Patty Murray

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I rise today to extend my strong support for S. 2307, the Department of Transportation's Appropriations Bill for FY 1999. This funding comes at a critical time for our nation and in particular, Washington state. Mr. President, as I fly home each weekend, I join thousands of other commuters in the Puget Sound Region immersed in daily and agonizing gridlock. Our State Department of Transportation is working furiously to construct HOV lanes, park and rides and additional interchanges. I applaud our State Secretary Sid Morrison for his innovative thinking and leadership during this time of enormous growth. Our region's economic boom has brought many advantages, however, its impact on mobility in the region has been dramatic and continually frustrates motorists. This bill will provide much needed relief for our Puget Sound Region and for infrastructure improvements throughout Washington state. I am most pleased that I was able to work with the committee to secure $60 million for the Puget Sound's Regional Transit Authority, known as Sound Move. This will include $47 million for commuter rail between Seattle and Tacoma and $13 million to begin light rail construction. Additionally, I want to express my support for the committee's work in funding the Elliot Bay Water Taxi, the Columbia River Marine Fire and Safety Association, ITS systems near Spokane's SR 395, airport improvements at Everett's Paine Field, Boeing Field and the Pullman Airport. These projects are vital to our region's multi-modal planning. The linking of car, bus, bike, ferry, plane, train and pedestrian has become the framework of every infrastructure decision. I wanted to personally thank Chairman Shelby and our Ranking Member, Senator Lautenberg for their dedicated work. Their combined efforts and leadership on our subcommittee have produced enormous results that will be felt by generations to come. I am pleased to see our commitment to Amtrak, the Coast Guard, FAA and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. I am committed to helping this bill remain in conference and urge my colleagues to support this important legislation. Our work today is wonderful news for the millions of Americans sitting right now in parking lots which were once called highways.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I rise in strong support of the Commerce, State, Justice Appropriations measure. As a member of the Appropriations Committee, I can speak to the importance of this legislation and I commend Senator Gregg and Senator Hollings for putting this bipartisan product together. I could speak to many important provisions in this bill for my constituents. From fisheries to the cops on the street to export assistance, this bill is important to Washington state. But there is one provision in the bill that I wish to give special attention to today. And that's the language to repeal Section 110 of the 1996 Illegal Immigration Act. The repeal of Section 110 is one of my highest priorities for the year. As a member of the Appropriations Committee, I do strongly support including the repeal in the Commerce, State, Justice Appropriations legislation. Section 110 requires the Immigration and Naturalization Service to develop an automated entry and exit system for the purpose of documenting the entry and departure of ``every alien'' entering and leaving the United States. It was not until after Section 110 became law that Congress became aware of the full impact of this new language. As currently written, Section 110 will have disastrous consequences for U.S. border communities whose economies are dependent on border travel, trade and tourism. For example, more than $1 billion dollars in economic activity is generated each day by legal crossings between the U.S. and Canada. More than 116 million people legally crossed the border from Canada in 1996. This travel and economic activity will be discouraged to the detriment of U.S. interests if we impose new restrictions and create additional bureaucratic delays along our shared borders. Section 110 will have dire consequences for my entire state and particularly for the residents of Northwest Washington in Whatcom County. In my state, Section 110 will create an invisible barrier between neighbors, families and coworkers who happen to live on different sides of the border. More than $250 million dollars of annual economic activity in Washington state will be threatened. Border infrastructure which is already inadequate and overwhelmed at certain times of the year will be further burdened with new documentation requirements and traffic congestion certain to anger both American citizens and Canadian nationals. It is estimated that Section 110 will almost immediately create a 12 hour backup at the border in Blaine, Washington. Section 110 is a ticking time bomb. It's really that simple. The INS does not have the technology, facilities or trained personnel to implement this language. The real explosive issue here is the cost to implement Section 110. The INS is silent on this issue. That's because it will cost billions of dollars to implement the Section 110 time bomb. Let's be very clear on this point, without changes this provision will cost billions of dollars not anticipated by either the Congress or the American people. Many of my constituents in Whatcom County will view the repeal of Section 110 as the most significant action taken by the Congress this year. Section 110 is the classic square peg solution for a round hole problem. That's why I've been fighting for more than a year to scrap the disastrous language. Last year, I introduced the first Senate bill on this issue. My bill, S. 1205, the U.S.-Canada Economic Friendship Preservation Act of 1997 seeks to exempt Canadians from Section 110. The effort to fix the Section 110 problem has grown tremendously since the introduction of my bill. Communities across Washington state and virtually the entire Northern Border are working to preserve our close ties with our Canadian neighbors. Governors from Washington state, Michigan, Texas, Arizona and others are supporting the effort. Editorials endorsing the repeal of Section 110 have been written all across the country including The Bellingham Herald, The Seattle Post Intelligencer, The Los Angeles Times, The Washington Post, and The San Diego Union Tribune have all criticized Section 110. Numerous Chambers of Commerce and other business and community groups from all parts of the country are supporting the repeal Section 110 effort. Various legislative efforts have garnered bipartisan and broad support. I am also an original cosponsor of Senator Abraham's legislation addressing Section 110 and I compliment him for his leadership and advocacy on this issue. Senator Abraham has been a champion in this effort; holding hearings along the border and in Washington, D.C. in his capacity as Chairman of the Immigration Subcommittee. I continue to believe the Senate in addition to passing the language in this bill should pass Senator Abraham's stand alone bill on Section 110. I commend my colleagues at the Appropriations Committee for taking this action to repeal Section 110. And I urge my colleagues to give this language strong and bipartisan support. NOAA Weather Radio Coverage in South Dakota

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. My concern is if we don't act now to do something about this issue, teachers and librarians across the country will begin turning computers off, preventing children access to this valuable educational tool. None of us wants that to happen. The Childsafe Internet bill is the right way to go. It allows local schools districts to make important decisions about Internet content. It is a common sense solution. We have provided this Internet access through the E-rate. Now we must finish the job by providing our teachers and parents with the right tools to help educate our children. Most parents would not send a child to a playground in their local community unsupervised. We cannot allow our young children to be in the Internet unsupervised. Lets give our teachers and librarians some help, our parents some control, and truly pass legislation that will protect America's next generation. I yield the floor.

