Patty Murray

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. Thank you, Mr. President. I yield myself 5 minutes of leader time.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, today is a sad day for children across America. Big tobacco companies with unlimited lobbying budgets and Republicans in the Senate killed tobacco reform legislation. Kids lost and Joe Camel won. I am outraged at the message this sends: tobacco money is more important than children's health. Almost four weeks ago, the Senate began debating a comprehensive tobacco bill aimed at reducing underage smoking and strengthening the role of public health agencies to combat tobacco. Congress appeared unified in its intent to end the practice of tobacco companies preying on our children. But some of my colleagues in the Senate got lost along the way. Since we started debate on tobacco legislation, more than 60,000 children have taken up this deadly addiction. But, this has not been the focus of the debate on this legislation. In fact, if the American people were watching the debate on the Senate floor they would be hard pressed to determine what legislation we were actually debating. That's because the tobacco industry has spent $40 million to hijack the process and prevent Congress from acting. This is a tragic example of our political system at its worst. We had an historic opportunity to enact comprehensive tobacco legislation that would have mandated tobacco companies stop targeting our children. In one piece of legislation we could have saved five million children from suffering the ill effects of smoking or facing premature death. Those who acted to kill this legislation will have to answer these five million children, who are now facing a death sentence due to the actions of a few. To those who think the state suits are a fall back position, they need to know that these suits do not change the corporate culture of tobacco. The states litigate, and Congress legislates. This is a sad day for those of us who have worked hard to advance the tobacco settlement. Throughout debate of this legislation, I voted to strengthen the bill to protect our children and prevent the continued deadly assault of tobacco companies. As a parent, I have always been troubled by how tobacco companies target our children. When my son turned 14, he received a birthday card from a tobacco company inviting him to celebrate this milestone by purchasing cigarettes. They sent a child coupons for cigarettes as a birthday gift. This is outrageous and unacceptable. These are kind of tactics that I have been fighting to end. I will not let this set back today end my pursuit of big tobacco. I will continue to stand up to tobacco companies. I will continue to work for bipartisan, comprehensive tobacco legislation that is focused on public health. This is not the first time I have witnessed the power of the tobacco industry or the hold that tobacco money has on many of the same members of the Senate. It is these very members who have used every tactic known to delay, filibuster and load this bill down with so many unrelated items, that it is hard to remember what was in the original legislation. Every parent should be outraged. The U.S. Senate played politics with the health and safety of children in America. Today's action says that tobacco money is more important than the health and safety of our children. Where are our priorities?

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I want to thank Senator Leahy, Senator Burns and Senator Ashcroft as well as Senator Lott and Senator Daschle for their work and leadership on the issue of encryption. I am proud to be an original cosponsor of S. 2067, the E-PRIVACY Act. This is my sixth year as a member of the Senate and the sixth year I have advocated for reasonable legislation on encryption. Sadly, the Administration has not been a constructive player in this debate. It is time for the United States to acknowledge that we no longer exclusively control the pace of technology. Purchasers around the world can download software off of the Internet from any country by simply accessing a website. Foreign purchasers have turned to Russian, German, Swiss and other foreign vendors for their encryption needs. Washington state and American companies deserve the opportunity to compete free from unreasonable government restrictions. Their role in the international marketplace should be determined by their ingenuity and creativity rather than an outdated, ineffectual system of export controls. The time to act is now. I urge the Senate to consider the E- PRIVACY Act at the earliest opportunity.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. I object.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, we are engaging in one of the most important public health debates of this generation. We have a historic opportunity to enact a comprehensive, national antitobacco strategy to end the plague of death caused by smoking. As I listen to the debate here in the Senate I am discouraged by much of what I hear. This is not about taxes, or tax cuts. This is not about what the tobacco companies get or don't get in the deal. This is not about First Amendment rights or increased litigation. This is about one thing and one thing only. Will we stand up to the tobacco companies for our children? Will the U.S. Senate say enough is enough. Will we fight to prevent the deaths of five million children under age 18 who will eventually die from smoking-related disease? Or will we allow the tobacco companies to shape the debate and beat back our efforts to protect children. Today, 4.1 million children age 12 to 17 are current smokers. Isn't this enough for the tobacco industry? Are we going to sacrifice more of our children? I have listened very carefully to all sides on these issues. I have been told that a tax that is too high will bankrupt the industry. I have been lobbied by many claiming that without special deals, the tobacco companies will not agree to restrict advertising or will litigate this legislation to death. But, I have also heard from pediatricians; public health officials; former Surgeon General C. Everett Koop; and many Washington State members of the American Cancer Society, who have expressed their concerns by illustrating the human costs of the lies and deceit utilized by the tobacco companies. Tobacco kills more than 400,000 Americans every year. More people die in this country from smoking related illness than from AIDS, alcohol, car accidents, murders, suicides, drugs and fires. Twenty seven percent of Americans who die between the ages of 35 and 64 die from tobacco- related diseases. Isn't this enough? Why has it taken us so long to get to this point of the debate? 