Patty Murray

Mrs. MURRAY

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, let me begin my remarks today by reiterating my strong support for the underlying bill that is before us to reform the Internal Revenue Service. This is a good bill and it is really long overdue. I want to join my numerous colleagues who have complimented Senator Roth and Senator Moynihan and others who have worked very hard and long on this legislation. I have listened to my colleagues all day talk about the benefits of that bill, and I add my comments to that in support of that as well. Despite my strong support for this underlying bill, I am deeply concerned about title IX of this conference report, because hidden deep within this bill in title IX is language to take some $17 billion from America's veterans. Several of my colleagues have been addressing this issue today, and I associate myself with the remarks of Senator Rockefeller, Senator Wellstone, and Senator Durbin. I know Senator Wellstone has taken quite a bit of time to outline what is in this bill, and I thank him for his words, his comments, and his support. Title IX is the technical corrections language for the transportation legislation. Hidden within that is a provision that takes away disability benefits from veterans whose illness resulted from smoking. Many of these veterans, as my colleagues know, were encouraged to smoke during wartime service with free cigarettes that were provided by our armed services. I am outraged by this language, and I am sure that many of my colleagues in the Senate are as well. I know Senator Chafee, who is the distinguished chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee, has spoken to this issue. I have immense respect for Senator Chafee and for his leadership in crafting the very important TEA 21 legislation, the transportation bill that passed. Transportation is a critical and important issue. However, let me be very clear. I continue to oppose the veterans offset used to fund the increases in transportation. The chairman argued that this is not a controversial matter, that the Senate has already spoken. With all due respect, I disagree. If this issue is so noncontroversial, why are we debating it within the IRS reform bill? This legislation has nothing to do with the veterans bill. If this issue is truly noncontroversial, then let's have a stand-alone debate on the issue of cutting $17 billion in veterans' benefits. The technical corrections bill is at the desk. We could have a time agreement on that. It could pass very quickly. It does not need to be included in the IRS reform legislation. It has nothing to do with the IRS reform legislation. I ask, and I believe all of my colleagues should ask the question, Why on Earth is the IRS reform legislation used to take money from our American veterans? It is a very legitimate question. The original Senate version of the IRS reform did, of course, not target veterans, and neither did the House bill, the IRS reform bill. Somehow the conference committee agreed to add the technical corrections for the highway legislation to this bill on IRS reform. I am assuming that this action was taken at the direction of leadership, since I know that the Finance Committee does not have jurisdiction over the veterans funding issue. The IRS bill is viewed as politically popular and a cinch to pass. That, I would guess, is why the veterans cuts were added to this bill. The proponents of this veterans grab want to avoid accountability. That is wrong, and that is why I am opposed to title IX of the underlying bill being included in this bill. The proponents figured that we would just roll over and accept these wrongful cuts because everyone wants to reform the IRS. 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 these disastrous cuts to veterans health. On the Senate floor, I voted against the budget one final time in opposition to these cuts to veterans. During consideration of the budget, I was pleased to join with Senator Rockefeller and others to fight against these cuts. I voted against the Craig-Domenici amendment to validate the $10 billion cut in veterans funding. Sadly, the Senate budget resolution paved the way for the transportation bill to use the veterans savings to offset the increased transportation funding. I want to be sure that my colleagues are aware that the technical corrections language punishing veterans that is included in this IRS bill is opposed by virtually every veterans service organization. Many of them have written and contacted me in opposition to the cuts, including the American Legion, the Veterans of Foreign Wars, the Paralyzed Veterans of America, the Vietnam Veterans of America, and the Disabled American Veterans. Senators need to know that 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. This issue is not going to go away. America's veterans and many in Congress will continue to fight this battle. We simply must revisit this issue and do the right thing for America's veterans, and the time is now. The best way to do that is to remove the language from this nonrelated IRS reform bill and vote on the issue separately. I ask unanimous consent now to have printed in the Record a letter from the American Legion that I recently received.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. I do not believe there is anybody speaking in opposition to this amendment.

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I yield to the Senator from Maine such time as she desires.

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I rise to speak in favor of amendment No. 2794, the amendment we will be voting on. I understand I have 2 minutes and the opposing side will have 2 minutes; is that correct?