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I come to the floor today to join my colleague from Arizona, Senator McCain, in urging the Senate to adopt our Internet filtering amendment, the Childsafe Internet bill. We come here today for one simple reason: to find a way to protect children on the Internet. The Internet is growing and expanding faster than we ever thought possible. It has become a daily tool for many Americans. As the Internet continues to grow, I believe it is our responsibility to do something to protect children from harmful material. I have worked hard over the last 6 years to get computers and technology into our schools. I have sponsored legislation to allow surplus Government computers to be put into schools. The Senate, in fact, just passed my Teacher Technology Training Act, to make sure teachers can incorporate technology into their curriculum. I have worked hard to establish the e-rate to help our schools get connected to the Internet. I have been out in schools, and I know personally what a great educational tool the Internet can be. And I represent a state that is leading the way in many of these new technologies. I want our students and I want our teachers to have access to this information. But, as we continue to see, there is a small amount of information on the Internet to which children should simply not have access. In fact, a 1997 national survey of U.S. public libraries and the Internet revealed that students often unintentionally download pornography while on the Net. Mr. President, 22 percent of the children surveyed admitted that this had happened in school, while 25 percent admitted it had occurred in a public library. I understand no solution is perfect. Technology alone won't filter every objectionable item on the Internet. We must remember, though, that this technology has made enormous strides in just a short amount of time. I have heard from people who say health information, such as breast cancer, would be blocked from viewing. That may have been the case, but filtering companies have developed new technologies and are employing new procedures that do protect children while allowing more and more educational information to be used. Our legislation is a first step. It is the right thing to do. The Childsafe Internet bill would simply require any school or library that gets reduced Internet access, the e-rate, to install some technology on their computers that keeps inappropriate material away from young children. What is great about our bill is that it gives power to local school districts and libraries to determine which filtering device to use and what constitutes inappropriate material. Decisions must remain at the local level with those who best know their students. Mr. President, let me give a few examples I have heard of the need for the Childsafe Internet Act. Last month, a seventh grade teacher in Washington state told me that it was impossible to watch 30 young students at their computers all of the time. She did not want a situation in which a child found inappropriate material, complained to their parents, and then have a parent come screaming back to the classroom, where the teacher was ultimately responsible. She turned off the Internet. I do not want that to happen. I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a number of letters I have received from parents about the need for this bill.

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, what is the pending business?

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, as a member of the Appropriations Committee, I do strongly support the work of Chairman Bond and Senator Mikulski. I do not take challenging an appropriations bill lightly. However, in this instance, I feel strongly that I must join my colleagues Senator Wellstone and Senator McCain in seeking to repeal the veterans grab contained in the recently adopted transportation and IRS legislation. The bill before us today is a veterans bill. It funds health care and I thank the leaders of this subcommittee for increasing health care funding by more than $200 million. This increase in health care funding is my number one veterans priority. I also strongly support the subcommittee's work on VA medical research, the national cemetery system, and homeless veterans. These are all very important programs. However, I continue to oppose the veterans offset used to fund increases in transportation. These cuts have been attached to politically popular bills. The transportation legislation and the IRS reform bill both passed by overwhelming and bipartisan margins. Both were admirable pieces of legislation with the exception of the veterans grab hidden within those bills. I have been fighting this veterans grab all year. It was in the President's budget and I opposed it. At the Budget Committee, I voted against Democratic and Republican proposals that included the disastrous cuts to veterans health. And on the Senate floor, I voted against the Craig/Domenici amendment to validate the $10 billion cut in veterans funding and against the budget one final time in opposition to these cuts to veterans. Just last week, I asked the Senate to sustain a point of order on the IRS reform bill to support my effort to strike the veterans cuts. That most recent effort failed by one vote. One vote. My colleagues need to know that this issue is not going to go away. This issue has touched a nerve with America's veterans. They are deeply offended that the Congress and the Administration would divert money targeted to care for sick veterans to pay for other spending priorities. That's why Senator Wellstone, Senator McCain, Senator Rockefeller, and I will keep coming back. Our efforts to repeal the $17 billion veterans grab have been denied through procedural maneuvers. Some may think this insulates them from accountability. It does not. Veterans know that procedural moves are being used to block a straight up or down vote on this issue. This amendment is a special opportunity for the Senate. With our votes for Wellstone-Murray-McCain, we can send a very clear message to veterans all across our country. Passage says that the United States Senate recognizes that using veterans funding for other spending priorities is wrong. Passage of this amendment says to veterans that we are moving to restore this funding to where it belongs. The $17 billion belongs at the VA. I urge my colleagues to support the Wellstone-Murray-McCain amendment to repeal the veterans cuts associated with the transportation legislation.

