn. And we need to support those decisions as well. A great example of this was our superintendent, John Stanford, of the Seattle school district. Superintendent Stanford, who died this year after a heroic battle with cancer, showed people in Seattle and around the Nation just what we can accomplish in our schools by setting the right tone, asking for the best effort possible, and not accepting less. Many adults in a community know the superintendent of their district, but never have I seen so many students, young children who knew that John Stanford was their superintendent and that he wanted desperately and personally for them to succeed and they responded. You will see elements of all these ideas today that address all of these issues--clear vision, more flexibility, better accountability, increased efficiency and improved funding. You will see here what America is asking for its public schools: We need to set high standards, articulate a vision, and give people the support and backing they need to get the job done. When these bills pass into law, you will see American schools that work better, for better results, for all of our children. I look forward to working with my colleagues and the American people to take these important steps for better schools across our land. As well, I thank our leader for speaking to legislation that he will introduce shortly on health care reform, retirement security, afterschool programs and more. These are the issues the American public wants us to address and work on, and I look forward to working with all of my colleagues to meet these challenges. I hope we can make progress this year and make a difference in the quality of life in all of the families in this country. Thank you, Mr. President. Mr. BOND addressed the Chair.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, earlier today, we passed an Omnibus Appropriations bill that expressed important Congressional intent regarding the education of American children. By passing legislation to reduce class size in public schools, we are doing something concrete, common-sense, and effective to improve the quality of education across America. I am very proud of this Congress today. But although there has been plenty of attention this last week devoted to the issue of class size reduction through helping local school districts to hire qualified teachers, I feel we are in danger of overlooking the true significance of the policy and funding we have passed here today. By making this investment, which we will be increasing over the next several years, we are sending an important message to every community in this nation. The message is ``we have been listening. We have heard you. You've been saying that class size reduction is important because it makes a tangible difference in real-world public schools.'' This new law will not solve every problem in every school in America; that is not the appropriate federal role. Local communities make the decisions that improve local schools. The federal role is to support local decisions. I want people to know that Congress is finally listening; this place is starting to ring with your voice. This class size effort will help jump-start discussions in every local community and every state legislature--where the class size decisions that affect all schools will be made. And, this appropriations bill puts us all on the road to doing something tangible to helping the students in America's schools. Some in Congress have made the argument: ``who do you trust to make decisions regarding the education of your children, your local educators and school boards, or some faceless bureaucrat in Washington, D.C.?'' For 5 years, I was a school board member in the Shoreline School District. I saw first-hand how every decision gets made in a school district, including how many teachers get hired, and what the budget will be for supplies, and what changes will be made to the bus schedule. And in those years and all the years since, I have heard local citizens say about the laws that affect their schools that they want their government to learn how to listen to the people it represents. I have not heard people say that the government should walk away from its responsibilities, to support the children in public schools across America. I have not heard people advocate that the federal government should ignore its responsibility to prevent unfair treatment, or that it should ignore national priorities. I have heard many times, however, parents and other local citizens ask very loudly for government to set goals, to get us on the right path, to do what works, to streamline its efforts, and to invest in common-sense solutions. At the top of this list is class size reduction. Class size is common-sense, and it does work. The research shows it: A 1989 study of the Tennessee STAR program, which compared the performance of students in grades K-3 in small and regular-sized classes, found that students in small classes (13 to 17 students) significantly outperformed other students in math and reading, every year, at all grade levels, across all geographic areas. A follow-up study of the STAR program in 1995 found that students in small classes in grades K-3 continued to outperform their peers at least through grade 8, with achievement advantages especially large for minority students. Other state and local studies have since found that students in smaller classes outperform their peers in reading and math, perform as well or better than students in magnet or voucher schools, and that gains are especially significant among African-American males. A 1997 national study by Educational Testing Service found that smaller class size raises average achievement for students in fourth- and eighth-grade math, especially for low-income students in ``high- cost'' regions. Particularly of note in