400,000 Americans die each year while we do nothing. We owe our children more. I owe the children of Washington State more. I have an obligation to push for the toughest tobacco bill possible. I can promise you that on my watch the tobacco companies get no special deal and that protecting our children is what controls the debate. It is not what can the tobacco companies live with, but is right for our children. The tobacco bill that I support will have economic sanctions that will force corporate culture changes by the industry. I will support efforts that penalize the companies if they continue to prey on our children. And I will not support anything that forgives an industry that sold a product that could potentially kill five million children alive today. I have made some difficult decisions and votes throughout this process. But, I am proud of my votes to increase economic barriers to prevent children from purchasing cigarettes. I know the tobacco companies hate these kind of barriers. As we discovered in an internal Philip Morris document from 1981, ``In any event, and for whatever reason, it is clear that price has a pronounced effect on the smoking prevalence of teenagers.'' There is no dispute on the sensitiveness of children to price increases. Both public health advocates and the tobacco companies agree. The public health community supports these barriers and the tobacco industry fears them. But some in the U.S. Senate disagree that price matters. I stood up and said no you will not addict 3,000 children a day with cheap cigarettes. Some of us argue on the floor that without special immunity protection or predictability, the tobacco companies will never accept tough advertising restrictions or consent to FDA regulation. To this I would respond simply by saying if we make the look-back surcharges so tough that without major cultural changes companies will see profits evaporate, we will get our advertising restrictions. If we show that these advertising strategies are aimed at our children we will get these restrictions. We do not need to give special deals that allow tobacco companies to walk away from their responsibilities. The tobacco companies have lied to Congress and the American people now they want to negotiate in good faith. In the 1980's, there was legislation in the House of Representatives regarding safe cigarettes. There is technology that would allow tobacco companies to manufacture a cigarette that was almost fire safe. The Safe Cigarette Act, introduced by Representative Moakley was fought at every level by the industry. They claimed that it was not cost effective to make a cigarette that would prevent the tragic death of children in fires caused by a carelessly discarded cigarette. Saving children from a horrific death from fire was not enough of an incentive for the manufacturers to sacrifice some of their billions of dollars in profits. Instead they sacrificed children. Now the industry wants immunity. We are supposed to give them caps on their liability and responsibility in exchange they will become responsible corporate citizens. This claim simply has no merit. They do not deserve any special deals. Will the tobacco companies challenge these provisions in court? It is hard to imagine an industry that has patented their own brand of litigation and used legal maneuvers to hide their deceit and lies, walking away from another opportunity to challenge restrictions in court. If this industry wants to tie this up in court for years to come, I would say we need to make the look-back surcharges so tough that their own stock holders will not allow this kind of irresponsible behavior. I caution the tobacco industry--if you want to spend the next few years litigating instead of cleaning up your practices you may very well become extinct in the next Century. What would the world be like without the plague of tobacco? Maybe this is what the industry should ask the American people? I urge my Colleagues to think long and hard about this debate. We will never get another chance like this one to really make the world a safer and healthier place for our children. Let's side with our children today instead of the tobacco companies.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, when I came to the Senate in 1993, violence against women had reached a crisis point. The epidemic had spread through every community, across every ethnic group, and did not discriminate based on income, or age. In 1994, Congress responded to this crisis. The enactment of the Violence Against Women Act in 1994 established a national strategy for dealing with this crisis. No longer would this kind of violence be tolerated. Congress made violence against women a federal crime and threw the weight of the federal government behind efforts to end this violence. Senator Biden was instrumental in drafting the original VAWA. I am grateful for his efforts in the past and have always appreciated his work on behalf of this issue. I also want to thank Senator Specter for his efforts to funding these important programs. I have worked with him on the Appropriations Committee and have experienced first hand the benefits of having him on my side on an important family violence issue in the 1998 Labor, HHS Appropriations bill. Enactment of VAWA in 1994 for me is one of my top legislative accomplishments. I know that we made a difference. I know that providing the resources to help women who are victims of violence seek safety and justice has saved hundreds of lives. I have visited battered women's shelters and talked to many advocates who tell me how important VAWA is. Reauthorization of this historic act must be a priority of this Congress. We can build on the success of VAWA and work to end violence against women. I want to thank Senator Biden for working with me to include a prohibition against insurance discrimination in this legislation. I find this practice of discriminating against victims of domestic violence offensive and outrageous. To victimize a woman twice is inexcusable. Insurance policies that deny women health insurance or homeowners insurance simply because they have been victims of domestic violence can no longer be tolerated. To say that a victim of domestic violence engages in high risk behavior similar to a sky diver or race car driver is beyond comprehension. Enactment of VAWA reauthorization legislation will end this practice. Believe me, insurance discrimination is a reality. I know of several cases, including one in my own state of Washington, where an insurance company refused to honor its obligation because the loss was the result of a domestic violence situation. There are many more documented cases of discrimination. Insurance companies should be ashamed of this kind of practice. Today we have a means to end it. Enactment of this reauthorization legislation is an important step. But, it is only part of the solution. We must do more. We can help ensure that services are available to protect women and resources to local law enforcement to deal with the epidemic. However, the only real solution to ending domestic violence is economic security and stability for the woman. VAWA offers temporary solutions, but long term solutions require tearing down economic barriers for these women. Work place discrimination, lack of affordable child care, housing shortages, punitive welfare requirements, inability to change a Social Security number are all examples of these barriers. Removing the economic barriers for victims of domestic violence is our next great challenge. I have been working with advocates in the State of Washington on legislation that would serve to end the economic sanctions many victims face. But, first we do need to ensure the immediate safety of these women and their children. We need to provide resources to law enforcement to protect women and we need to guarantee that the courts treat offenders as violent criminals. The legislation that we will be introducing today accomplishes these goals. This is one piece of legislation that will make a difference.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Thank you, Mr. President. microsoft and the department of justice