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I would like to respond to the statement my good friend from Idaho, Senator Craig, made about the Environmental Protection Agency and the Coeur d'Alene Basin's pollution problems. I appreciate that he did not offer his amendment, which I would have opposed, because I believe it would have severely restricted the State of Washington's rights to protect its citizens from pollution generated in Idaho. At least one version of the senior senator from Idaho's proposed amendment would have given the governor of Idaho veto power over the Environmental Protection Agency's ability to protect the watershed shared by Washington and Idaho citizens. The amendment would have prevented the EPA from even studying expansion of the existing Superfund site without the Idaho governor's permission. This is a bad precedent. I know there are many times when decisions made in one state can affect the quality of the water in another state. In this case, the Governor of Washington has publicly stated his support for potential expansion of the Superfund site to ensure all polluted waterways are cleaned up. Why should the governor of Idaho be allowed to thwart efforts to protect the quality of water in Washington? I don't think he should. Mr. President, I have written a letter to Senators Craig and Kempthorne asking them to work with me to develop a way to ensure we cost-effectively clean up the Coeur d'Alene Basin while ensuring my state's interests aren't jeopardized in the decision making process. I firmly believe we can do this. I am committed to protecting water quality in the State of Washington. I believe we could establish a working commission, which would include the federal government, both state governors, and tribes, that could develop a model by which the Coeur d'Alene Basin would be quickly, cost-efficiently, and rationally cleaned up. However, giving one state's governor veto power is not the way to do it. I pledge to work with the Idaho delegation, the State of Washington, and concerned citizens to ensure our waters are as pure as they can be. There are few more precious natural resources than water and we all must work to protect it. Mr. D'AMATO addressed the Chair.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that my name be added as a cosponsor of S. 2022, the Crime Identification Technology Act of 1998. Mr. President, inadvertently my name was left out and I was not included as a cosponsor on July 13, 1998, the day I spoke on the Senate floor urging the passage of this bill.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I come to the floor this morning to join my colleague from Arizona, Senator McCain, in urging the Senate to adopt S. 1619, the child-safe Internet bill. Since I have been here for the last 6 years, I have worked long and hard to get computers and technology into our schools. I have sponsored legislation to allow surplus Government computers to be put into schools. I have worked hard to have the e-rate established so that many of our schools can be connected to the Internet. I have been out in schools, and I know personally what a great educational tool the technology and Internet system is that we have available today. I want our students and I want our teachers to have access to this information. But Senator McCain is absolutely correct. There is a small amount of information on the Internet that should not be there to which our young children have unfettered access. S. 1619, the child-safe Internet bill, simply requires any school or library that uses the e-rate, uses taxpayer money to put technology in, be required to have a filtering device so that inappropriate material is not seen by young children. The filtering device is a local control device. The school district-- the schools--will determine which filtering device and how to use it at their own school. The same with the libraries. This is an issue on which I have worked long and hard. I care deeply about the fact that many of our young children today and, frankly, many of our parents want to use the Internet but they don't know how to without getting into information or having their children have access to information that is simply inappropriate. I talked with a seventh grade teacher several weeks ago who turned off the Internet in her classroom because she said it is simply impossible to watch 30 young students at their computers all of the time. She did not want a situation where a child got into a pornographic or inappropriate site, went home, complained to their parent, have a parent come screaming back to her classroom, and she would be responsible for that. She turned off the Internet. This is going to cause concern among all of our educational facilities across our country if teachers don't have the kind of information available without a filtering device. The bill is simple. It is common sense. It is the right way to go, and I urge all of our colleagues to push to have this bill come to the floor and to pass it. It is the right way to go. I did oppose the CDA Act from several years ago. I knew it was unconstitutional. I knew it would be thrown out. We cannot afford to go through that kind of debate again. This is a problem that needs to be answered today, and the child-safe Internet bill does it in a commonsense, safe way. Most parents would not send a child to a playground in their local community unsupervised. We cannot allow our young children to be in the Internet unsupervised. The child-safe Internet bill is the right way to go. It is a local control way to make our technology work for all students, and I urge all of my colleagues to be supportive of this approach. I urge our leadership to bring it to the floor as soon as possible. Thank you, and I yield the floor. Mr. LIEBERMAN addressed the Chair.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Thank you Mr. President.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I rise today to mention a few topics vital to the educational success and safety of American children. Mr. President, last week we saw some real success for American families and students. The Higher Education Reauthorization Act made several improvements that can benefit from more attention; this bill is a major victory for students and teachers across America. My daughter enters college this fall. I now get to experience first-hand the challenges of entering higher education that millions of families each year, and our actions last week were helpful. Throughout the Labor Committee's efforts on this bill, I worked to strengthen our Nation's commitment to providing the strongest training possible for K-12 school teachers. I am most pleased with the bill's focus on teacher training, and in particular its emphasis on technology training. The bill's provisions concerning student loans will make the dream of higher education that much closer to reality for many potential American college students. The campus safety and child care provisions will make a difference in all our communities. I specifically thank Senator Wellstone for his work on the TANF amendment, so important for literacy instruction and lifelong learning. Since our debate on the welfare reform bill in 1996, I have worked with former Senator Simon, Senator Wellstone, and other Senators to point out the vital importance of education and literacy to a person's success in getting off of welfare. The passage of the Wellstone amendment is the right thing to do for low-income working Americans. Under the Higher Education Reauthorization Act, I believe that the first generation of the new millennium