the 1997 ETS study was the finding that in eighth-grade, the achievement effect comes about through the better discipline and learning environment smaller class size produces. As policy-makers try to make decisions that will affect students in the critical years of middle-school, class size makes a difference in terms of both behavior and academic achievement. In addition, state organizations representing thousands of local educators know that hiring more high-qualified teachers to reduce class size works: Larry Swift, Executive Director Emeritus of the Washington State School Directors' Association says it well: As we pursue our state's goal of improving learning for all of our students, it becomes increasingly important that all of our resources be used efficiently and effectively. The most valuable resource in today's schools is the people who devote their time and effort to make schools successful--the teachers. Reducing the ratio of students to adults is particularly critical for youngsters with a variety of learning challenges that must be overcome if those students are to meet the new, higher learning standards. Kenneth Winkes, with the Washington Association of School Principals says: It is increasingly evident that students entering our schools have diverse and unique needs which can only be addressed by principals, teachers, and support personnel who are not overwhelmed by crowded classrooms. Rather, educators must be able to devote attention to each student in smaller, more manageable classes. Lee Ann Prielipp, President of the Washington Education Association says: ``When educators have too many students in a class, it is hard for them to give each student the individual attention that students need. It is this individual attention that is at the heart of the learning process, and it is crucial in helping our students succeed.'' And, as I've pointed out before, students themselves have thoughts about the importance of class size reduction: Brooke Bodnar, age 16, recently moved from a school with larger classes to Olympia High School, which has smaller classes. She says: ``. . . with smaller classes I'm learning so much more. Class is going so much faster.'' Jared Stueckle, age 16, a junior at Selah High School, believes that education should be a higher priority in funding, and that class size is a good investment. Jared says: ``The classes in which the number (of students) is lower I generally do better, but in a crowded class, the teacher does not give us enough individual attention.'' Meghan Sullivan, age 15, a 10th grader at Tumwater High School, says: ``. . . reduction is needed especially at the K-5 grade levels. This is the beginning of their education and this is where they form study habits and learning skills, so it's more important to get some one-on- one contact with teachers.'' Antonella Novi, age 18, a senior at Anacortes High School, says: ``Smaller class sizes enrich the learning experience for the student and the teaching experience for the teacher.'' Jaime Oberlander, age 16, a junior at Tumwater High School, says: ``I know that I have learned more in smaller classes. I have a stronger relationship with the teacher. I am less intimidated to participate in class discussions or ask for help when I need it. I also receive more feedback from my teacher . . . my teacher can spend more time critiquing my work and helping me to learn.'' The American people have said over and over how important class size reduction is to them. When students start school in the fall, parents usually ask two questions: ``Who is my child's teacher?'' and ``How many students will be in my child's class?'' This is because, next to parents and family, the teacher is one of the most important adults in every child's life. We want that teacher to be the best-trained, most- qualified person available. And, we want the number of students in class to be manageable, so each student has access to the teacher, and the teacher is not reduced to doing ``crowd control.'' Qualified teachers in small classes can provide students with more individualized attention, spend more time on instruction and less on discipline and other tasks, cover more material more effectively, and work more closely with parents. Today Congress has done something significant and important--taken the first step to helping local communities increase the number and quality of the teachers in America's schools. I want to thank all those who helped this happen, from the President and his staff, to Secretary Riley and those who work so diligently, to Senator Daschle and our Democratic Leadership in both the Senate and the House. I want to particularly thank Senator Harkin, who worked with me on a strategy to turn the early defeat of the Administration's larger class size proposal into a one-year version, funded through an existing program--a clear victory for every student in America. I also want to especially thank Senator Ted Kennedy for his stalwart efforts to negotiate the final elements of this bill in consultation with me. His work is always excellent, here particularly so. And I'd like to single out the people who joined me as co-sponsors of my bill, the Class Size Reduction and Teacher Quality Improvement Act of 1998: Senators Kennedy, Dodd, Daschle, Moseley-Braun, Boxer, Levin, Robb, Lieberman, Reed, Lautenberg, Landrieu, Torricelli, Bryan, Kerry, Akaka, Glenn, Bingaman, and Mikulski. And I would like to thank Senator Russ Feingold who has given so much time and attention to the issue of class size reduction, and recognizing local efforts. Finally, I would like to thank a few key staff people who worked on this issue all year: Marsha Simon, Ellen Murray, and Bettilou Taylor from the Appropriations Committee staff and Bev Schroeder with Senator Harkin, Joan Huffer with Senator Daschle, and Danica Petroshius