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I am compelled to address the Senate this evening because one of our country's most dynamic, innovative, and successful companies, Microsoft, has been the subject of an unfair and prejudicial target by anonymous sources in the Department of Justice. I am concerned that every time I pick up a newspaper I am informed of new information about the ongoing, supposedly confidential proceedings involving Microsoft and the Department of Justice. I ask only for fairness and that whatever verdict is derived, is argued through proper judicial channels and not played out through our nation's media. Some of you in this Chamber may say that Microsoft can speak for itself, that is has a voice loud enough to be heard. To that, I answer that no single voice is ever enough to speak over the Department of Justice and those anonymous few employees who are seemingly abusing its formidable power. When the integrity of such a profound legal proceeding is in jeopardy, however, no one should remain silent. In the Antitrust Division's extended, intense scrutiny of Microsoft, the company has faithfully worked to comply with each of the Division's request. Microsoft has fully cooperated with the seemingly endless requests for documents and depositions of top executives. Microsoft has operated under the assumption that if it works with the Justice Department in a fair manner and complies with its requests, then the Justice Department will proceed with its investigation fairly. But, I question whether the Justice Department is indeed playing fair. Over the past several months, the Antitrust Division appears to have repeatedly and continually disclosed to the media information uncovered during its investigation, and floated anonymous opinions regarding the likelihood of a new government antitrust case against the company. To me, putting America's technological leader on trial in the press-- before the prosecutor even decides if a trial in our court system should proceed--is wholly unfair. The Justice Department's own ethics manual says that, I quote: ``It is the policy of the DOJ and the Antitrust Division that public out-of- court statements regarding investigations, indictment, ongoing litigation, and other activities should be minimal, consistent with the Department's responsibility to keep the public informed. Because charges that result in an indictment or a civil action should be argued and proved in court, and not in a newspaper or broadcast, public comment on such charges should be limited out of fairness to the rights of individuals and corporations and to minimize the possibility of prejudicial pre-trial publicity.'' Based on their comments to the media, however, attorneys at the Justice Department apparently disagree with their own ethics manual. For example in a February 9, 1998 New York Times article entitled ``Microsoft Case May Be Prelude to Wider Antitrust Battle'' a ``senior Justice Department official'' who ``spoke on condition that he not be identified'' said, ``licensing arrangements and the pricing of deals that Microsoft strikes . . . for placement on the front screen of its Windows operating system or its Internet Explorer browser'' are an ``area of antitrust concern'' for the Antitrust Division. The Wall Street Journal has apparently been given similar exclusive insight into a possible case. On April 6, 1998, the Wall Street Journal published an article entitled ``U.S. Closes in on Microsoft; Officials Think Evidence Supports a Broad Charge on Extending Monopoly.'' In it, the author quotes ``people close to the probe'' who stated that ``investigators believe they have enough evidence to bring a new antitrust case against Microsoft.'' Those sources are so familiar with the investigation that they told the reporter that an antitrust complaint would ``repeat an existing charge that Microsoft violated a 1995 antitrust settlement . . . extending to Windows 98 last fall's charge that Microsoft uses Windows as a weapon against business rivals.'' I regret to say this, and sincerely hope I turn out to be wrong, but I expect that the Justice Department will deny that one of its own lawyers is the source ``close to the probe.'' I say ``expect'' because Attorney General Reno does not appear to be looking into this matter, nor has she informed me that the matter has been resolved. In fact, the Practicing Law Institute has advertised that a senior Justice Department counsel would speak about ``[the Antitrust Division position . . . on the ongoing Microsoft matter'' at an upcoming Intellectual Property Antitrust conference currently scheduled for July 22-23, 1998. Mr. President, how does this public speaking engagement by a DOJ attorney square with the Department of Justice's own ethics manual, which states, and I quote again, ``public out-of-court statements regarding investigations, indictments, ongoing litigation, and other activities should be minimal?'' How does it square with the ethics policy that says, ``public comment on . . . charges should be limited out of fairness to the rights of individuals and corporations and to minimize the possibility of prejudicial pre-trial publicity.'' I sincerely hope that DOJ staff has been advised against this by Attorney General Reno, but I cannot be sure. Just yesterday, I learned that on May 8th, Business Week plans to publish on its website an article with the quote, ``sources familiar with the Justice Department case have laid out a detailed plan of attack against [Microsoft].'' Who would be able to lay out such a detailed plan about the Department's expected action in the case other than the DOJ itself? It is of utmost importance that the Justice Department end this media trial of Microsoft, and restore a thorough and fair process. Today, I have again asked the Attorney General to explain her failure to resolve this matter. Microsoft's innovations benefit thousands of companies, employees, shareholders and millions of consumers. With so much innovation and economic growth, and with so many jobs lying in the balance, the least the Department of Justice can do if it proceeds with its investigation is to do so in a fair, professional and ethical manner. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 2676, the Internal Revenue Service Restructuring and Reform Act. We have waited too long for the opportunity to debate this issue and move this legislation. Senate action is coming six months after the House overwhelmingly passed this legislation and almost a year after the Kerrey/Portman Commission issued their recommendations for improving and reforming the IRS. It is no wonder the American taxpayer is frustrated and angry. What kind of penalty or interest would the IRS levy against a taxpayer who was six months late in filing their taxes? Mr. President, the IRS is an agency out of control. I hear this from people all across my state. They want the IRS reformed. And they want it done now. What has this six month delay meant to taxpayers? Since November 5, 1997 the date the House voted on H.R. 2676, more than 17 million taxpayers have received a collection notice from the IRS; more than 34 million Americans have contacted the IRS to request assistance or information--of these calls, more than 16 million did not go through and close to 2 million Americans did not get correct answers. This is unacceptable. Had we acted back in November, the impact on these families would have been dramatically different. We did not need more hearings, we needed action. Since November 1997 I have heard from close to 1,200 taxpayers from my state who have written in support of systemwide reforms at the IRS. They have told me of their experiences and frustrations--and I have to say, some are quite disturbing. Mr. President, I want to read some excerpts from a few of these letters--which have come from every corner of my state. They really highlight the abuses taking place by the IRS. This comes from a constituent in Moses Lake, Washington. She says: We are people who obey the law. If there were things on our tax return which were in error or were questionable, we have no problem with being called to account for it. Nor do we take issue with paying more taxes if we legitimately owed more. However, the way we were treated by a representative of the IRS should never be allowed in any country, let alone ours, which is supposed to be based on presumption of innocence. Another letter comes from a constituent in Seattle: In 1993, my husband and I bought a franchise and opened our business as sole proprietors. (If we had incorporated, our suffering would be over now). My husband, Craig, had plenty of knowledge and experience in carpentry and built a strong, thriving closet remodeling business. He did not, however, have business tax and accounting training, and he made mistakes in the paying of taxes and filling our paperwork to the IRS. As soon as he recognized his mistake, he alerted the IRS and began to try to make amends. It seemed he had awakened a vicious sleeping dog. He goes on to say: Along with everything else, the IRS randomly cleaned out our bank accounts, as well as those of our children. It seems the IRS has an incentive program for their employees which persuades them to take quick, harsh action, trying to ``get what they can'' and ask questions of the ``customer'' later. Finally, from a constituent in Kirkland, WA: For the past seven years both my husband and I have lived our lives under the tormenting cloud of the IRS. We had a lien put on our home and the letters began to come of companies wanting to help us with our troubles with the IRS. This was so devastating as we were just starting what we thought would be a beautiful life together. One day I came home to 12 different notices from the IRS I needed to sign for at the Post Office. That is a great way to spend taxpayers' money, don't you think? These heavy-handed tactics by the IRS are not acceptable. But this is not the first time I have heard from constituents about problems with the IRS. I knew reform was long overdue. It was not until the release of the Kerrey/Portman Commission report that I realized that it was not just a few bureaucrats abusing their position, but rather an agency out of control. An agency with management practices that encouraged abuse of taxpayers; managers who rewarded the most aggressive and unbending employees; and an agency that viewed taxpayers as the enemy. Why is it so critical to enact IRS reform? We can all name many reasons why reform is necessary and important, but I think we all have to remember that taxpayers are only trying to meet their responsibilities in a democratic society. They are not turning to the IRS to apply for benefits or for assistance. They are attempting to honor their financial obligation and commitment to a democratic and progressive society. They are not asking for anything in return but to be treated fairly. Unfortunately, this is not the experience of most taxpayers. This frustration with the IRS jeopardizes compliance with the tax code and undermines the faith taxpayers have in our system. Currently, honest taxpayers and businesses 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. We do not need to add to this by encouraging more taxpayers to give up. The great thing about this legislation is that it keeps the taxpayer's interest in mind. It simply levels the playing field between the taxpayer, both large and small, and the IRS. What's more effective than forcing the IRS to work in a more fair and even-handed manner? I am particularly pleased this legislation provides relief for ``innocent spouses'' who find themselves liable for taxes, interest, or penalties because of actions by their spouse. This has become a severe problem for many women and children. Following a divorce many women are left to fight the IRS to save their homes and their children's future. Spouses who engaged in illegal activities or misrepresented their income to the IRS simply flee and leave. The IRS then attempts to collect from the innocent spouse--who is often easier to locate--as she has custody of the children. It is a little difficult to hide when you have children. The IRS then aggressively pursues these innocent spouses for a debt that they never knew about. If only we could be as aggressive in tracking down the billions of dollars in uncollected child support. I urge the Senate to do the right thing today and pass this legislation. No more delays and no more excuses. The American taxpayer deserves better. Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I rise today to speak about S. 1186--the Workforce Investment Partnership Act and to applaud the Labor and Human Resources Committee for the bipartisan manner in which the legislation was developed. In the last Congress the opportunity for reform of employment and training programs was lost due to partisan bickering and the insistence on a reform structure which I believe jeopardized the investment in skills training--and in particular the investment in the retraining of dislocated workers. This bill builds on the success of the dislocated worker program and adds other elements which will improve the program. These include establishing One-Stop centers as the framework of the new workforce development system which will improve dislocated worker access to quality information and services, and the proposed skill grants--or Individual Training Account system--which will enable them to make informed choices about training opportunities with qualified vendors. Despite our improving economy, there are always workers who will lose jobs because of economic change. We owe these workers the tools to get back on their feet, through rapid response to plant