will benefit immensely from the efforts put forth over this past year. From increases in financial aid, to campus security improvements, to technology instruction, S. 1882 will stand as a proud hallmark of this Congress. Mr. President, on other education topics, we still have some large challenges ahead. The House Appropriations Committee is set to have full Committee mark-up of education appropriations this week. The Labor Subcommittee has cut education funding from the President's proposed levels by $2 billion in discretionary spending, and ignored his proposals to improve school construction and class size reduction. This would be the week for House members to eliminate these egregious cuts. Let me list a few things the House has put at risk through cuts or eliminations: improving children's literacy; opening school buildings up after hours to make them the hub of the community; getting extra help in reading and math to poor-achieving students; improving education technology, including technology teacher training; getting first-generation students ready for college; and many others. The House has ignored the priorities of the American people. The American people care deeply about education. They are frustrated when their schools do not succeed, and they bristle at those who would make it harder for the schools to succeed. This is not about just bricks and mortar, or about throwing good money after bad. This is about priorities, common-sense solutions, and improving quality. Do not try to fool the parents. The parents know that school improvement has a cost--in hard decisions, and in hard cash. They know that when Congress offers vouchers and expanded charter schools and bonuses for private schools and private businesses--the Congress is turning its back on the public school. They know that a cut is a cut, and that a block grant leads to a cut. They know that nearly the entire discussion this year on education from the other side of the aisle--and a time or two on this side of the aisle--amounts to the empty words of a snake-oil salesman. Well, now we have a chance to turn this all around, like the public has forced the Congress to do in years past. Congress cuts the funding for schools, the public groans in disbelief, and the Congress wises up. Let us not wait until September to do it. The House has a chance this week to put back the money they've taken. The Senate will have its chance soon. In America, you turn your back on the public school at your peril. What we need to do instead is meet the hard challenges head on. The schools, in the inner cities, and in the rural areas, are crumbling. The Congress can do something about it. The classes are overcrowded, which adds to the school construction problem. The Congress can take action. The budgets have been cut and cut, and failing a local levy can mean disaster for a school. The Congress can keep its hands off the school budget, and restore these House cuts. The Congress can increase national expenditures to more than the meager 2 percent of the national budget it now sets aside for schools. And the Congress can set the right tone. Rather than generating empty air that has the effect of chipping away at support for the local public school--the very foundation of democracy, citizenship, and community in this nation--the Congress can speak the words that need to be said. The responsibility of serving as a member of Congress, as a member of the United States Senate, is weighty indeed. By our words, our signature, and our actions, we can take steps to improve our nation's schools and our student's futures. We can set an important tone, and say the hard things that the students, families, teachers, school officials, community leaders and others need to hear. We can also talk of success. But if we act and speak only to tear the fabric of support for the public school--if the tone we set is only to chip, chip, chip at public confidence in an institution they know personally to have value--then we are abdicating part of our great responsibility as Senators. Americans know that members of Congress can work together, and achieve results. They know we could take actions to improve their public schools. And that is why it is so disheartening to me when Republicans or Democrats put ideology or politics or mean-spiritedness in the way of success for our students. We must act together to do what is in the best interest of all children. It is also important Mr. President that we conduct background checks and adequately screen our teachers to make sure they are qualified, competent and capable of providing our children with the quality education they deserve.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I wish to speak for a moment as a cosponsor of the Crime Identification Technology Act of 1998. Mr. President, this is a bill that simply, but importantly, provides funding to states and local communities so they can conduct quality criminal background checks. This bill assures parents that dangerous adults will not be employed by their child's school or child care facility. There is no doubt that most children today head off to school or are dropped off at child care and are supervised by competent, qualified, caring adults. But as our society becomes increasingly violent, parents need the assurance that when their child is under another adult's care, steps have been taken to assure that the care-giver is qualified and competent and safe to take care of their child. Mr. President, we sit in outrage when television newscasters report yet another story of a child who has been abused or molested when parents thought they had found a safe place to take their child. Nothing frightens a parent more than a report of a child who has been abused by a predator--molesters, abusers or pedophiles. We do not have to sit and wait, Mr. President. We can and must do more. We have the laws to better screen those who care for our children. Let us use them. We must protect our children and see to it that they grow up in a safe environment. No child should ever suffer these kinds of traumas. That is why Mr. President, I am cosponsoring the Crime Identification Technology Act of 1998. I believe this bill is a strong step to accomplish the type of protection that is needed. We have a right to expect that those people to whom we entrust the care of our children are decent, upright, trustworthy individuals. Parents have a right to know that anyone who comes in contact with their children in an unsupervised environment has been appropriately screened. We have a right to know that anyone with a criminal history of child abuse, molestation and sexual crimes against children will be prevented from being in a position where they have access to our children. In this highly mobile society we live in, we know that abusers move easily across state boundaries seeking jobs in places where they think their past will not catch up to them. If schools or child care providers only check in-state applicants for state criminal convictions--and do not require a fingerprint check which can be scanned against a national clearinghouse of convicted criminals--they have not adequately screened applicants before hiring them to oversee our children. In fact, Mr. President, a case that prompted the passage of laws requiring national criminal background checks in my home State of Washington, involved the arrest of a social worker who possessed hundreds of photos and videotapes of young boys engaged in sexual activities. He was charged on 40 counts of possession of child pornography. The investigation began after one of the adolescents