with Senator Kennedy and Amy Abraham with the Budget Committee. I would also like to thank Greg Williamson, Micki Aronson, April Graff, Kennie Endelman and Minerva Lopez with my staff. As with all things, the class size legislation would not have passed without the efforts of many, many people all working with determination, willing to make compromises on details and get to the important goals. On other educational issues, we have also made progress this year. The funding levels for adult and family literacy programs have seen modest improvement--something I've worked hard for, and something that needs more improvement. And children's literacy has seen an important first step, in passage and funding for the Reading Excellence Act. Reading efforts around the country and in my state should look on this national attention to reading as the first step to further support. On education technology, we have made such important investments. Not only did we fund $75 million for teacher technology training for pre- service teachers, but this year we passed the Higher Education Act, which includes my Teacher Technology Training bill, and we have provided another $75 million to fund the partnerships that will make the new law possible in every local community. On funding for the Individuals with Disabilities in Education Act, we have included the $500 million I asked for in my budget amendment earlier this year, and we did not have to jeopardize other educational priorities to do it. In addition, by including special education teachers in the class size proposal, we have taken important steps to helping local communities deal with the important educational needs of all students. There were also mis-steps in this bill--cuts to our schools that did not need to happen, negative language that will stir up unnecessary ill-feelings, or funding shifts, such as the one under the Safe and Drug-Free Schools program, that should have been done in a way more reflective of local expertise. But all in all this is a good bill for education, and puts us on the right path. The Americans I talk to about education funding usually cannot believe that education is really a priority in Congress. After all, only 1.8 percent of overall education spending goes to education. This is the next great challenge. People want Congress to live up to its responsibilities, to look at its priorities, and to listen to people in communities across this great nation. This year, we made some important investments. Next year, we reauthorize the major K-12 education laws. We must look to all of these processes with respect for local knowledge, with bipartisanship, and with a steadfast determination to making education better for all students.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, the Omnibus Appropriations measure before us contains an important provision regarding foreign ownership and control of United States fishing vessels as well as a resolution of disputes regarding the North Pacific pollock fishery. More than one year ago, Senator Stevens introduced S. 1221, the American Fisheries Act. A major purpose of this legislation, and a goal I strongly support, was to further increase the level of ownership of U.S. fishing vessels. The Americanization of the U.S. fishing industry began in 1976 with the passage of the Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act which established a 200 mile Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) and prioritized access to fishery resources within the EEZ to American citizens. This legislation is an historic milestone in international marine policy and set a precedent that all coastal nations have followed. It was an important step in securing American control of the vast fishery resources off our coastlines. Eleven years later, another step was taken to further Americanize U.S. fisheries. The 1987 Anti-Reflagging Act required U.S. citizens to own and control at least 51% of any U.S.-flag fishing vessels. This Act also included grandfather provisions that, because of drafting errors, allowed any current U.S. flag fishing vessels that did not meet the new standard to be exempt from the new ownership standard and allowed vessels under contract to be rebuilt into fishing vessels in foreign shipyards to retain their U.S. fishing privileges. The two grandfather provisions allowed a far greater degree of foreign owned and controlled fishing vessels to remain is U.S. fisheries than had been intended. Although the United States Coast Guard correctly interpreted these grandfather provisions in a legal sense, there has been ongoing controversy regarding Congressional intent with these grandfather provisions and their application by the Coast Guard. Eleven years later, the American Fisheries Act will finally resolve this issue. It requires a real, effective, and enforceable U.S. ownership threshold for U.S. flag fishing vessels. Under this Act, U.S. citizens must own and control 75 percent of the ownership interest in any U.S. flag fishing vessel. I strongly support these provisions as an important step in our ongoing efforts to Americanize the fisheries of the United States EEZ. It is time to more fully ensure that the vast fishery resources of the United States are harvested by Americans. These provisions will go a long way to making that the case. In addition to the further Americanization of U.S. fisheries, the Title included in the Omnibus Appropriations measure also resolves the long-standing allocation battles surrounding the North Pacific pollock fishery. When S.1221 was introduced by Senator Stevens in September 1997, one of the goals in addition to Americanizing the U.S. fishing fleet was to phase out a number of Seattle-based catcher processors that had used the grandfather provisions of the 1987 Anti-Reflagging Act to enter the pollock fishery. Senator Slade