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I rise to discuss my amendment to the Department of Defense authorization legislation regarding burial honors for deceased veterans. I ask that my full statement be made part of the Record. Earlier this year, along with Senator Murkowski and Senator Sarbanes, I introduced the Veterans Burial Rights Act of 1998. Our bill requires the Department of Defense to provide honor guard services upon request at the funerals of our veterans. Importantly, my bill was crafted with the direct participation of numerous veterans service organizations and has been endorsed by the Former Prisoner of War, the Paralyzed Veterans of America, AMVETS and the American Legion. I got involved in this issue several years ago for a very simple reason. Sadly, all across this country, veterans are being buried without full military honors--honors earned through service to us all. We asked these soldiers, sailors, and airmen to travel to distant shores to risk the ultimate sacrifice. It seems only fair to ask the DOD to travel to a nearby community to remember and honor the sacrifices of our veterans. I believe we have a moral responsibility to tell each and every veteran at his or her funeral that we remember and we honor their service to our country. That message is so important to families who have sacrificed so much for our country. I can speak personally to the importance of the Veterans Burial Rights. Act. I lost my own father last year, a World War II veteran and proud member of the Disabled American Veterans. My family was lucky, we were able to arrange for burial honors at his service. Having the honor guard there for my family made a big difference and created a lasting impression for my family. We were all--and particularly my mother-- filled with pride at a very difficult moment for our family as Dad's service was recognized one final time. The Veterans Burial Rights Act seeks to ensure we make the same burial honors available to veterans and families who specifically request the honors at a funeral service. Unfortunately, the Department of Defense has opposed the Veterans Burial Rights Act. The DOD has bombarded Capitol Hill with doomsday proclamations about my bill. The DOD's stance has been particularly offensive to the veterans of our country. Not only did the DOD oppose a greater DOD role in providing burial honors for veterans, but they even went so far as to suggest the Department of Veterans Affairs should pay for honors taking additional dollars from health care, rehabilitative services and other veterans programs. The DOD recently wrote to the Armed Services Committee claiming that a four-person burial honors detail ``would have required 12,345 man- years of effort at a cost of $547 million to support the 537,000 veterans' funerals held in 1997.'' The last part is a direct quote. According to the DOD, funeral support in 1997 would have required 12,345 man-years and $547 million for 537,000 funerals. I must say, that's impressive accounting for an agency that can't figure out the going rate for hammers and toilet seats. The DOD has chosen to fight my attempts to increase funeral support to veterans with funhouse mirrors. The DOD's arguments are based on providing funeral support to every veteran who dies. That's absurd. Veterans know this is not possible, logistics and cost will always be a factor. And most veterans' families will not request the services. The vast majority of veterans' families do not seek burial honors today. We are simply trying to provide burial honors for veterans whose families request the honors. The House of Representatives included a version of the Veterans Burial Rights Act in their version of the DOD authorization. The DOD issued an appeal to the House urging the ``exclusion'' of this language threatening that funeral support would have negative impact on personnel and operational readiness. And I should point out again that the DOD is choosing to interpret our legislative proposals and interest in this issue in the most negative manner. From the very beginning, we have sought to leave the DOD with the flexibility to write the directives on funeral support. No one wants to undermine the basic mission of the department. And particularly our veterans who continue to hold the various services in high esteem. But we do believe that the Department and individual services can and should do more on burial honors. We believe all of our assets--from the veterans service organizations to active and reserve components to ROTC cadets all across the country--can be utilized in a comprehensive and cooperative effort to provide burial honors for veterans and families seeking a final, deserved tribute.

Mrs. MURRAY. I understood I had 10 minutes to speak on my amendment.

Mrs. MURRAY. I need an additional 5 minutes. It is my understanding I had 10. If I can have 5 minutes and Senator Sarbanes 2 minutes.