closings and mass layoffs, job search assistance and retraining for new jobs. I am particularly pleased that this bill includes rapid response and labor- management committees which have been important tools under the current dislocated worker program. This program, where formula grants to states and localities are supplemented by National Reserve Account to allow the Secretary of Labor to respond to emergencies, has been successful in helping hundreds of thousands of workers each year to make mid- career changes. The current dislocated worker program served approximately 540,000 dislocated workers nationwide in the most recent year. Of those who completed the program during that year, 71 percent were employed when they left the program, earning on average 93 percent of their previous wages, and for workers who had received retraining, the wage replacement was 95 percent. The Office of the Inspector General of the U.S. Department of Labor conducted an audit of JTPA Title III retraining services to determine how successful retraining was in helping dislocated workers to return to work. The conclusion of the April 1995 report was: ``The purpose of Title III is to return dislocated workers to productive employment. In this context, the program was successful. Program participants were reemployed, remained in the workforce, and regained their prior earning power.'' In my own state of Washington, we have experienced layoffs in the timber and aerospace industries and the assistance provided by Title III of JTPA has been essential to meeting the needs of affected workers. The success of the program is illustrated by the experience of one dislocated worker, Mr. David Hamilton of Valley, Washington. He had a steady income working in the logging industry, but only for six to eight months each year. This created a difficult financial situation when employment was not available. In July 1995, he was laid off from Accord Logging. He decided to investigate career options in the cross-country truck driving field. He learned of the opportunities available through JTPA and began actively seeking financial assistance for training. With only a tenth grade education, his employment opportunities were limited. He knew that he needed a GED, but his assessment test also indicated a deficiency in basic math skills. With his unemployment benefits nearly exhausted, he held steadfastly to his hope of entering the truck driving industry. He pursued his education and training through the Colville Job Service JTPA Title III program. His determination to obtain a Commercial Drivers License increased as he passed his physical and Wonderlic tests (in lieu of a GED). He met the program qualifications for Title III funding and completed his training on February 23, 1997, with excellent grades. He was immediately placed with G & G Trucking and was driving cross-country the following Monday. G & G agreed to assist him with the financing needed to purchase a tractor. Within six months he became an owner-operator. As an owner- operator, he will earn between $12 and $18 per hour. He now has a reliable source of income and greater financial security. The success of Mr. Hamilton and other dislocated worker program participants is why I am so pleased that S. 1186 is designed to assure that funding for dislocated workers will be maintained. This is an important improvement over last year's bill and I thank the authors of S. 1186 for their attention to this critical item. Mr. President, I also ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a letter from Mr. Rick Bender, President of Washington State's Labor Council. I have been working with Chairman Jeffords to address Title III in the bill which provided training funds only after labor consultations have been performed. I am hopeful that the Department will work with respective labor organizations to continue this successful communication. Washington State has developed a Community Based Rapid Response policy that quickly meets the various needs and concerns of dislocated workers. Mr. Bender has been at the forefront of this effort and provides a compelling argument to continue this consultation.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I rise to make a few remarks about expansion of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization or NATO. I believe in a United States that is an activist leader and respectful participant in world affairs. This leadership comes with responsibilities that are often difficult for the United States: troops stationed and foreign aid dollars expended abroad; cooperation with international organizations like the United Nations; and the decision on NATO expansion that is before the Senate today. U.S. leadership abroad remains a vital national interest to the American people. My record as a United States Senator is strongly in support of a United States fully engaged with the world, a country and a people that participate and lead the international efforts to address the many problems that transcend borders and cultures. NATO, since its founding in 1949, has been a successful foundation of U.S. security and cooperation with our European allies. This was particularly true throughout the period of the Cold War. The collapse of the Soviet Union and communism can be partially credited to NATO; both to the alliance's collective defense arrangements and to its complimentary role in bringing Europe together which has fostered democratic and economic ties among countries with historical and cultural grievances. NATO has played a significant role in creating a Europe free from serious conflict for nearly 50 years. The Senate is now considering whether to enlarge the sixteen member alliance by admitting Poland, the Czech Republic and Hungary. Few will deny that these three countries are prepared and committed to assuming the responsibilities of NATO membership. Few will contest the statement that these three countries have long ties to the West; that these three countries are the most Western states of the former Soviet bloc. And few will assert that these three countries face any military threat from Russia or other foe, either today or in the foreseeable future. I am confident that the enormous changes that have taken place in Poland, the Czech Republic and Hungary will not be jeopardized by the upcoming vote. These changes including the creation of democratic institutions, new respect for human rights, and a growing market economy all enjoy enormous public support and will be continued regardless of Senate's decision on NATO expansion. I do have a number of very serious concerns about NATO expansion including several which have been addressed through the amendment process. My concerns have very little to do with the three candidates for NATO expansion. In fact, I believe the United States and our allies should take aggressive steps to support these burgeoning democracies which have demonstrated so much promise since the fall of the Soviet Union. Each of these countries has a remarkable story to tell and each is deserving of closer ties to the United States and the West. I voted for the amendment offered by Senator Harkin