under his supervision accused him of sexual abuse. When the social worker was hired, a background check of this man was ``clean'' and reported ``no past problems.'' However, he was previously employed by a state agency far away, across state lines in Texas. Although the Washington state agency checked his references in Texas, they did not check to see if he had a criminal history in any other state. The background check did not extend beyond the borders of Washington state. State officials at the time admitted they had no routine way of determining whether any state worker had ever run afoul of the law outside Washington's borders. As a result of this incident, the Washington State Legislature closed this loophole by passing laws requiring national criminal background checks on workers and volunteers who deal with vulnerable populations such as children, the elderly and disabled. More recently, at a Washington, D.C. day care center, a substitute security guard was filling in for the regular guard, who was sick that day. That afternoon, the substitute guard was arrested on the premises--allegedly an accessory to murder a few months earlier. In this case, the security firm failed to screen the worker adequately. He was a resident of Maryland and the firm only checked state records which revealed no criminal record. However, the substitute guard had a long rap sheet in Washington D.C., which the security firm did not check. The failure of this security firm to conduct a background check of the neighboring state's jurisdiction put 70 children at tremendous risk. It is imperative that we stop interstate movement and let abusers know that their backgrounds will be checked, their applications will be screened and national and state fingerprint checks will be conducted where appropriate. In addition, it is essential that we provide funds to the states so they can update their criminal history records and provide timely information when it is requested. Unfortunately, Mr. President, we live in a time that requires us to protect our children by screening and checking the backgrounds of volunteers and other people who have access to our children. Statistics reveal that 46 percent of child molesters are non-family members who are known to their victims. These are ``trusted'' adults, such as teachers, scoutmasters, coaches, clergy, counselors and neighbors. As parents, we must be concerned about the people who have access to our children. The bottom line is that strict screening mechanisms and criminal background checks are vital to the safety of our children. Mr. President, I am cosponsoring this bill because it provides grants to the States for programs for fingerprint-supported background checks for non-criminal justice purposes. These purposes include screening youth service employees, volunteers, and other individuals in positions of trust--if authorized by federal or state law and administered by a government agency. This bill also promotes enhanced communication nationwide between local, state, and national computer systems for domestic violence and sexual offender identification and registration systems. The Crime Identification Technology Act of 1998 is also important because it provides necessary funding to the States so they can upgrade their criminal history record systems and improve criminal identification of sexual offenders. Mr. President, this bill is an effective way to stop pedophiles from stalking our children under the guise of employment or volunteer activity. It will also help States protect their children by letting sexual predators know that background checks and screening mechanisms will be conducted wherever they move. It is imperative that would-be employees not be able to avoid detection during background checks by failing to report their criminal past. The Raleigh News and Observer reported on January 8, 1997 that Terry Dondrell Howie pled guilty to being an accessory to a murder, at the same time he worked taking care of toddlers at a local day care center. Howie was fired from his job at the day care center, three days after he was sentenced to five years in prison for his role in a deadly car- jacking. Although a state law that requires annual background checks would have eventually caught his felony charges, day care employees facing felony charges can escape detection for months. There is no requirement that a lengthy background check be completed before a hiring because of the high turnover on day care center staffs. This can be a fatal practice that must be changed. Take the tragic case of 18-year-old Michelle Montoya, who--in 1997, as a senior in Rio Linda High School--was brutally raped and killed in the school's wood shop by a substitute janitor with a felonious past. The janitor was put on-the-job before fingerprint tests were completed. He had served time for voluntary manslaughter and just prior to the murder of Michelle, he had been paroled. Although California has since passed legislation prohibiting school districts from hiring employees before background checks are complete, the same is not true in every state. As parents we expect our schools and day care centers to protect or children. We must provide the funding and the attention necessary to correct this problem so that other families do not suffer the same kind of horrible tragedy and loss as the Montoya family. Mr. President, we cannot take any chances when it comes to protecting our children. We must do everything we can to ensure their safety and protection which is why I urge my colleagues to join me in support of this bill. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, I rise today in opposition to S. 2271, the bill before the Senate this evening. I do so knowing that I have the support of the vast majority of Washington State voters who, 3 years ago, soundly defeated a radical and dangerous referendum that is very similar to the bill that is before us today. In 1995, the people of Washington State overwhelmingly rejected a referendum that would have put developers and resource exploiters ahead of the rest of us. They defeated this proposal because they knew it really only amounted to one thing: a massive tax increase on regular people. Developers and their supporters would have us pay for the right to a high quality of life and strong communities, whereas today we enjoy these things as a result of basic zoning laws and environmental standards. While the measure before us differs somewhat from Referendum 48, its underlying motive does not. Developers somehow believe that they are being denied their property rights by having to work through local and State land use laws. And, to be fair, there have been some isolated cases in which a maze of laws has thwarted reasonable environmentally sensitive projects. I personally will continue to urge local and State governments to streamline their processes to fix these occasional problems. But, basically, the system works. It is simply not broken, and this bill is not necessary. Mr. President, the most objectionable provision in this bill is that it allows developers to short-circuit local administrative, zoning, and other land use procedures. This promises to send increased litigation against already strapped local and State governments. This means more taxes, both to fund the court battles and, if local governments lose, to pay off developers to protect our quality of life. In addition, simply the threat of a Federal court may drive a town to acquiesce to a developer's demands, because they cannot afford to go to court and fight to protect their local land use decisions. Frankly, I