Mrs. MURRAY. Thank you, Mr. President. Mr. President, from the very beginning, we have sought to leave the DOD with the flexibility to write the directives on funeral support. No one wants to undermine the basic mission of this Department, especially our various veterans service organizations. They hold the Department of Defense and their service in high esteem. Already, veterans across the country are seeking to fill the void left by the DOD's inability to provide burial honors for veterans. Veterans service organizations want to be involved in the funerals of their fellow veterans. And we want them to continue to be involved. But the DOD overlooks this important asset. We are simply saying that VSO's and particularly older veterans cannot meet the demand alone. The DOD wants to study the issue. We know that more than 30,000 World War II vets are dying each month and the veterans death rate is increasingly rapidly. We need to act in the short term or America's heroic World War II veterans will be gone before the DOD decides to act. That's why my amendment gives the DOD 180 days to come up with new directives and legislative recommendations for the Congress. Every day we wait, a bit of our history passes away without recognition and gratitude. My amendment is very straightforward. It simply calls the DOD's bluff on burial honors for veterans. The DOD will be directed to hold a conference on burial honors by October 31, 1998 in cooperation with the Department of Veterans Affairs and veterans service organizations. Following the enactment of this legislation, the DOD will have 180 days to report back to the Congress detailing new DOD directives on funeral support and burial honors policy and forward to Congress any appropriate legislative recommendations. This is essentially what the DOD has pledged to the Congress in opposing more expansive legislation on funeral support. My amendment seeks to hold the DOD accountable to its pledges to the Congress and our veterans. This is a real opportunity to make progress on this issue and I encourage the DOD to make the most of this opportunity. Otherwise, I can assure the Department that we will be back with more definitive language defining what the Congress believes are appropriate burial honors. Many of our services have taken a positive role, and I especially commend the Commandant of the Marine Corps who issued a white paper on funeral support. General Krulak, to his credit, says we can and we will honor current and former marines. I ask unanimous consent that his white letter be printed in the Record.

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, he says: Properly laying a fallen Marine to rest is one of the final tributes that the Marine Corps can render to our own. This service provides comfort to grieving families and demonstrates our wholehearted and enduring commitment to those who have earned the title Marine. Unfortunately, I continue to receive letters and E-mails from family members, disappointed that the Marine Corps failed to support them during their hours of need. I am appalled, dismayed and outraged that I continue to receive these letters. Failing to provide funeral support to a Marine, for whatever reason, is completely contradictory to our ethos and diminishes the value of our fallen comrades' service. General Krulak goes on to say: I want my intent and guidance to ring loud and clear concerning funeral support to families of Marines and former Marines--it is our duty and we would have it not other way! Anything less is unacceptable. These are very powerful words and I commend General Krulak and the Marine Corps for making this a priority issue. General Krulak has taken our objective from the very beginning of this effort and turned it into Marine practice each and every day. Is it really too much to ask of our country that we do a better job remembering those who answered the call to duty, risked the ultimate sacrifice, and paved the way to the peace and prosperity we all enjoy today? Until very recently, I doubted the DOD's sincerity in this effort. We do have a long way to go on this issue, I do think it is important to acknowledge that progress has been made in recent months on this issue. Of course, the Marines are taking a leadership role. But it should also be noted that Army and Air Force are taking positive steps on the burial honors issue. This progress is the direct result of pressure from the Congress, from our veterans, and from the families of veterans who fought for burial honors. My amendment is an opportunity to build upon this progress. It's a step forward but I remind my colleagues that we cannot address this issue in steps alone. We need to move quickly, and that's what we are asking the Department of Defense to do. I ask the Senate to accept this straightforward amendment. By adopting this amendment and holding the Department of Defense accountable, the Congress will send a powerful message to veterans that their service to us all will never be forgotten. Mr. President, I know that this amendment has been accepted by both sides. I thank all of my colleagues for working with us. We are directing the Department of Defense to return definitively, quickly to us with a response to this before it is too late. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to add Senator Mikulski as a cosponsor.

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of the Murray-Snowe amendment. This is a very simple amendment that restores the right of our women and family members who serve overseas in the military to have access to health care services to which they ought to have access. Current law in the DOD bill says that a woman who would like to have health care services relating to an abortion would have to ask for permission from her commanding officer to have the military pay for her transport home to the United States in order to get health care services. This amendment simply allows that woman to pay for--out of her own pocket, not at our expense--that service in a military hospital where she is serving overseas. Mr. President, this amendment is a safety issue for our women and families of personnel who serve overseas. During the course of the debate, I talked about a letter written to me by a woman who was serving in Japan who had to go to a hospital in Japan where they did not speak English. She did not know what kind of medication she was receiving. Her health care was at risk. She wrote to us seriously questioning whether she would remain in the military after being treated like this. This is a service that is legal here in the United States. Women who serve in the military and families of military personnel should have equal access. We are not asking for any taxpayer expense. We are simply allowing women who serve in the military, or families of those who serve in the military, to pay for abortion-related services out of their own pocket, in a safe military hospital overseas. Mr. President, I urge adoption of this amendment, and I thank Senator Snowe for her continued help on this issue.