Gorton and I strongly opposed the original legislation because of the devastating impact this phase out would have had on Washington state jobs andthe Puget Sound economy. However, there were a number of Washington state constituencies who strongly supported the legislation and the phase out of these catcher processors. In the interest of resolving this issue, Senator Gorton convened a meeting in August 1998 of all the major participants in the North Pacific pollock fishery to explore the possibility of reaching a settlement of the dispute. My good colleague from Washington state established a number of principles which all the parties agreed to and guided the discussion of potential solutions. Those discussions led to the conclusion that 4 key issues needed to be addressed: Americanization, decapital- ization, rationalization, and reallocation. This meeting led to a series of intense negotiations among the major North Pacific pollock fishery participants, led by Senator Stevens office, that provided the framework for the legislation before us. While my colleagues from Alaska and Washington have provided a much more detailed outline of the provisions of the American Fisheries Act, I would like to summarize some of the key aspects. This bill includes a substantial reallocation of the North Pacific fishery resource, one of the most valuable fishery resources in the world. The 1.2 million metric ton fishery is worth approximately $250 million annually. For the last 6 years, there has been tremendous allocation disputes regarding this resource before the North Pacific Fishery Management Council. Prior to 1992, the offshore component of the fishery harvested approximately 85% of the resource. In 1992, the North Pacific Fishery Management Council reduced this harvest level by allocating 35% of the resource to the onshore component of the fishery, that is, catcher boats delivering to onshore processing plants. Recently, the Council recommended to the Secretary of Commerce increasing this percentage to 39%. This bill provides 50% of the resource to the onshore sector, 10% to the mothership sector, and 40% to the offshore sector, permanently resolving the long- standing allocation battles over this valuable resource. With each percentage point of the total allowable catch valued at approximately $5 million, this shift in harvest opportunity represents anywhere from a $55 million to $75 million reallocation. To offset this massive move of fish, the legislation includes a substantial reduction in the excess fishing capacity in the offshore sector. Overcapitalization has been an ongoing problem in all North Pacific fisheries and is the source of the allocation battles that ensue over these fisheries. This act will permanently remove nine pollock factory trawlers from the pollock fishery, in fact, from the U.S. EEZ entirely. Eight of these vessels will be scrapped, preventing them from being used in any fishery in the world. In exchange for retiring these vessels and transferring the pollock catch history associated with them to the onshore sector, the owners of these vessels will be paid $90 million. An additional $5 million will be paid to the remaining participants in the offshore sector of the fishery for the additional reduction in the offshore allocation. $20 million will be provided by the federal government as it bears responsibility for the failure of the 1987 Anti-Reflagging Act to effectively keep foreign fishing vessels out of the U.S. EEZ. The remaining $75 million will be paid by the onshore sector through a federally-guaranteed loan. Replacement of the capacity represented by these removed vessels is prevented by statutorily establishing either through explicit listing of the vessels or specific criteria for participation, the factory trawlers, motherships, catcher boats, and onshore processors that can continue to participate in the North Pacific pollock fishery. This listing of the eligible fishery participants is essential to preventing recapitalization of the fishery and ensuring that steps toward rationalizing the fishery can proceed. It has not been done without controversy, however. There has been a great deal of concern among the fishing industry in Washington state and Alaska about the exclusive listing of onshore processors. Many fishery participants have made a distinction between addressing overcapitalization on the water and on the land. Many have argued that the exclusive listing of onshore processors will deny fishermen competitive markets for their fish. Others are concerned that it locks in substantial foreign investment in the processing sector of the fishery while at the same time the bill seeks to further Americanize the harvesting of fish in the U.S. EEZ. I share these concerns. However, the need to rationalize this fishery necessitates this action. In the absence of this provision, the ability to proceed with the formation of fishery cooperatives as a means to end the race for fish could not be successful. In the end, I feel the potential benefits such rationalization could provide for both the resource and the industry dependent upon it justify this action. Nonetheless, I think it imperative that both the Council and the Congress closely monitor the impacts of this provision to ensure it achieves our goal of improving the situation for fishermen. If not, additional measures may need to be taken. This bill relies in great measure on the ability and willingness of the North Pacific pollock fishery sectors to form fishery cooperatives. Fishery cooperatives, authorized under current law, are a privately negotiated allocation on a company-by-company or vessel-by-vessel basis of a portion of the total allowable catch. Similar to an individual fishing quota program, cooperatives provide fishery participants with the certainty they need to stop the race for