am surprised at the support this bill has gotten from those who traditionally would defer to local government making decisions on how best to use land and instead give that decision making authority to Federal courts. This seems like quite a reversal. Frankly, it seems particularly odd, given the Senate's backlog in filling Federal court vacancies. While we have moved two of our Washington State candidates--Margaret McKeown and Ed Shea--both Senator Gorton and I are pushing very hard to get another circuit court nominee, Ron Gould, and a district court nominee, Bob Lasnik, heard and confirmed. Another district court judge is set to retire in the near future, creating another vacancy. I have to ask, Why is the Senate increasing Federal caseloads with this bill while simultaneously not filling empty seats? That issue aside, this bill is not what this country needs. We do not need to undermine our Nation's laws that protect public health, safety, and the environment. There are usually very good reasons why development is prohibited in certain areas. It could be safety; the area could be prone to flooding or to landslides. It could be protection of water quality. It might be protection of threatened endangered species or ecosystems. And, in those cases where a local, State, or Federal entity does unreasonably and actually take a private person's property for a public good, we have a well-established legal system to provide compensation. And that system is working. Let me close by reminding everyone that the Conference of Mayors, the National Association of Counties, and the National Conference of State Legislators oppose this legislation. In addition, every conservation group I am aware of opposes this. This is simply not good public policy. I am committed to keeping the Pacific Northwest beautiful. I am committed to ensuring my constituents have the power to enact reasonable zoning ordinances to protect their water and environmental resources. I do not believe their taxes should be used to pay off developers. I pledge to my constituents to work to ensure that the reasons we are all so proud to call Washington home remain intact. This bill would limit our ability to protect the things we hold precious, and I will vigorously oppose it, and I urge my colleagues to do the same. I reserve the remainder of our time.

Mrs. MURRAY. I ask unanimous consent a fellow from my office, Micki Aronson, be granted the privilege of the floor.

Mrs. MURRAY. I suggest the absence of a quorum and I ask unanimous consent that it be divided equally between both sides.

Mrs. MURRAY. I yield 10 minutes to the Senator from Rhode Island.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, it is imperative that we preserve Pakistan as an export market for our wheat. Washington State wheat growers need this bill. Our wheat prices right now are beneath the cost of production. Our growers and the rural communities they support are, frankly, losing the shirts off their backs. There are now 3,500 wheat farms in eastern Washington; that is 3,500 wheat families. These families are the backbone of our rural economy. In Douglas, Lincoln, and Adams Counties, in Ritzville and Garfield, our growers need export markets like Pakistan so they can keep going. Every day we are losing family farms, and it is imperative that we do something about it. This bill doesn't just affect farmers, it affects our truckers, it affects our ports, it affects our barge operators, and all of their families as well. Given the evolving market forces in south Asia, it is really critical that we pass this bill today to give wheat growers in Washington State, the Northwest, and the Nation the chance to compete with other suppliers who are just waiting to take our customers. No one condones the actions of either Pakistan or India earlier this year. The proliferation of nuclear weapons must not be allowed. The Arms Export Control Act of 1994, passed overwhelmingly by Congress, and requires that sanctions be imposed on these nations. But the original act excluded food and humanitarian assistance. Unfortunately, the export credit guarantee programs of USDA essential to sale of food to poorer nations like Pakistan were not excluded. Last month, during committee consideration of the Agriculture appropriations bill, I passed an amendment to explicitly exclude these export credit guarantees, most notably the GSM-102 program, from the sanctions. Unfortunately, because of recent developments here on the floor, this amendment on agriculture will not be enacted into law soon enough to prevent the loss of this important export market. Pakistan recently announced that they will tender for 350,000 metric tons of white wheat on July 15 for an August shipment. Without access to the GSM-102 credit guarantees, United States wheat producers will not sell a single kernel of wheat to Pakistan. In recent years, Washington state wheat producers, in fact, Pacific Northwest growers, have sold more than one-third of their wheat to Pakistan. Washington state and other Pacific Northwest states produce almost exclusively white wheat, making Pakistan out number one export market. Washington wheat needs this export market. This is a $300 million market for Washington wheat. If we do not enact this legislation by July 15, we will lose not only the ability to bid on this tender, but potentially the entire Pakistan market, as other nations step in to fill the void. That is why we are bringing this amendment as a stand-alone piece of legislation this afternoon. If we do not pass this bill and preserve this important wheat market, the United States reputation as a reliable supplier of high quality wheat will be weakened and our competitive advantage in the global marketplace undermined. That is why this Congress must act now. Mr. President, I have a number of items that I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record: A letter from Sandy Berger, Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs, in support of my amendment; remarks of the President in a radio statement on wheat exports in support of the legislation; a statement by the Secretary of Agriculture, Dan Glickman, in support of the legislation; a letter from the National Association of Wheat Growers in support of this legislation; and a letter from the National Association of State Departments of Agriculture in support of this legislation.

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, agriculture is in crisis. The bottom has fallen out of the agriculture economy. Many of our growers are on the verge of bankruptcy. In fact, many have already gone over the edge. We are losing family farms and we are losing the rural way of life. Many in this chamber argue that trade is the answer. Trade is important, critically important. Pacific Northwest agriculture depends upon vigorous trade promotion. I am a strong proponent of trade. But trade is not enough. The 1996 farm bill took away the safety net for our growers. The old farm bill needed to be changed. And Freedom to Farm made some important changes. But it went too far and now growers are suffering. While a market-based approach creates freedoms and opportunities in a competitive global market, some semblance of a safety net is necessary to ensure our growers survive the ups and downs of a volatile market. Congress needs to take action to protect agriculture and preserve rural communities before it is too late. And this bill is an important step. Maintaining our export markets is essential to our long-term success. I urge the Senate to approve this legislation. I retain the balance of our time.