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 2794 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mrs. MURRAY. I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mrs. MURRAY. Before I speak on this amendment, let me again thank my colleagues for their help on the Veterans Burial Rights Act. This is an important personal issue for me, and I know it is for many families across the country who will be waiting for the DOD report. And I will be working with all of you on whether or not we receive that report in a timely manner. Mr. President, the amendment that I have just called up is again to the Department of Defense authorization bill, and it is an effort to protect the health and safety of our military personnel and dependents who are stationed overseas. Mr. President, I am here on the floor today to urge my colleagues to support the Murray-Snowe amendment which ensures that female military personnel and female dependents are not subjected to substandard care while serving our country. The Murray-Snowe amendment is very simple. It would allow female military personnel and female dependents access to abortion-related services at their own expense--at their own expense--at military hospitals or medical facilities. Our amendment guarantees that women do not surrender their rights to a safe and legal abortion because they are serving our country overseas. Our amendment also ensures that women in the military have access to the full range of reproductive health services. The current Department of Defense restrictions that deny women access to safe and legal reproductive health services is not only inhumane, it jeopardizes their lives. This is a women's health issue, plain and simple. That is probably why the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists supports this amendment. The Murray-Snowe amendment has also been endorsed by the American Medical Women's Association, the American Association of University Women, the American Public Health Association, and the Planned Parenthood Federation of America. Mr. President, I recently received a statement from an active-duty member of the Air Force stationed in Japan which summarized her experience with seeking safe and legal reproductive health services. Her supervisors were of little or no help when she notified them that she was pregnant. They offered no assistance, and they made character judgments. It was only her doctor, a military doctor, who stepped in and tried to help her. Because his hands are tied, due to DOD policy, he could only give her information on locally available abortion services. This is a woman who is serving our country, and she is told she is at the mercy of the host country. For no other procedure or life- threatening illness would we allow the Department of Defense to turn military personnel out onto the streets of their host country. But that is what we are allowing for women. This is what this particular servicewoman faced. She was given a hand-drawn map with the location of three hospitals that perform abortions. When she arrived at the hospital, none of the nursing staff spoke any English. She had no Japanese friends who could translate, and the Air Force could not provide any assistance. If she had been arrested for armed robbery, the Air Force could have been of more help to her. The doctors in the hospital had limited proficiency in English, and one could not even tell her what medication he was giving her. Obviously, there was very little concern about possible reactions to the medication. She was totally at the mercy of these doctors in the host country. Her experience was humiliating and frightening. As she stated in her letter--and I quote-- Although I serve in the military, I was given no translators, no explanations, no transportation, and no help for a legal medical procedure . . . The military expects nothing less than the best from its soldiers and I expect the best medical care in return. If this is how I will continue to be treated as a military service member by my country and its leaders, I want no part of it. Opponents of the Murray-Snowe amendment will argue that Federal tax dollars should not be used to provide abortion-related services. I am sure their arguments do not hold up under scrutiny. Our amendment simply restores previous policy--previous policy--that allowed female military personnel to pay for abortion-related services at their own expense at our military hospitals. They had to pay for this expense. The hospital or outpatient facility already has to be maintained for the safety of our troops. The cost of operating the facility is already a given. The soldier or dependent would pay for any possible added cost of providing this service. Does she pay for the electric or water bill for the facility? No, of course not. And this is where opponents argue that Federal funds are being used to provide abortion-related services. That, I would say to my colleagues, is a real stretch. What opponents do not point out is that under existing policy, if a woman feels confident enough to discuss a very private, personal matter with her commanding officer and to request a temporary leave, the military will fly her back to the States or any other location so she can receive a legal and safe abortion. They will pay to transport her halfway around the world if she sacrifices her right to privacy and subjects herself to character assaults and judgments. Instead of receiving care at a military hospital on base at her expense, the military will incur thousands of dollars in costs to transport her to safety. This may be why the DOD supports this amendment. They recognize the costs involved in the current policy as well as the threat to the health and safety of our soldiers. One has to think that maybe opponents of the Murray-Snowe amendment are really trying to just humiliate women or jeopardize their health and safety. It cannot be that they are concerned about military personnel performing abortions when they object. All branches of the military have included in their code of conduct language allowing for a conscience clause for military doctors. They cannot be forced to perform an abortion if they conscientiously object. During debate on this authorization bill, I heard many of my colleagues talk about the quality-of-life needs for our soldiers, the need to ensure that our troops receive the support that they deserve. This should be the same standard afforded women soldiers. This is a basic quality-of-life issue. Access to a full array of clinical services for women goes to the heart of quality of life. I ask my colleagues to join us in support of our service personnel who so proudly serve our country and ask only for our support and assistance. This is not about publicly financed abortions; this is about protecting the health and the safety of military personnel and their families who are stationed overseas. I retain the remainder of my time.