fish, and harvest and process the fish on a more flexible schedule with greater attention to bycatch, efficiency, and safety. The existing fishery cooperative in the offshore sector of the Pacific Whiting fishery has shown tremendous benefits in these regards and has helped rationalize the fishery. It is hoped that cooperatives can do the same in the pollock fishery. In the interest of ensuring that small, independent fishermen are the true beneficiaries of fishery cooperatives, the bill includes a number of requirements for fishery cooperatives in all three sectors which are designed to provide these small, independent fishermen with sufficient leverage in the negotiations to protect their interests. In addition, the bill attempts to ensure adequate protections for other fisheries in the North Pacific and Pacific from any potential adverse impacts resulting from the formation of fishery cooperatives in the pollock fishery. The formation of fishery cooperatives will undoubtedly free up harvesting and processing capacity that can be used in new or expanded ways in other fisheries. Although many of these vessels and processors have legitimate, historic participation in these other fisheries, they should not be empowered by this legislation to gain a competitive advantage in these other fisheries to the detriment of participants who have not benefitted from the resolution of the pollock fishery problems. While we have attempted to include at least a minimum level of protections for these other fisheries, it is clear to many of us that unintended consequences are likely. It is therefore imperative that the fishery management councils not perceive the protections provided in this bill as a statement by Congress that these are the only protections needed. In fact, the opposite is true. Although the protections provided for the head and gut groundfish offshore sector from the pollock offshore sector are more highly developed and articulated in the bill, the protections for other fisheries are largely left for the Councils to recommend. Those of us involved intimately in the development of this legislation strongly urge the Councils to monitor the formation of fishery cooperatives closely and ensure that other fisheries are held harmless to the maximum extent possible. In particular, the legislation directs the North Pacific Council to address the issue of latent capacity in the Bering Sea crab fishery. I am deeply concerned by the recent failure of the North Pacific Council to address this issue in response to this legislation. The relatively minor level of protection provided in the bill for the Bering Sea crab fishery should in no way be construed by the Council as sufficient to protect the crab fishery from potential adverse impacts of pollock fishery cooperatives nor should it be deemed sufficient to address the issue of overcapitalization of the crab fishery and the need to remove latent capacity. I strongly urge the Council to take measures to further reduce latent capacity in the crab fishery beyond that which the License Limitation Program addressed and to avoid rewarding speculative participation in anticipation of the developing industry- funded capacity reduction program being developed by the crab industry. At the same time, the Council should ensure that true historic participants in the crab fishery who have made legitimate investments to harvest crab are not eliminated. The American Fisheries Act title in this Omnibus Appropriations measure is an important next step in our efforts to Americanize U.S. fisheries and ensure their long-term sustainable use. I support this provision and will work with my colleagues to ensure that is effectively and fairly implemented. In closing, I want to thank Senator Stevens, Gorton, and Murkowski for their hard work on this legislation. I would also like to acknowledge the hard work of Trevor McCabe, Jeanne Bumpus, Bill Woolf, Martin Kodis, and my own staff, Justin LeBlanc. Without their dedication and perseverance, we would not have put this legislation together.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I rise today to remember a young man who was wrongly, viciously struck down in the prime of his life. Matthew Shepard was an innocent, kind, young man pursuing his education and enjoying the life of a college student. Tragically, he is now a reminder of what happens when we do not stand up to hate and bigotry. On Monday night in Seattle and Spokane, Washington, hundreds of people from all walks of life came together to remember Matthew and to call for action to end hate crimes. Many people in Washington were outraged and shared in our Nation's sorrow. I was touched by this response and join with so many others in expressing my own deep sense of hopelessness. I know that this was not just an isolated incident. Hate crimes are a real threat. We cannot be silent any longer. A week ago today, I joined many of my colleagues down at the White House in celebration of the signing of the Higher Education Reauthorization Act. I was proud to be there to call attention to the importance of this act. I was proud that the legislation increased opportunities for young students and improved access to quality education for all students. I thought about how important it was for us to be focused on the needs of young Americans and their families striving to achieve a higher education. I thought of the many college students and high school students I have met who would benefit from these opportunities. I thought about my own college age children and the opportunities they would have. I knew this was a big accomplishment. Today, my thoughts are with another young college student who will never experience the opportunities and improvements we worked so hard to achieve. My thoughts have gone from improving opportunities to how to prevent the