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I am very pleased today to join my colleagues, Senator Biden, Senator Roberts, and numerous other sponsors of this amendment, in moving forward this important piece of legislation today. I ask unanimous consent Senator Kerrey be added as a cosponsor as well.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I rise today to express my strong support for S. 1882, the Higher Education Reauthorization bill. This bill is a major victory for students and teachers across America. As a member of the Committee, I have had the opportunity to hear from countless witnesses from across the nation who have testified on everything from default rates to job hunting, campus crime to child care. With a daughter entering college this fall, this issue has provided me with some very interesting insights into the higher ed challenges, millions face each year. Throughout the Labor Committee's effort on this bill, I worked to strengthen our nation's commitment to providing the strongest training possible for school teachers. I am most pleased with the bill's focus on teacher training and in particular its emphasis on technology training. A year ago, I introduced the Teacher Technology Training Act to add technology to the areas of professional development and teacher training included in current law. S. 1882 now contains my legislation, and I thank Chairman Jeffords, Senator Kennedy and Senator Warner for their cooperation and support in adding this critical piece to the bill. The work of the committee on the teacher education provisions is really quite historic and a drastic overhaul of the previous teacher training section. The bill provides Teacher Quality Enhancement Grants that will institute state-level reforms to ensure both current and future teachers possess the skills and academic knowledge to teach children effectively in their assigned area. As a member of the Labor Appropriations subcommittee, I will fight to ensure that this section is finally funded at a level that does make a difference in the classroom. This teacher quality section particularly highlights training in the effective use of technology in the classroom. All of us have witnessed the tremendous impact that technology now plays in our daily world. It affects the way we communicate, the way we conduct commerce, and the way our children learn in school. Young people today are in the midst of a technology explosion that has opened up limitless possibilities in the classroom. In order for students to tap into this potential and be prepared for the 21st century, they must learn how to use new technologies. But all too often, teachers are expected to incorporate technology into their instruction without being given the training to do so. Many students in our public schools have told me they know more than their teachers about how to use computers. We can not continue to rely on students to teach teachers in the rapidly expanding area of technology. I have toured several teaching schools and found them well supplied with up-to-date equipment. However, student teachers are often not provided adequate instruction in the use of that technology beyond simple communication purposes. It is not enough for a teacher to be able to email or use computers merely for administrative reasons, they must be able to use this education technology to advance their curriculum and provide their students resources along the information highway. Last year, just 10 percent of new teachers reported that they felt prepared to use technology in their classrooms, while only 13 percent of all public schools reported that technology-related training for teachers was required by the school, district, or teacher certification agencies. Currently only 18 states require pre-service technology training. This act will significantly turn these numbers around and provide our teachers with the training so critical to harnessing new technologies. I again thank Chairman Jeffords and Senator Kennedy for their leadership on this effort. This technology training for teachers has been supported by a wide array of interests including the National Education Association, PTA, Society for Technology in Education, National Association of Secondary School Principals, National School Boards Association, Information Technology Association of America, Washington State School Directors, the Software and Digital Alliance, the Colleges of Teacher Education. I also would like to thank Senator Wellstone for his work on the TANF amendment, so important for literacy instruction and lifelong learning. With increased Pell Grants and decreased interest rates on loans, students can begin to think about their future rather than paying for their past. I believe this first generation of the new millennium will benefit immensely from the efforts put forth over this past year. From simplifying the financial aid process to campus security improvements to technology instruction, S. 1882 will stand as a proud trademark of this Congress.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, let me simply say the chairman states correctly that the transportation bill did go through in a hurry right before a recess, and we are now looking at technical corrections to that bill. That bill is at the desk, and we should have an opportunity to take a look at it, offer amendments, and vote it up or down. Being as it is included within the IRS conference report, we don't have the ability to do that. I think many Members would very much like the opportunity to speak out on this issue. As we went home for the Fourth of July recess, many people heard from veterans in their States who are outraged this was included in the transportation bill. They would like the opportunity to make their voices heard on that. If we are able to override the ruling of the Chair, we will have the opportunity to do that. That is simply what we are asking for today. It will not hold up the IRS reform bill. We can simply move that next week. It will allow Members to make their statements known and their views known on a very critical issue to many veterans in our country. Mr. DOMENICI addressed the Chair.

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, the Legion again urges all U.S. Senators to reject this language targeting veterans. I implore all Senators to review this letter before casting a vote today on this issue. I am here to urge my colleagues to join me and others to free America's veterans from the IRS reform legislation. Free the cuts in Veterans Affairs to a genuine and a very public debate. We are going to have a vote on this issue today. Regardless of whether it is procedural or a straight-up vote, one thing is very clear--it will be a veterans vote. I ask my colleagues to vote with me and with America's veterans. point of order Therefore, Mr. President, I make a point of order that title IX of the conference report is outside the scope of the conference, pursuant to paragraph 2 of rule XXVIII of the Standing Rules of the Senate, which states: Conferees shall not insert in their report matter not committed to them by either House. . . . If new matter is inserted in the report . . . a point of order may be made against the report, and if the point of order is sustained, the report is rejected. . . .