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

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Thank you, Mr. President. As the ranking member on military construction, I assure my colleagues that we have worked very, very carefully this year to go through the numerous requests and the needs of the military. We are extremely aware of the quality-of-life needs of our military, and they are reflected in this amendment that is before us. This amendment adds child-care centers, inadequate housing conditions, old dining facilities and lack of physical fitness centers. These are quality-of-life issues. I have traveled out and talked to men and women on the military bases. These are the issues they are asking us to address, and these are the ones that are addressed in this amendment. We worked very carefully in a bipartisan way to put these forward. I assure my colleagues we have done it in a fair manner with the needs of the quality of life of our men and women in the military in mind.

Mrs. MURRAY. I thank the Chair. I rise to join with Senator Burns in fully endorsing this amendment to the Armed Services bill. Chairman Stevens, Senator Byrd, Senator Inouye, Senator Burns and myself have cosponsored this amendment with the sole intention of providing essential quality of life programs and initiatives for our men and women in uniform. Increasingly over the last few years, military construction has been given the shorter end of the stick in terms of adequate funding. Congress has always stood by our services, and managed to increase funding where we thought an increase was necessary. Again, this year we face a similar situation, with the budget request at $1.4 billion less than what we appropriated last year. The Armed Services Committee significantly bridged this gap by authorizing an additional $500 million in much-needed military construction projects. But we would like to take it a step further and add $200 million for military construction quality of life projects. This would make the military construction budget $8.48 billion, still $700 million less than what was authorized and appropriated last year, but at least $700 million above the less than adequate budget request. The projects we have included in this $200 million request are all bonafide quality of life initiatives. We are hearing more and more often how our services are struggling with lower than average retention rates. While this shortfall is being addressed through other means, it is also important to address it through military construction. Some of the biggest complaints from our service men and women are regarding things like child care centers. Inadequate housing conditions, old dining facilities, and lack of physical fitness centers. We tried to meet these very real needs in our amendment, providing funds for 27 projects in 22 States. All of these projects are in DOD's future year defense plan, and all of these fall under the criteria of quality of life. Furthermore, the selection of the projects was made in a very bipartisan way. We did not focus on a certain political party or a certain geographical region. Instead, we went to the services and asked them what they needed but couldn't afford. Probably at the front of many of my colleagues' minds is the fiasco we had last year with the line-item veto of 37 of our military construction projects and an unfounded concern that these projects may be mere pork. Let me assure you that all of these projects were carefully selected with the threat of the line-item veto in mind. Every single one of these projects has been included in DOD's future year defense plan, and all of these are quality of life projects, meeting the very criteria that the President submitted last year in regards to the line-item veto. Fortunately, the Supreme Court has just determined that we won't have to fight that fight again, but it should be reassuring to all here of the thoughtfulness and seriousness in which we chose all of the projects on this list. Mr. President, I have to say that it concerns me when I hear criticism of the military construction bill as being ``Christmas in July,'' delivering ``pork'' projects to Members. Nothing could be further from the truth, especially for the kinds of projects we're talking about today. First of all, as I just mentioned, these projects are based on the needs of the services, not the requests of Members. Secondly, and most importantly, at the very least, we owe our men and women in uniform a quality of life that is comparable to their civilian counterparts. They should not be compelled to live in inadequate facilities, to travel off-base for child care, to pay for membership in a physical fitness center because their installation doesn't have one. These are small dollar items that will mean so much to so many people. A gesture like this can only but help in quality of life, help in overall satisfaction with the services, help in retention, and therefore help our services meet their force needs and requirements for the 21st century. This is a fair, bipartisan, and legitimate means of providing our service men and women with necessary quality of life programs. We have been fortunate to work with our colleagues on the Armed Services Committee in ensuring this is an acceptable amendment and an acceptable allocation of resources. I hope and expect this amendment can be fully embraced by the Armed Services Committee, and I encourage my colleagues to support its inclusion. Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor.