terrible heartache that Matthew Shepard's family and friends are now experiencing. When I first heard of this horrible crime I immediately felt deep sympathy for Matthew's parents. How frightening it must have been for them to fly half way around the world to be with their child who was almost unrecognizable because of the violent attack he suffered. I can't imagine the pain they must be experiencing. There are simply no words that I could offer in comfort. I then felt deep sorrow for the community and the University. To know that those who committed this violent and hateful crime are part of their community must be unbearable. This community will never be the same. I now feel sorry for our Nation. What we have lost? A young man with so much potential. What might Matthew Shepard have become? We know that he was interested in political science and very interested in this field of study. Could Matthew have become a U.S. Senator? I think now that maybe Matthew can teach us all. We need to use this tragic and despicable crime to attack hate as we attack any other disease that kills. We must treat hate crimes as the deadly threat that they are and do more to prevent them. Hate is nothing more than a cancer that needs to be stopped. S. 1529, Hate Crimes Prevention Act, offers us that opportunity. I am pleased to have joined with many of my colleagues in cosponsoring this important legislation. The bill would expand the definition of a hate crime and improve prosecution of those who act out their hate with violence. No one beats a person to death and leaves them to die without being motivated by a deep sense of hate. This was no robbery. The motive was hate. The immediate response of local law enforcement officials illustrates why we need to strengthen Federal Hate Crimes laws and why the Federal Government must take a greater role in ending this violence. I urge all of my colleagues to think about the many Matthew Shepards, we have all met. Kind and hard working young adults. Let us act now to prevent any more senseless violence and deaths. It is often said that from tragedy we can learn. Let us learn from this tragic event and make a commitment that we will act on Hate Crimes Prevention legislation. Let our actions serve as a comfort to Matthew's parents and the hundreds of other parents who fear for their children. There are so many tragedies that we cannot prevent. Another senseless, brutal attack like the one experienced by Matthew is a tragedy that we can prevent. We spend millions of dollars a year seeking cures for deadly diseases that strike the young and old. We simply cannot accept a disease that strikes without warning and takes the life of a precious vulnerable child. We need to treat hate the same. It cannot and will not be tolerated.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I rise on behalf of myself and Senator Jeffords to acknowledge and celebrate World Population Awareness Week. World population stands today at more than 5.9 billion and increases by more than 80 million per year, with virtually all of this growth in the least developed countries. A total of 1.3 billion people--more than the combined population of Europe and North Africa--live in absolute poverty on the equivalent of one United States dollar or less a day; 1.5 billion people--nearly one- quarter of the world's population--lack an adequate supply of clean drinking water or sanitation; more than 840 million people--one-fifth of the entire population of the developing world--are hungry or malnourished. Demographic studies and surveys indicate that in the developing world there are at least 120 million women who want more control over their fertility but lack access to family planning. This unmet need for family planning is projected to result in 1.2 billion unintended births. The 1994 International Conference on Population and Development in Cairo determined that a combination of political commitment and appropriate programs designed to provide universal access to voluntary family planning information, education and services can ensure world population stabilization at 8 billion or less rather than 12 billion or more. We are pleased to support the week of October 24-31, 1998 as World Population Awareness Week.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I rise today to remember a young man who was wrongly, viciously struck down in the prime of his life. Matthew Shepard was an innocent, kind, young man pursuing his education and enjoying the life of a college student. Tragically, he is now a reminder of what happens when we do not stand up to hate and bigotry. On Monday night in Seattle and Spokane, Washington, hundreds of people from all walks of life came together to remember Matthew and to call for action to end hate crimes. Many people in Washington were outraged and shared in our nation's sorrow. I was touched by this response and join with so many others in expressing my own deep sense of hopelessness. I know that this was not just an isolated incident. Hate crimes are a real threat. We cannot be silent any longer. A week ago today, I joined many of my Colleagues down at the White House in celebration of the signing of the Higher Education Reauthorization Act. I was proud to be there to call attention to the importance of this Act. I was proud that the legislation increased opportunities for young students and improved access to quality education for all students. I thought about how important it was for us to be focused on the needs of young Americans and their families striving to achieve a higher education. I thought of the many college students and high school students I have met who would benefit from these opportunities. I thought about my own college age children and the opportunities they would have. I knew this was a big accomplishment. Today, my thoughts are with another