to call for an accurate accounting of all expenses to the United States related to NATO expansion. The Senate and the American people ought to better understand the obligations we are assuming if we agree to NATO expansion. I have no confidence in the various cost estimates that have been presented during this entire process. In fact, I am fairly certain the costs to U.S. taxpayers will exceed even the Administration's highest estimates. The various cost estimates for NATO expansion have ranged from $1.5 billion to $125 billion. Opponents of the Harkin amendment argue that the U.S. is not issuing a blank check on behalf of our taxpayers. Certainly, Congress will object to escalating costs for NATO in the future and particularly if a significantly larger NATO burden falls upon the United States. However, my concern is that without a full accounting of costs, the United States is assuming a new moral and financial obligation to NATO without adequate consideration by the Senate. U.S. prestige and our position in the world should not be risked at some future point because we did not know or were not prepared to consider today the full costs on NATO expansion. The Moynihan amendment to link NATO expansion with admission to the European Union also addresses my concerns regarding the most appropriate forum for integration between the West and the many former Soviet satellite states seeking closer ties with Western Europe and the United States. Senator Moynihan has been an articulate voice throughout this debate and I do agree with many of the eloquent points he has brought before the Senate. I voted for the Moynihan amendment as I believe European Union membership is the most appropriate of the available forums for integrating with the West the three nations invited to join NATO. These three countries are in various stages of economic development and each is committed to improving the lives of its citizens through closer ties to the West. In my mind, the European Union is a far better vehicle for economic growth and integration with the West. Participation and inclusion in the EU and its marketplace will pay dividends for the people of Poland, the Czech Republic and Hungary that far outweigh the security assurances inherent with NATO membership. The European Union has begun negotiations for EU admission with Poland, the Czech Republic and Hungary and several other countries. Frankly, I am very skeptical that the EU will in a timely manner admit new members. The EU has a history of protected industries--particularly agriculture--and I doubt Europe's protected industries will be anxious to take on lower wage countries or significant agricultural producers. Export states here at home, like my state of Washington, have long sought to open Europe's protected market and system of state subsidies. We should be careful not to aid or validate Europe's trade practices which have hurt the United States. Admission to the EU is a question for EU countries to consider, however, I do not think we should give the EU the opportunity to settle for NATO expansion. Europe has the strongest interest in the success of many former Soviet states. The EU, including the European states who do not belong to NATO, should also be expected to make sacrifices to ensure a peace for all time in Europe. My vote for the Moynihan amendment should be viewed as a call for new thinking on the shared objective of bringing the newly independent nations of Europe into the existing political and economic system. We have to ask ourselves if the tools of the Cold War will work for the U.S. and Europe as we enter a new century. The impact of NATO expansion on our relationship with Russia is my most significant concern on this issue. I am delighted so many of my colleagues have raised the issue, both those who favor expansion and those who oppose it. Unfortunately, I believe that the impact of the vote we are to cast today will have very little effect on the U.S.-Russia relationship. For I believe, from the very beginning of the expansion process, we have pursued a process and a policy that has seriously damaged our relationship with Russia. I believe the Administration has erred greatly here and our foreign policy will be effected by it for years to come regardless of the outcome of the NATO expansion vote. Already, numerous Senators have cited the historic work of George Kennan. I also take his counsel very seriously and I encourage my colleagues to ponder his words from a 1997 New York Times opinion piece. Mr. Kennan wrote, ``Expanding NATO would be the most fateful error of American policy in the entire post-cold-war era. Such a decision may be expected to inflame the nationalistic, anti-Western and militaristic tendencies in Russian opinion; to have an adverse effect on the development of Russian democracy; to restore the atmosphere of the cold war to East-West relations, and to impel Russian foreign policy in directions decidedly not to our liking.'' Kennan's final words are particularly troubling as he states, ``. . . to impel Russian foreign policy in directions decidedly not to our liking.'' One needs only look at recent weapons inspection crisis with Iraq to see the worsening ties between the U.S. and Russia as a result of NATO expansion. There are other examples of the growing divide between the U.S. and Russia: cooperation with Iran on ballistic missiles, agreements with China to counter a world with one superpower, and an assortment of other nuclear weapons related issues from declarations on the first use of nuclear weapons to ratification of START III and the eventual negotiation of START. All of these issues are vital to the United States and all have been negatively impacted by NATO expansion. It goes without saying that Russia does not dictate to the United States our foreign policy interests and policies. However, U.S. policy makers should not underestimate the degree to which Russia matters to our own future. Russia is the largest nation in a new Europe. Any attempt to guarantee the future peace and security of Europe by excluding Russia creates more problems than promise for the future. NATO Expansion fails to consider the political landscape of Russia. Approximately two-thirds of the Russian Duma is controlled by communist and nationalist parties. These political parties are very anti-American and the West. The Russian Constitution grants enormous powers to the Presidency that have allowed the West to underestimate Russia's opposition to NATO Expansion. My fear is we have undermined those in Russia who are advocating and following the course of democracy, international cooperation and economic reform. I hope the Senate does not revisit the words of George Kennan with immense regret in future years. The Administration and the Senate now must take it upon themselves to rebuild those ties with Russia to go forward and address our many shared interests for the future. Vice President Gore has been instrumental in building ties between our two countries, and I certainly encourage him to continue his leadership role with Russia's new prime minister. I have discussed in detail my concerns with NATO expansion. This