Mrs. MURRAY. I ask for 1 minute.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, it is my pleasure to join Chairman Burns in recommending for the Senate's consideration the FY 1999 military construction appropriations bill. Through a bipartisan effort, we have created what I think is a very fair and just bill that should please both DoD and my colleagues here in the Senate. As he does every year, Chairman Burns had to weigh the priorities of the Department of Defense, the requests of his colleagues, and the recommendations of the Armed Services Committee. He had to do this with an unacceptably low budget request of $7.784 billion, which was $1.4 billion less than the $9.18 billion we appropriated last year. Thanks to Chairman Sevens, that budget request was raised to an $8.48 billion allocation--which we have completely allocated in an equitable and bipartisan way. You will find that the budget request yet again tremendously short ended the Guard and Reserve--asking for only $179 million compared to the $390 million we appropriated last year. Thanks to some creative maneuvering and forward thinking, we were able to fund the Guard and Reserve this year at $446 million without disadvantaging any other portion of our bill. As Chairman Burns noted, the active components were given $2.57 billion for military construction. In an attempt to fund even more projects, Chairman Burns and I have also created a $200 million package of quality of life projects that has been added to the authorization bill. These adds are included in our bill, and the criteria used in choosing them was that the programs had to be quality of life, had to be in the future year defense plan, and had to represent a broad number of States and services. These are inherently valuable projects, and include improvements to family housing, child development centers, dining facilities, barracks renewal, and physical fitness centers. I encourage all members to support this important initiative to provide a better quality of life to our service men and women. Mr. President, this is a good bill--and it's a bill that all of the Senators here should be pleased to support. Again I'd like to thank Chairman Burns for his fair, honest, and excellent work at drafting a bi-partisan and equitable bill. I'd also like to thank and commend his appropriations staff, Sid Ashworth, as well as minority staff in past. Emily East and Dick Diamond for commitment to producing this first-rate bill. I hope my colleagues can join Chairman Burns and me in supporting this bill and voting to adopt it today. I yield the floor.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, today I send to the desk legislation to help school districts hire 100,000 well-prepared teachers to combat overcrowding in our nation's classrooms. Few issues are more important to the American family than the quality of our public schools. With challenges like illiteracy, poor work and study skills, and the threat of student violence, what we need are strategies that work to produce results for all students. Increasing the number of well-qualified teachers to reduce class size is an effort that works. The research is clear, and the research only backs up what our school communities have long known, that class size reduction improves student achievement. Unlike vouchers and tax schemes that don't provide the benefits for schools or students that they claim--class size reduction works, and it benefits all students. Public education is important to the American people, and has been since the beginning of our nation. The public school is one of the most effective self-betterment tools in the history of this country. But this bastion of democracy is threatened when public expectation changes, and the public school is not allowed to follow the public will. There was a time not long ago when people with a high school diploma or people who had not graduated from high school could still participate meaningfully in our economy. Those times have changed. Americans expect public schools to educate all students to a higher standard, and expect a high school diploma to be accurate assurance that a graduate knows and can do what it takes to succeed in higher education and in today's economy. Most teachers in most classrooms do a good job--and some are clearly gifted. But many teachers, excellent in other ways, lack the training, preparation, and know-how to teach reading in ways that reflect the best research. Many otherwise skilled teachers need help to teach today's skills with today's technology. And any teacher has a difficult time getting youngsters ready for today's world when there are more than 30 children in a classroom. So the class size reduction bill I'm introducing today puts the funds in the hands of local school districts to train teachers in effective practices, to get uncertified teachers up to certification standards, to provide mentor teachers for teachers who need it, and to improve teacher recruiting. Improving class size is an investment in our future that we know will pay dividends. This proposal is still building momentum in Congress. Twice now, this class size proposal has been voted on this year, and the last time it was one vote away from passage. The public is aware that efforts such as the Coverdell IRA proposal do not provide results even for the few students they are targeted to help. Ask any parent or student, and they'll tell you class size reduction works for all students. The President had originally talked about funding class size reduction with tobacco revenues, but class size improvement was left out of the bill that left the Commerce Committee. With or without a tobacco bill, we can pass the class size improvement initiative and keep a balanced budget. In the President's budget request, there are still more than $20 billion in mandatory and tax offsets we have not yet used. There are several ways to fund a class size initiative, keep a balanced budget, and provide in one action real results for all students. Also, as I've mentioned before, this really is an issue of priorities. Yesterday, the House Appropriations Committee took a meat cleaver to social programs, such as elimination of the summer jobs for teenagers, and winter heating assistance for elderly people in harsh winter climates. This year, thanks to the tough decisions I and others here made in 1993 and other factors, we are looking at a balanced budget. Now more than ever, the American people priorities are what matter, and they must be reflected in our funding decisions. These are their federal tax dollars we are investing, and education is a much higher priority to most Americans than the two percent of spending it currently holds. We have been sending out and continue to send funds to communities so they can hire 100,000 police officers. The communities which have hired these officers have responded with enthusiasm. Allowing school districts to hire 100,000 teachers to school districts will do the same thing--invigorate both the local school district they affect, and the state governments who can fund class size improvement on a greater scale. The American people want their national investments to be common sense solutions that work. They want to see national initiatives jump- start real improvements in their local school. They want better teachers, and smaller class sizes. They want to know that when their child goes to school next fall, they are going to get good answers to their perennial questions: ``Who's your teacher, and how many kids are in your class?''