young college student who will never experience the opportunities and improvements we worked so hard to achieve. My thoughts have gone from improving opportunities to how to prevent the terrible heartache that Matthew Shepard's family and friends are now experiencing. When I first heard of this horrible crime I immediately felt deep sympathy for Matthew's parents. How frightening it must have been for them to fly half way around the world to be with their child who was almost unrecognizable because of the violent attack he suffered. I can't imagine the pain they must be experiencing. There are simply no words that I could offer in comfort. I then felt deep sorrow for the community and the University. To know that those who committed this violent and hateful crime are part of their community must be unbearable. This community will never be the same. I now feel sorry for our nation. What we have lost? A young man with so much potential. What might Matthew Shepard have become? We know that he was interested in political science and very interested in this field of study. Could Matthew have become a U.S. Senator? I think now that maybe Matthew can teach us all. We need to use this tragic and despicable crime to attack hate as we attack any other disease that kills. We must treat hate crimes as the deadly threat that they are and do more to prevent them. Hate is nothing more than a cancer that needs to be stopped. S. 1529, Hate Crimes Prevent Act, offers us that opportunity. I am pleased to have joined with many of my Colleagues in cosponsoring this important legislation. The bill would expand the definition of a hate crime and improve prosecution of those who act out their hate with violence. No one beats a person to death and leaves them to die without being motivated by a deep sense of hate. This was no robbery. The motive was hate. The immediate response of local law enforcement officials illustrates why we need to strengthen federal Hate Crimes laws and why the Federal Government must take a greater role in ending this violence. I urge all of my Colleagues to think about the many Matthew Shepard, we have all met. Kind and hard working young adults. Let us act now to prevent any more senseless violence and deaths. It is often said that from tragedy we can learn. Let us learn from this tragic event and make a commitment that we will act on Hate Crimes Prevention legislation. Let our actions serve as a comfort to Matthew's parents and the hundreds of other parents who fear for their children. There are so many tragedies that we cannot prevent. Another senseless, brutal attack like the one experienced by Matthew is a tragedy that we cannot prevent. We spend millions of dollars a year seeking cures for deadly diseases that strike the young and old. We simply cannot accept a disease that strikes without warning and takes the life of a percious vulnerable child. We need to treat hate the same. It cannot and will not be tolerated.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, today, Senator Wellstone and I are introducing the Battered Women's Economic Security Act. This legislation was developed in order to address the numerous economic obstacles facing victims of domestic and family violence as they try to escape this violence. I know that Senator Wellstone joins me in applauding Senator Biden's efforts in crafting legislation to reauthorize the Violence Against Women Act programs. Senator Biden developed a bipartisan bill to build on the success of VAWA and expand those programs aimed at the immediate needs of victims of domestic violence. The legislation we are introducing today takes the next step. As a result of VAWA and the increased federal commitment to addressing the domestic violence crisis, we now have an infrastructure in place that helps the community respond to this violence. VAWA has been a success in helping local law enforcement, and the courts, prosecute those who batter and abuse women. VAWA provides a strong law enforcement component as well as services to provide immediate and emergency assistance to victims. But, the road to recovery is much longer and much harder because of economic barriers. As I learned last year in my efforts to maintain a safety net for victims of family violence, often times it is basic economics that trap women and children in violent homes and relationships. Economic barriers threaten the success of VAWA and work to maintain the threat of violence. We all know the cost of domestic and family violence. But, there is a much greater cost to the community that is often overlooked. How many police officers have been caught in the cross fire when responding to domestic and family violence calls? How many innocent children grow up in a violent home and bring this violence into the classroom or future relationships? We have made a commitment to ending domestic violence, however, in order to succeed we must tear down the economic barriers. We have insurance policies that discriminate against victims of domestic violence. Some insurance companies think that victims of domestic violence are engaging in high risk behavior similar to a race car driver or sky diver. Life, homeowners, auto and health insurance are essential elements of economic security. Eliminating this protection for victims of domestic violence threatens their ability to achieve economic independence. It also discourages women from coming forward and reporting this violence and abuse for fear that their insurance company will use it against them. Don't let anyone tell you this does not happen. I can give many examples of insurance discrimination faced by victims of domestic violence. Just ask Kaddas Bolduc from Washington, whose estranged husband burned down her home. Her insurance company refused to honor her homeowner's policy as they decided this was not arson, but a