has been a very difficult decision for me. In the end, I was swayed by one additional, very powerful concern. This powerful concern is for U.S. credibility. I do believe U.S. credibility is on the line with this vote. Regardless of the wisdom of NATO expansion, I fear that rejection of NATO expansion at this point will send dangerous messages to the world about U.S. intentions for the future. The international community will view a rejection of this initiative which was started and driven by the United States as a sign of U.S. isolationism. Allowing that message to be sent around the world will, in my mind, be far more damaging to U.S. interests worldwide than admitting Poland, the Czech Republic and Hungary to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. Quite frankly, I think the Administration has marginalized the United States Senate on the question before us today. While I doubt that the Administration intended to do this and I know the Senate has been active and engaged throughout this process, the result is the same. The Senate, as I see it, has little choice in the matter before the body today. To reject NATO expansion at this point will also cause serious long-term problems for U.S. interests throughout the world. Therefore, I will vote for NATO expansion.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, here we go again. As we have done so many times in recent years, we are sacrificing serious and legitimate national interests to the partisan and divisive abortion debate. Due to the global gag rule imposed on international family planning, I will vote against the conference report on H.R. 1757, the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act. I commend the President for his strong veto message to the Congress on this legislation. Passage of this conference report will not change current law. A vote in favor of the conference report will not ultimately result in the payment of the U.S. debt to the United Nations or the reorganization of the State Department. Passage may score political points but it will delay this important legislation and diminish U.S. standing in the international community. This language is anything but a compromise as proponents of the new global gag rule claim in defending the conference report. It was not adopted nor debated on the Senate floor. Every single Democratic conferee to this legislation refused to sign the conference report. Labeling this language a compromise is misleading and untrue. Passage of the conference report will unfairly disqualify many family planning organizations from receiving U.S. international family planning funds if they use their own funds in their own countries to point out the adverse public health consequences of medically unsafe abortion. The elimination of these non-governmental organizations from the program, considered to be one of the best and most cost-effective channels for U.S. foreign aid dollars, will have a devastating impact on this critical foreign aid program. The language in the bill will condition an organization's eligibility for U.S. family planning assistance unless it agrees to surrender its rights to free speech and participation in the political process in its own country using its own funds. Proponents of the controversial language will describe it as a ban on abortion lobbying, such as a restriction would be unconstitutional if applied to American citizens and would undermine one of the primary objectives of our foreign policy--the promotion of democracy around the world. The Senate should reject this conference report and the restrictive family planning language added behind closed doors. Enactment of the conference report will result in the reduction of family planning funding by $44 million. The funding cut would likely cause a subsequent increase in the number of abortions as couples lose or are denied access to contraceptive services. Any Senator who supports family planning as a means to reduce the incidence of abortion should oppose this bill. Family planning saves lives, particularly in the developing world where a woman dies in pregnancy or childbirth every minute of every day and where more than 12 million children each year do not live to see their fifth birthday. I urge the Senate to reject the Conference Report on the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. How much time remains?

Mrs. MURRAY. Thank you, Mr. President. I listened with interest to my colleague from the other side of the aisle debate the issue of whether or not we as parents across this country believe that our class sizes should be reduced and that it will make a difference. I heard numbers that don't take into account what is really happening, because that is the number of adults in a school that my colleague from Arkansas referred to--the nurses, the counselors, librarians, social workers. What we are talking about here is the need to put new teachers across this country into classrooms so we can reduce class size. I speak to all of the people who are listening to this debate today. When you hear somebody say your class sizes are the right size, think about how many kids are in the classroom in your local school; think of the amount of attention they are getting; think about whether or not they are getting the skills that you as a parent want them to get. If you agree with me that class size reduction will make a difference, call this Senate and let us know. Call this Senate and let us know. People across this country need to let us know that you recognize it is our responsibility as adults at every level to make sure that our children are getting a good education. Parents know it, teachers know it, and studies show it: Class size reduction makes a difference. We can't pass this off and say it is somebody else's responsibility; it is our responsibility. I heard my colleague say there is a philosophical difference. You bet there is a philosophical difference. There is a philosophical difference between those who believe we should go down a path of block grants and cuts, meaning high-need students will get less. There is a proposal that we eliminate the Department of Education and no longer even say public education is in the domain of this country or that we care about it as a priority. This current budget that was passed by the Republicans just a short time ago cut education by $2.2 billion. The IRA proposal in front of us that takes us down a road where somebody gets $7 in the year 2002 for education, it is a narrow road that says in the future only a few children will get a good education. The philosophy I believe is that every child, no matter who they are, where they come from, or how much money they have in these United States of America, will be able to get a good public education. We can do that by reducing class size, by rebuilding our crumbling schools, by making an investment in our teachers and training them with the skills they need to teach our children. That is the philosophy that will make sure we have a strong democracy in the future. I hope that parents across this country weigh in on this debate. It is a critical one for the future of all of us.