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, the bill I sent to the desk on behalf of myself, Senator Daschle and many other Members, will add 100,000 teachers to our workforce across this country so that we can begin the process of making sure that every student has a well-qualified teacher in a class that has a number of students to whom that teacher can pay attention. Mr. President, this is a beginning step that will make a difference for average children across our country. I think it is essential we address many of the issues I have heard my colleagues talk about. Senator Feinstein spoke for a moment about violence in school. I have had teachers tell me, I have had police officers tell me there are so many kids in our classes today that they don't get individual instructions. They feel anonymous in our neighborhoods and in our classrooms. And, as a result, we are seeing some of the impacts in our schools today, and we are reading about some of the headlines that we are seeing when violence hits our schools. Reducing class size so that children have individual attention when they need it so they don't feel anonymous makes a difference in addressing those issues. I heard Senator Bingaman talk about dropout prevention. He has done an outstanding job. He has been a leader in our Nation in addressing this critical issue of class size reduction so that children get the attention they need, the help they need which will make a difference in dropout prevention. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues today to reject the bill in front of us. It does little; it promises a lot. If we really focus on the issues that parents and students and teachers know will make a difference, we can change what is happening in our country today. We have a responsibility to do that. Thank you, Mr. President. I retain the balance of my time.

Mrs. MURRAY. Just for introduction.

Mrs. MURRAY. Thank you, Mr. President. Mr. President, I am delighted that we are here today again to discuss education. It is probably the most critical issue that we have before us in this country. Parents know it. Community leaders know it. Our families across this country want all of us to address the important issues of education so that every child in America, no matter where they come from, have the opportunity to get the American dream in today's society. Unfortunately, the bill before us--the Coverdell A+ bill, will only help those people who can afford to put away $2,000 a year. Unfortunately, that will not be a lot for parents out there who are worried about their child's education, or the children in our neighborhoods who we all worry about and whether or not they will get the skills they need to go out in the job market and to succeed. Mr. President, there are ways that we can help every child in America get a good education. I have been on the floor many times to talk about the issue of class size, and how too many children are in overcrowded classrooms today and don't get the individual attention that they need in order to succeed. I have had many young people tell me that when they are in a math class with 35 students, they don't get the opportunity to ask their teacher for individual help when they don't understand. Yet, we sit on this floor and decry the fact that too many of our young children today don't get the skills they need in math and science, so they can go on and be competitive in tomorrow's world. We can make a difference if we reduce class size. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to send a bill to the desk for purposes of introduction today that will address the fact of class size.