violent response to the break up of a relationship. Her husband had been released from jail shortly before the fire. She was told that she had no claim and no way to rebuild her home. I would have to say that this is a serious economic barrier that must come down. I have met with many domestic violence advocates in Washington and have listen to their concerns about finding long term security for victims. I have heard horror stories about the lack of affordable housing or the inability of victims to secure safe housing. Many landlords refuse to rent to a victim for fear that the violence will follow her. Many women do not have a lease or mortgage in their name. They have no real credit history and certainly cannot prove that they were reliable tenants. As a result they have a difficult time finding housing. Shelters are simply temporary solutions and in many communities the need far outweighs the availability of emergency shelter space. We need to expand Section 8 opportunities for victims of domestic violence in order to ensure that they can find long term housing. A safe, affordable home is often a goal that many battered women are unable to achieve. Many women end up back in violent homes or relationships as they have no where else to go. In order to end domestic and family violence we must provide greater housing assistance and opportunities to those who have suffered this violence. Currently, there are many barriers to work for victims of domestic violence. Safe, affordable child care would be the greatest barrier and I believe the bonus provisions included in this bill will provide the incentives to the states to address this problem. We need to expand child care options and benefits for victims of domestic violence, but we cannot do it at the expense of other low income women an families struggling to stay off of welfare. I believe we need to work with the states in addressing the unique needs of victims of domestic violence. Unfortunately, the violence can follow women into the work place which jeopardizes their health and safety as well as their job. Many women are unable to take leave to seek relief in the courts. They do not have the luxury of taking time off to file for a restraining order or to testify against their abuser. They cannot take sick leave to seek medical attention or treatment. Many employers simply do not offer or provide the flexibility that these women need. Included in this legislation we are introducing today is the Employment Protection for Battered Women introduced by Senator Wellstone. I believe these provisions will help battered women maintain their jobs without jeopardizing their safety. But when the threat of violence becomes so great as to jeopardize the woman and her coworkers she must be able to leave the job immediately. Unfortunately, many states refuse to allow these women the ability to collect unemployment compensation as they rule that she left on her own accord. However, many women are forced to leave a job and should not be penalized because they are being harassed and have been subjected to abuse in the past. Our legislation includes provisions that would allow a victim of domestic violence to collect unemployment compensation when they are forced to leave their job due to the thereat of continued violence. I have also heard first hand from advocates who have been working with women in an effort to change their Social Security number in order to flee a violent abuser. It is impossible to secure employment without giving out one's Social Security number. It is impossible to rent an apartment or even establish credit without a Social Security number. Yet giving out this number can make it easier for an abusive husband or boyfriend to track a woman down. The ability to change their Social Security number becomes the difference between economic dependency and economic independence. Yet it is easier to change one's number based on superstition than it is because one is trying to flee a violent relationship. The Office of Victims Advocacy at the Washington State AG's office told me that it can take as long as six months to change a Social Security number and that is in a case where there was a clear need to change the victim's identity. But, in most cases it takes more than 12 months and for some it may never happen. The Social Security Administration must work to correct this threat. Included in our legislation is a requirement that the Social Security Administration expedite requests from victims of domestic violence for a change in their Social Security number in order to achieve economic independency faster and safer. The legislation is the result of months of drafting and working with domestic violence advocactes to address the many economic barriers facing victims. In working to strengthen the Family Violence Option in welfare reform, I became painfully aware of the barriers that punitive welfare reform provisions had created. But I realized that this was only one of many barriers. VAWA took the first step in dedicating federal resources to addressing the domestic violence crisis, but its whole focus is law enforcement and emergency response. We need to go to the next level to truly end violence against women. We need to address these economic needs and problems. I believe our legislation meets this test and will eliminate many of the economic barriers that trap women and children in violent homes and relationships. I urge my colleagues to join us in support of this important legislation.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Judiciary Committee be discharged from further consideration of S. Res. 264 and that the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration, that the resolution and preamble be agreed to en bloc, and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table without intervening action.