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, we have had a brief chance to take a look at this amendment. We have not seen it before 10 minutes ago. We are looking at the language now. The Senator from Arkansas says that he wants 95 percent of the money to go to classrooms. I don't think anybody disagrees with that. In fact, it is my understanding that much more than that--in fact, 98 percent of Federal funds actually go to school districts and classrooms. So what he is asking for currently is in place. We go back to why I originally put this amendment before us, which is the fact that we have classrooms that are overcrowded, classrooms where children are not learning. We have classrooms where we as elected officials are demanding that our students learn math, reading, and language skills but simply do not have the ability to do it because of overcrowded classrooms. Mr. President, we will continue to take a look at this language. I yield to my colleague from Massachusetts for a comment.

Mrs. MURRAY. If the Senator will yield, I will get a vote then on my amendment?

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I have listened carefully to the education debate because I care deeply about public education in this country. I believe that our democracy was founded on the principle that all children, no matter who they are or where they come from or how much money they have, should have the opportunity within our public education system in this country to get a good education. I have gone across my State and asked parents and teachers and principals and school board members, What will make a difference? And resoundingly they have said to me we need to focus attention on class size; the Senate needs to focus their attention on class size. I am, frankly, really tired of the argument that our public education system has failed. Our public education system has not failed. We have failed our public education system. And we have failed it because we have not put in the adequate resources for what we are demanding, as leaders in this country--that our children learn how to read and write and get the skills they need to get jobs one day. These are skills we are demanding. Yet we turn our backs and say we are not going to fund it. This is an issue of priorities. Are we going to fund public education in this country? Or are we going to do what my Republican colleagues did in this budget and cut $2.2 billion from education? Mr. President, we can go down a narrow road in this country, and we can pass vouchers, and we can say that we can block grant, and we can make sure that a few kids get a public education. But that is not the country I was born and raised in. That is not the philosophy I believe in. I believe we can do the right thing. I know, and I will tell all of you: Reducing class size makes a difference. Ask any parent. Ask any parent if they know that it makes a difference, and they will tell you yes, it does. Mr. President, this is a simple amendment that we are offering. It simply says this Congress understands that class size reduction is an issue that makes a difference and we are willing to look at how we can help make that happen across this country. I urge its adoption.

Mrs. MURRAY. In the President's State of the Union Address, he said he wanted us, in our budget, to add 100,000 additional teachers in our classrooms just as we added 100,000 police officers. Within our budget, we will look at how we can do that. My sense of the Senate simply puts us on record, as leaders in this country, that we are going to move in this direction. We have numerous ways of looking at it. If we can fund roads, if we can fund construction projects across this country, if we can fund numerous projects that we have in our budgets, we certainly can fund lower class sizes for our students across this country that will make a difference.

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, reserving the right to object.

Mrs. MURRAY. I have not had a chance to respond. How much time do I have remaining on my side?

Mrs. MURRAY. I thank the Chair. I thank my colleagues from Massachusetts and North Dakota because they are stating the case quite correctly on class size. It absolutely makes a difference when you reduce class size particularly in lower grades. The Senator from Massachusetts has cited what several empirical studies have shown. The Educational Testing Service says that empirical evidence is clear; smaller classes can make higher levels of student achievement, at least in the elementary school grades and particularly for disadvantaged students. We have submitted these studies for the Record, and our colleagues are welcome to look at the Record. But I can tell you as an educator, clearly class size makes a difference. There is not a parent in this country who does not want to send their child off to school and know that they are learning how to read, that they are learning how to write, that they are learning math skills. When you have reduced class size, it makes a difference. Ask any parent. Ask any student. Ask any teacher. It will make a difference. Every parent asks their child on the first day of school when they come home, ``Who is your teacher? How many kids in your classroom?'' They ask that because they know it makes a difference. Parents know it. Students know it. Teachers know it. And the studies show it. If you want to help IDEA kids, to which many of my colleagues have been alluding on the floor, I will tell you that class size matters. It matters more than anything else. I think it is absolutely imperative that this Senate go on record stating that we understand that. We are not going to ignore it. We are not going to come up with all kinds of arguments about paperwork and bureaucracy and federalism. We are going to say that as leaders in this country we understand that class size makes a difference. We want to make a difference for our children in our schools across this country, and we can by passing this amendment.

Mrs. MURRAY. Yes. Mr. President, how much time do I have?

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. I thank the Chair. The amendment before us is very simple. It merely asks us to go on record as to whether or not we Members of the Senate believe we should support efforts to decrease class size in the early grades. As a parent of a child in public education, two children who have gone through our public schools, as a former school board member, as a member of the PTA, as a former educator myself who has been in the classroom, who knows the difference between having 18 young 4-year-olds or 24 4-year-olds, who knows the difference between teaching and crowd control, I will tell the Members of this Senate that decreasing class size is one of the most important things we can do to increase the education for our young children. Every Member here has talked about the need for increased math skills, the need for our young children to be able to read and write and have the skills they need. If we decrease class size, every parent in this country will tell you that it will make a difference. Studies show it. Parents know it. Teachers know it. It is time for this Senate to recognize that and move, on our part, with our responsibility, to decrease class size. I urge the adoption of this amendment.