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I appeal the ruling of the Chair. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mrs. MURRAY. I know the Senator from Rhode Island wants to move to a vote on this. Let me just conclude by saying that veterans know this issue very clearly. They know that the language we have included in the IRS reform validates the cuts to their ability to get health care, if they were smoking when they were young and they now have disabilities due to that. They are very clear on this vote. They are very clear in what they are saying to us. They were very clear to me over the last month. This bill, if we vote on it this way, will cut the health care benefits of many of our service people who started smoking when they were young. I think that the veterans are going to be watching this issue closely. I hope that my colleagues will support me on this so that we can move to separately deal with the technical corrections bill in a way that does not undermine the health care benefits of the many veterans across this country who served our country well.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I am so pleased we are finally acting to send this bill to the President. This important legislation has been delayed long enough. It has been over a year since the Kerrey/Portman IRS Reform Commission reported their findings to Congress and the American people. The Commission's report was extremely clear. The IRS had become a monster agency feared by law abiding citizens. It acted with total disregard for the rights of American taxpayers and ruled not through law or practice, but fear and fear alone. I urge swift Senate action on the conference report to accompany H.R. 2676, the IRS Restructuring and Reform Act. The American people cannot afford any further delay or political grandstanding. The House passed their bill on November 5, 1997 and we passed a reform bill on May 7, 1998. We should have been acting on a final conference report months ago. Unfortunately, despite the extensive analysis contained in the Kerrey/Portman Commission's report, some in Congress chose to engage in partisan politics using IRS abuses as a mechanism for talking about the evils of ``big government.'' The American taxpayer deserved better. The problems at the IRS are not about ``big government'' but rather an agency with a conflicting mission and little guidance from Congress. In each Congress, new and in some cases sweeping changes in the tax code are enacted into law. The IRS must then swiftly implement these complex and difficult changes in the tax code. Excessive contracting restrictions and little managerial oversight results in an actions that border on the extreme. I am pleased to have supported historic taxpayer Bill of Rights provisions in the 1993 deficit reduction plan. But, it became obvious from the Kerrey/Portman Commission report that additional taxpayer protection reforms were necessary. We could no longer allow the agency to rule by fear. American taxpayers should not fear challenging any decision made by the IRS. This should be the right of every American to challenge any decision by any federal agency. If an individual feels that the Social Security Administration erred in denying benefits, this individual can challenge this decision without fear of retaliation. No one should ever fear challenging the decision of any federal agency. But, sadly this had become the case with the IRS. Many taxpayers simply were convinced that they had no choice but to submit and pay the often times excessive penalties and interest demanded by the agency. There simply was no assumption of innocence. Taxpayers need this bill. This is not about those who do not honor their financial responsibilities. It is about protecting those that voluntarily pay their fair share. It is also about providing guidance to the agency responsible for implementing the laws that we pass. It is about leveling the playing field to ensure that taxpayers have the same rights and protections when dealing with the IRS. The conference report adopts many of the provisions included in S. 1096, the original Kerrey/Grassley IRS reform bill which I cosponsored shortly after it was introduced. These provisions are essential if we truly hope to reform the IRS. The legislation will shift the burden of proof in many of the cases in U.S. Tax Court from the taxpayer to the IRS. Under current law, it is the responsibility of the taxpayer to disprove any charges brought by the IRS. This is counter to criminal law and makes it difficult for a taxpayer to disprove charges brought by an agency without almost unlimited resources. The legislation also mitigates interest charges and penalties for some tax cases. No longer with the interest charges and penalties significantly amount to more than that total taxes owned the IRS. The conference report also includes new restrictions on the ability of the IRS to seize property. Too many times overzealous actions by the IRS resulted in the seizure of a business or the home devastating working families and leaving no means to repay taxes owed. What is even more outrageous is I have heard of cases where decisions to seize property were later overturned. The seizure of one's economic security cannot be part of a normal enforcement strategy for the IRS. It must be an extreme and final solution, not simply a compliance mechanism. I am also pleased that the final agreement maintains an independent board to oversee actions within the agency. I have heard from many IRS employees about internal problems that create major obstacles to reform. An independent board drawing from the private and public sectors will provide some real strategic planning assistance for the Commissioner. It also ensures effective citizen oversight. The IRS needs to put the idea of service back into the Internal Revenue Service. Its mission must be to serve the public and provide a cooperative environment for those voluntarily complying with their financial obligation. The legislation will make a difference. No longer will a convicted criminal have more rights and protections than an honest taxpayer challenging the IRS. We should have acted many months ago. Every day the Republicans delayed this bill in the Senate resulted in more taxpayer abuses. More fear and more abuse. Today's actions will make sure this all stops. Currently, honest taxpayers and business pay an average of $1,600 per person for those who do not meet their financial obligations. An estimated $120 billion a year goes uncollected by the IRS. We should be doing more to encourage more Americans to come forward and meet their obligations. But, so many taxpayers have simply given up. There is wide-spread belief that you cannot find fairness or respect at the IRS. We need to give the IRS the tools and the guidance to bring respect back to the IRS. If we want American taxpayers to respect their government we must ensure that they are treated with respect and dignity. The legislation we are not considering meets this test. I urge my colleagues to join with me in supporting effective and comprehensive IRS reform and restructuring.